Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

turbonium1



After a thousand jumps we "can make it look similar"??

It already DOES look similar, with only one jump, without even trying to match it!

The jumps differ by a mere 0.2-0.4 seconds. That's very close to being an exact match.

But you think only a perfect match will suffice.

It's so much bs, of course.

Where did I say only a perfect match will suffice? What said was it doesn't matter because any kind of reproduction on earth does not prove that the footage taken on the moon was not taken on the moon, it only proves that it is possible to reproduce, with a lot of harnesses and attendant people to operate them, that it can be replicated. Possible does not equal probable,

he jump by Young is simple to match on Earth, as I've already explained.

Your other points have been dealt with, and buried.

No they haven't.

To recap - harnesses were simply edited out of the footage. I've posted a few examples of this done in old sci-fi movies.

Badly and unconvincingly and not done live on TV with date-able images of Earth in shot.

Nobody would go public - to suggest we'd know where it was filmed... is just nonsense. Who is ever going to speak out in public about this? One or two have come out, like Bill Kaysing did.

So nobody ould go public, except the people that did. Make your mibnd up. Bill Kaysing is a liar and a fraud.

You Apollo-ites went into full-out attack mode, called him a liar, a nut-case, slandering him endlessly.

Sue me. He's a liar and a fraud and a nut-case. Why? Because what he came out with were lies.

You don't see why someone involved has never come forward (about the hoax),

Yes, because it wasn't a hoax, that's why.

while you and your group of Apollo-ites would immediately be swarming all over him like a pack of crazed wolves ripping into a bloody carcass.

Unlike your behaviour on the subject right? If I believe something isn't true I'm entitled to say so. I'll not keep quiet about it just because you want to shout louder.

What happened to Gus Grissom after he spoke out? He was killed, as we all know.

Garbage.

Do you know about Thomas Baron? He was a NASA contractor. Before Apollo came along, Baron wrote a report on the feasability of manned lunar missions, etc. What happened to him after reporting the awful, horrible state of our space program?

What, you think you're the only one who knows this stuff? What happened to the Apollo 1 crew was an appalling tragedy down to poor design and management. The response was to fix the problem and get to the moon. The 'awful, horrible' state was a space programme that had already completed the Mercury and Gemini programmes and was launching satellites on a regular basis.

He and his family were killed in a freak accident. His car stalled on train tracks, then along came a train. It must've been a really fast train, since they didn't get out of their car, right? How odd, since all train crossings I've come to... have flashing red lights going, and a bar that comes down.

And it is always BEFORE the train gets to the crossing!

A stalled car can happen on train tracks. But there would be a signal of an oncoming train, with the red lights flashing and the bar coming down.

So why would they have stayed in their car, aware of a train coming along? It makes no sense at all, does it? No.

His report didn't survive the crash, either. It was never seen again.

If you think all this is fine and dandy, and not at all peculiar or fishy, then you must live in fantasy-land.

I'd rather live in the planet I'm on than the completely different one you inhabit. I have carried out years of independent examination of Apollo material and not one piece of it can be proven wrong - everything ties together, even the stuff that no-one was aware of until I found it. All you've done is regurgitate the same tired old arguments from liars and fraudsters who are only after your money that have been endlessly debunked.

Baron was not prevented from giving evidence - a true conspiracy would have made sure of that. His report was heard and dismissed because as far as the inquiry was concerned all it contained was hearsay 'friend of a friend' evidence, nothing concrete it could act on. He had valid complaints about the way that NAA worked and safety in the spacecraft, but that was nothing to do with NASA.

From what I've read his death could easily have been suicide, having been fired for leaking his original shorter report (still available) and having had his testimony ignored, he was pretty much unemployable. It's also possible that he made some bad driving choices. Neither you nor I have any evidence to support any of those versions of events and neither of us know what was in his 500 page report. They kind of cancel each other out.

Just like Baron, you have no facts, just hearsay.

choos

turbonium1

So the jump issue is settled, it seems.

hardly, we are only assuming something for arguments sake to show how little you know of gravity..

My point was that Young's jump can be replicated on Earth to exactly match. It was very close to a perfect match with a single jump. The similarities are vastly greater to the slight differences. Your side had to slow it down to a crawl to find a difference in it.

There's nothing to assume for argument's sake here.

You just can't admit I'm right, so you twist it around.

But the facts cannot be changed, however much you wish.

choos

attempting to dismiss something?? this is what you would call shifting the goal posts i believe, you can see the height the dust/dirt reaches just fine.. it isnt just this one video, it can work in all videos of objects free falling on the lunar surface..

you cant deny that it falls at 1.92m/s^2 which if sped 1.5x or 66.66% means it will fall at around 4m/s^2... no where near 9.81m/^s which is what would happen on earth..

[why dont you goto a beach sometime (lunar dust isnt the same as sand but for arguments sake whatever) and when you get there, kick some sand really hard and note how high it goes, next kick it really soft and note how high it goes..

now since you said that it is a fact that dust/dirt will go higher on the lunar surface does that mean that your first kick was on the lunar surface??

I don't see the dust fall to the ground. This clip shows dust being kicked up from the surface, and going into mid-air. But the clip ends with the dust (or much of it) still airborne.

So at what specific point do you see the dust fall down to the surface?

I've looked at the clip many times, and see no dust that falls to ground, except a bit of it near to the ground the whole time.

Well?


As for the beach analogy, it fails. My point was that dust/dirt should go higher than it does in the clips, if it was kicked up on the moon. It doesn't. Indeed, the dust seems to be blowing a little bit, as if there's a slight wind or draft in play.

No wind is on the moon, clearly.

SayonaraJupiter

it's a youtube video. you can't use that for science. the only thing youtube videos are good for are documentary, interviews, personal testimonies, oral histories, c-span events, archived tv news reports, things like that.

edit on 1/18/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: add stuff

incase you forgot.. so was carol rosins "list of threats" whats your point?

turbonium1

My point was that Young's jump can be replicated on Earth to exactly match. It was very close to a perfect match with a single jump. The similarities are vastly greater to the slight differences. Your side had to slow it down to a crawl to find a difference in it.

There's nothing to assume for argument's sake here.

You just can't admit I'm right, so you twist it around.

But the facts cannot be changed, however much you wish.

you dont understand.. there is variation yes, but a variation of being lower and longer?? i dont know about you, but i cant jump lower and stay airborne longer than a regular jump..

if you want to keep at it we can.. but first learn some basic physics.. realise that a variation of 0.3seconds is the difference between a gravity constant of 4.3m/s^2 and 9.81m/s^2

I don't see the dust fall to the ground. This clip shows dust being kicked up from the surface, and going into mid-air. But the clip ends with the dust (or much of it) still airborne.

thats because you have ZERO concept of physics.. to anybody who has completed highschool physics with a passing grade will realise that you only need half a jump to work out these problems of gravity.. because you see..

right at the peak of the jump.. thats the height used in the equations.. you dont need the entire jump, but ofcourse someone with your knowledge of physics i dont expect you to realise that..

So at what specific point do you see the dust fall down to the surface?
I've looked at the clip many times, and see no dust that falls to ground, except a bit of it near to the ground the whole time.

Well?

seriously learn some basic physics.. then maybe i can take you somewhat seriously..

As for the beach analogy, it fails. My point was that dust/dirt should go higher than it does in the clips, if it was kicked up on the moon. It doesn't. Indeed, the dust seems to be blowing a little bit, as if there's a slight wind or draft in play.

No wind is on the moon, clearly.

my point went right over you head obviously..

what you are trying to tell me is that because the astronaut kicked some dirt, no matter how gently/hard they disturb the dirt it must ALWAYS go higher than it can possibly go on earth..

that makes perfect sense

enough with your troll physics..

onebigmonkey

Where did I say only a perfect match will suffice? What said was it doesn't matter because any kind of reproduction on earth does not prove that the footage taken on the moon was not taken on the moon, it only proves that it is possible to reproduce, with a lot of harnesses and attendant people to operate them, that it can be replicated. Possible does not equal probable,

The Mythbuusters jump confirms that Apollo's jump WAS slowed to 66.66% speed.

Why would the Mythbusters jump become a near-perfect match at 66.66% speed?

If Apollo footage is at 66.66% speed, at 1.5x we'd have 100% speed, which would be its normal speed.

It does look normal speed. Amazing, but true.

Why would it all fit at 66.66% ANYWHERE, let alone everywhere?

66.66% is the exact speed we get by filming at 24 fps, and putting it to 16 fps. Exactly the same way as the pre-Apollo movie by Warhol.

Lunar gravity is 1/6g. If it's at 1.5x, it will not look normal speed (or Earth-bound speed), right? But it does become normal in the Apollo footage.

Think about it...

turbonium1

Lunar gravity is 1/6g. If it's at 1.5x, it will not look normal speed (or Earth-bound speed), right? But it does become normal in the Apollo footage.

Think about it...

according to the troll physics of turbonium1..

this footage was shot at gravitational acceleration constant of about 4.3m/s^2..

turbonium1



The Mythbuusters jump confirms that Apollo's jump WAS slowed to 66.66% speed.

No, it doesn't, it shows that you need to slow down Earth filmed footage by that to make the jumps similar. It does not prove that Apollo's jump was slowed down. You miss the point again. Possible does not equal probable. Show me how they slowed down hours of live TV broadcast.

Explain the hours of continuous not slowed down live on TV EVA footage with no wires or harnesses or jumps and arcs of dust and dirt behaving in a manner entirely consistent with zero atmosphere and lunar gravity.

Think about it...

It would be really helpful if you did.

It's funny that this is a favorite thing of mankind to say, not this is one small step for a man, or one giant leap for mankind, but a display of insanity. Insanity is doing the same actions when expecting different results. With the elite, everything is dual, earthly things have duality. So when you have power over the world and you want to display duality you say two sides of everything - 'Yes there was a moon landing,' 'no there was not a moon landing, it was a hoax.' Yes there was a moon landing. Yes it was a hoax. Yes aliens exist, yes they don't. This enables the elite to travel vast distances like mars while the earthly people are still debating over hoaxes and truthful events.

reply to post by turbonium1

Why would the Mythbusters jump become a near-perfect match at 66.66% speed?

Mythbusters also said you need a 1 gigawatt laser to get back 2-3 photons from the LRRR and that proves Apollo but Mythbusters did not ever consider the possibility of a robotic, unmanned placement of reflectors on the moon. Mythbuste-d.

In Phil Plait's own words : Source blogs.discovermagazine.com...

Knowing Adam as a close personal friend*

and

*I am contractually obligated to refer to him this way.

Having helped them with some of the tests..

And I must leave you with this: a screen capture of the title credits for the show:

So many scientists in America, yet Mythbuster's chose to use a "friendly" scientist who "helped them" with the tests.

What a LOAD of manure