Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter
Mythbusters also said you need a 1 gigawatt laser to get back 2-3 photons from the LRRR

Please show us exactly where they said that....

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


that post made you sound so butt hurt and in denial.. are you ok?

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

are you trying to suggest that there are actual real scientists out there that believe man couldnt land on the moon and had the ability to fake it?

How many years to come before the Apollo Defenders will finally admit 'We where fooled for all those years'

hellobruce

SayonaraJupiter
Mythbusters also said you need a 1 gigawatt laser to get back 2-3 photons from the LRRR

Please show us exactly where they said that....

What they actually say I that it peaks at one gigawatt and that they will get 2-3 photons returned per pulse. I assume SJ has valid reasons for finding this to be incorrect.

Phil Plait, btw, is a nice man who, if you ask him a sensible question, will send you an answer.

webstra
How many years to come before the Apollo Defenders will finally admit 'We where fooled for all those years'

It's not going to happen because we weren't, and I will argue against ignorance and stupidity for as long as it takes. Not one claim by the moon hoax crowd, not one has ever stood up to any kind of educated rational scrutiny.

onebigmonkey

webstra
How many years to come before the Apollo Defenders will finally admit 'We where fooled for all those years'

It's not going to happen because we weren't, and I will argue against ignorance and stupidity for as long as it takes. Not one claim by the moon hoax crowd, not one has ever stood up to any kind of educated rational scrutiny.

Well, it's not rational to think that all of them will do but i have good hope that many will see the light...in the years to come.

choos

are you trying to suggest that there are actual real scientists out there that believe man couldnt land on the moon and had the ability to fake it?

No ,what I'm saying choos is that tv people like Mythbusters looked for advisors they found Phil Plait, the bad astronomer, (they didn't look to hard did they?) and someone who From August 2008 through 2009, served as President of the James Randi Educational Foundation. And I'm wondering how much Phil Plait was paid off for his consulting job. And I wonder if he was paid in cash.

You are displaying a great ignorance in this matter, choos. Mythbusters episode #104. It was chance for one of the Mythbusted to break out his personally owned spacesuit and to have his "close friend" over for a payola TV consulting job. It's TV entertainment for the scientifically illiterate masses. I really don't think any of those guys would last 5 pages in this thread.

Obama specifically stated the other day no humans outside of low earth orbit since 1972. He reminded us of that for a reason. He's no fool, either, because Obama probably knows that Nixon moon landings are really unmanned landers; that the Asteroid Threat, von Braun's Prophecy, will be followed by E.t.; and that some of the white men who walked on the "moon" were Masons.

Who do you think is making more money off the Apollo Hoax? Is it the Discovery Channel and Phil Plait or Jarrah White or David Percy and you know the rest of the list... was Bart Sibrel ever sued for libel?

onebigmonkey

webstra
How many years to come before the Apollo Defenders will finally admit 'We where fooled for all those years'

It's not going to happen because we weren't, and I will argue against ignorance and stupidity for as long as it takes. Not one claim by the moon hoax crowd, not one has ever stood up to any kind of educated rational scrutiny.

The Apollo defenders now engage in meta-conversations while they rally their paid Discovery Channel assets.

Is that why Neil Armstrong lived in a black hole for 40 years and when he did ever come out he repeated the same stories over and over again with no one asking him anything more difficult than "What does it feel to be like on the moon?"

One of the times Neil came out of his black hole was he gave that speech to the kids about "Truth's Protective Layers" do you remember that speech? He even gave some Masonic gang signs during that speech. It's all on video.

When are the Apollo Defenders going to admit that they were fooled all those years by a recluse with rotting teeth.... a former GS-16 (civilian equivalent to 1* star general) and his buddy the 33-degree Mason?

I'm certain that most of the Apollo Defenders in this thread are not up to the task of proving anything in this thread. It aint gonna happen. This is a disclosure thread.... PPK titled it as a disclosure thread..... anyone could read this thread from first to last and not find a single proof for Apollo but they will find Disclosures of Apollo. That's meta-talk about the thread.

SayonaraJupiter
The Apollo defenders now engage in meta-conversations while they rally their paid Discovery Channel assets.

Meaningless nonsense. Does this kind of thing sound good in your Napoleon suit in front of the mirror for your adoring fan?

Is that why Neil Armstrong lived in a black hole for 40 years

No. You know perfectly well that he did not court publicity or fame, and he was easy to contact at his University office.

and when he did ever come out he repeated the same stories over and over again with no one asking him anything more difficult than "What does it feel to be like on the moon?"

How unreasonable that the man who was first on the moon should be asked what it was like to be first on the moon.

One of the times Neil came out of his black hole was he gave that speech to the kids about "Truth's Protective Layers" do you remember that speech?

Google 'metaphor'.

He even gave some Masonic gang signs during that speech. It's all on video.

o rly?

When are the Apollo Defenders going to admit that they were fooled all those years by a recluse with rotting teeth.... a former GS-16 (civilian equivalent to 1* star general) and his buddy the 33-degree Mason?

When are you going to read some science books an focus on that rather than ad hominem attacks on people who aren't here to defend themselves?

I'm certain that most of the Apollo Defenders in this thread are not up to the task of proving anything in this thread.

Check my website. Prove any of it wrong.

It aint gonna happen. This is a disclosure thread.... PPK titled it as a disclosure thread..... anyone could read this thread from first to last and not find a single proof for Apollo but they will find Disclosures of Apollo. That's meta-talk about the thread.

Apollo has had full disclosure for decades. Every tiny detail is out there for anyone who can read, and even for those that can't. Just because it doesn't conform to your ramblings about ET and a Nixon fetish doesn't mean any of it is wrong.

SayonaraJupiter

onebigmonkey

webstra
How many years to come before the Apollo Defenders will finally admit 'We where fooled for all those years'

It's not going to happen because we weren't, and I will argue against ignorance and stupidity for as long as it takes. Not one claim by the moon hoax crowd, not one has ever stood up to any kind of educated rational scrutiny.

The Apollo defenders now engage in meta-conversations while they rally their paid Discovery Channel assets.

Is that why Neil Armstrong lived in a black hole for 40 years and when he did ever come out he repeated the same stories over and over again with no one asking him anything more difficult than "What does it feel to be like on the moon?"

One of the times Neil came out of his black hole was he gave that speech to the kids about "Truth's Protective Layers" do you remember that speech? He even gave some Masonic gang signs during that speech. It's all on video.

When are the Apollo Defenders going to admit that they were fooled all those years by a recluse with rotting teeth.... a former GS-16 (civilian equivalent to 1* star general) and his buddy the 33-degree Mason?

I'm certain that most of the Apollo Defenders in this thread are not up to the task of proving anything in this thread. It aint gonna happen. This is a disclosure thread.... PPK titled it as a disclosure thread..... anyone could read this thread from first to last and not find a single proof for Apollo but they will find Disclosures of Apollo. That's meta-talk about the thread.

..Armstrong was also talking about being a parrot. Could you imagine ?

onebigmonkey

Apollo has had full disclosure for decades. Every tiny detail is out there for anyone who can read, and even for those that can't. Just because it doesn't conform to your ramblings about ET and a Nixon fetish doesn't mean any of it is wrong.

What does this doctor say? "But we have no information to tell us what the hazards are. Most scientists feel it will be no problem."

Wow. "Most scientists" seems like the empty refrain often heard from the Apollo Defense Squad.

Would you describe this as an example newspeak or double speak or NASA speak? Maybe Nixon speak!

Here is that video Sayonara Jupiter. I know you have seen it, but for al other people who haven't seen it. Educating people is very important. :-)

choos

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..

All this time, we've been talking about jumps done with a harness/pulley system - like Mythbusters - as compared to Young's jump.

When you say "there is variation yes.." - it is referring to the variation of jumping IN A HARNESS.

In the next sentence, you say "...i cant jump lower and stay airborne longer than a regular jump..".

Something's different now..hmm, what could it be?

Oh, right - you aren't talking about a jump WITH A HARNESS!!

It's either a peculiar type of instantaneous memory loss, or it's a deliberate omission on your part...so which is it?

I'm sure you realize that a harnessed jump allows you to jump lower and stay airborne longer, right?

Sure you do.

Why else would you replace it with your NON-harnessed jump?


Do you have a real argument, or just more crap?


You posted my comment, below..

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.

Your reply to my comment is..

choos

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..

If you don't see the problem here, I'll spell it out for you..

I said I couldn't see the dust falling to ground in the clip, and you've even quoted me on that. Here's the problem - you don't even reply to my statement!

You totally ignore the issue. It was obviously a reply from your well-known alter-ego, 'King BlowHard, God of all-things in Physics'.

It's quite unsettling..


Now, if you want to know why I asked you where dust falls in the clip, it's because you've mentioned it several times. Here's the latest example....

choos
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..

So now you know, right?

choos

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..

You still like to believe that I'm "trying to tell" you something. Only you - with your vastly superior intelligence - know what I'm trying to say. That's how I find out what I'm trying to say. Without your help, I wouldn't know what I'm trying to say.

It's all in your mind. You are wrongly interpreting one of my points, as usual.

My point is that dust on the moon will go much higher than on Earth - under the same conditions.

Show me examples of dust that flies higher than it would on Earth, under the same conditions. We've discussed the rover on this issue - the dust/dirt goes up no higher than it would on Earth, under the same conditions, which includes the same slow-motion effect - which is, of course, the well-known 66.66% speed.

Any more examples you know about?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


you know when something goes wrong with my car, i tend to pay a mechanic to diagnose it.. i wouldnt really go to say a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer..

catch my drift?

turbonium1

All this time, we've been talking about jumps done with a harness/pulley system - like Mythbusters - as compared to Young's jump.

When you say "there is variation yes.." - it is referring to the variation of jumping IN A HARNESS.

In the next sentence, you say "...i cant jump lower and stay airborne longer than a regular jump..".

Something's different now..hmm, what could it be?

Oh, right - you aren't talking about a jump WITH A HARNESS!!

It's either a peculiar type of instantaneous memory loss, or it's a deliberate omission on your part...so which is it?

I'm sure you realize that a harnessed jump allows you to jump lower and stay airborne longer, right?

Sure you do.

Why else would you replace it with your NON-harnessed jump?

Do you have a real argument, or just more crap?

soo then, since you are convinced they used a harness.. how did you solve the riddle of the dust/dirt?



incase you missed it, john young did kick up some dust/dirt in his jump.. and surprisingly it falls at the same rate..

I said I couldn't see the dust falling to ground in the clip, and you've even quoted me on that. Here's the problem - you don't even reply to my statement!

You totally ignore the issue. It was obviously a reply from your well-known alter-ego, 'King BlowHard, God of all-things in Physics'.

It's quite unsettling..

Now, if you want to know why I asked you where dust falls in the clip, it's because you've mentioned it several times. Here's the latest example....

So now you know, right?

no.. its you who doesnt understand a single thing of basic highschool physics.. seriously learn some basic highschool physics and you will know what im talking about..

when you are working out the flight time of a free falling object you only need half the flight to work everything out..

in case you missed it again let me repeat HALF OF THE FLIGHT TO WORK EVERYTHING OUT

ie. you dont need the dust/dirt to hit the ground to work out the gravity constant..

you need the height that the object reaches and the time it takes to get there (as long as the object reaches its peak height)..

which coincidentally is HALF OF THE FLIGHT its just your sheer stupidity who cannot comprehend basic highschool physics that you say that you cant do it, that is your ignorance..

little do you realise that the first half of the jump is exactly the same as the second half of the jump, and you just double the time taken..

also im not trying to flaunt my knowledge of physics.. im not a physicist far from it.. but compared to you.. well i feel like im arguing with a 8 year old..

You still like to believe that I'm "trying to tell" you something. Only you - with your vastly superior intelligence - know what I'm trying to say. That's how I find out what I'm trying to say. Without your help, I wouldn't know what I'm trying to say.

It's all in your mind. You are wrongly interpreting one of my points, as usual.

My point is that dust on the moon will go much higher than on Earth - under the same conditions.

Show me examples of dust that flies higher than it would on Earth, under the same conditions. We've discussed the rover on this issue - the dust/dirt goes up no higher than it would on Earth, under the same conditions, which includes the same slow-motion effect - which is, of course, the well-known 66.66% speed.

Any more examples you know about?

you are trying to tell us that they used ropes to fake it all.. that goes for ALL FALLING OBJECTS.. which includes dust/dirt

now you said that the dust kicked up in the video didnt go high enough which proves it wasnt on the lunar surface.. thats plain bull.. like i said you can kick dust/dirt hard or soft and it will go to different heights.. it doesnt prove one was on earth and one was on the moon..

why do i have to show you dust flying higher on the moon than on earth?? im not trying to show that at all..

im trying to show you the lunar gravity constant of 1.92m/s^2

what have your list of excuses been so far for the dust/dirt?? cant tell who the astronaut is so the maths is wrong.. its too fuzzy so you cant be sure of the maths.. you cant see the dust hit the ground..

stop skipping around and avoiding the question.. if we assume they used ropes in order to film the lunar landing at 66.66% that means everything must fall at 4.3m/s^2.. this is a fact

so how the hell did they tie ropes/string to the dust/dirt??

reply to post by turbonium1

My point is that dust on the moon will go much higher than on Earth - under the same conditions.

Show me examples of dust that flies higher than it would on Earth, under the same conditions. We've discussed the rover on this issue - the dust/dirt goes up no higher than it would on Earth, under the same conditions, which includes the same slow-motion effect - which is, of course, the well-known 66.66% speed.

Any more examples you know about?

also why would the dust go higher than it needed to??

if the dust reaches a height of 1.25m in 1.24seconds the gravity constant is about 1.62m/s^2

it doesnt matter how high it goes.. what matters is how high it gets and the time taken to reach that height..

you see what i mean when i say learn some basic physics?? its not hard a 13yr old can learn it..

choos
reply to post by turbonium1

 

My point is that dust on the moon will go much higher than on Earth - under the same conditions.

Show me examples of dust that flies higher than it would on Earth, under the same conditions. We've discussed the rover on this issue - the dust/dirt goes up no higher than it would on Earth, under the same conditions, which includes the same slow-motion effect - which is, of course, the well-known 66.66% speed.

Any more examples you know about?

also why would the dust go higher than it needed to??

if the dust reaches a height of 1.25m in 1.24seconds the gravity constant is about 1.62m/s^2

it doesnt matter how high it goes.. what matters is how high it gets and the time taken to reach that height..

you see what i mean when i say learn some basic physics?? its not hard a 13yr old can learn it..

edit on 19-1-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

Apollo defenders aren't good in simple physics.

onebigmonkey

One of the times Neil came out of his black hole was he gave that speech to the kids about "Truth's Protective Layers" do you remember that speech?

Google 'metaphor'.

Why would you say it's a metaphor?

i]"The definition of a metaphor is "a figure of speech containing an implied comparison, in which a word or phrase ordinarily and primarily used of one thing is applied to another (Ex.: the curtain of night, “all the world's a stage”)."

examples.yourdictionary.com...

Armstrong said...

"Today we have with us a group of students, among America’s best. To you we say, we have only completed a beginning. We leave you much that is undone. There are great ideas undiscovered, breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers. There are places to go beyond belief."

Do you think he was speaking metaphorically here? His first sentence has no metaphors, right? No metaphors in the next sentence, either. None in the third sentence. You think the fourth sentence is metaphorical. The fifth sentence has none.

Let's go through the fourth sentence, in sections..

" There are great ideas undiscovered, " No metaphors here.

"..breakthroughs available.." No metaphor here, either.

".. to those who can remove one of truth's protective layers."

Is this the part you see as a metaphor(s)?

He speaks about things as they are - That some of the brightest students are there. That they (astronauts, etc) have only completed a beginning. That there are breakthroughs available. And so on.

But halfway through a sentence he swoops in with a metaphor. And then goes back to speaking about things as they are.

Sure...

The only reason you say this one little part of his speech, delivered halfway into one sentence, is a metaphor, while everything else is meant literally, is because you refuse to believe he meant it as the way things really are!/b]

It HAS to mean something else, it cannot be true in any way!

He says there are protective layers. These layers protect "truths". He says there are breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of those layers.

If he says there are truths which are being protected, then that is exactly the way means it. That is the way things really are.

Your side doesn't like that, of course. Taking it literally clearly means that there is/was a cover-up by NASA/Apollo. Armstrong would only have known about it if he took part in it.

A truth can be known. A truth can be unknown. A truth can be discovered. We've discovered many truths. We've yet to discover countless more truths.

Saying a truth is protected means a truth is already known, and it is being guarded, or defended. It is not something yet to be discovered.

Synonyms of Protect - keep safe, keep from harm, save, safeguard, preserve, defend, shield, cushion, insulate, hedge, shelter, screen, secure, fortify, guard, watch over, look after, take care of.

In the first part of that sentence he says there are "breakthroughs available". Do you know what available means?

able to be used or obtained; at someone's disposal.

synonyms: obtainable, accessible, at hand, at one's disposal,

There are Breakthroughs/Truths that can be obtained. These Breakthroughs/Truths are being protected. So to obtain those breaktrhoughs/truths, we must overcome/remove the protection of it.

Armstrong At 4:30 "Today a spaceshuttle flies overhead with an international crew. A number of countries have international space programs. During the space age we have increased the knowledge of our universe a thousandfold"

That's funny...After Apollo we decreased the distence a thousandfold. To reach the moon is about 1000 times further than reaching Space Shuttle's low earth orbit. :-)

The video clip shows the dust/dirt rises at the same time as Young jumps up. The dust/dirt reaches to nearly the same height as the bottom line of his boots. And then the dust/dirt falls to the ground before he even begins to descend to ground.

If you don't believe that, look at it frame by frame.

It is clearly evidence that he was suspended, and that's why he fell much slower than the dust/dirt, which was not being suspended.

The video is not even showing it frame by frame, because that would show the dust/dirt DOES fall much faster than Young. And that's why he uses two bars, and claims pixels show it is at the same speed.

Look at the frames, please. And if possible, post the frames, so everybody else can see the truth.