Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

choos
since you are able to look at it frame by frame.. why not post this evidence that you found?

You haven't seen it frame by frame, then?

You've posted a video that claims to show dust falls at the same rate as the astronaut.
It claims to show dust falls 37 pixels in 12 frames. Then it claims to show the astronaut falls 37 pixels in 12 frames, as well.

How does he make these measurements? Well, we see he puts two bars in the clip.

He claims the top bar is at the apex of the dust. But there is clearly some dust visible above this upper bar. That would be the true 'apex' of the dust, right? So what is he supposed to be measuring here? How many people can be fooled on anything?

Where are the 37 pixels he speaks about? He doesn't indicate where they are. Do you see them?

I bet you don't.

He claims these 37 pixels were measured over 12 frames, for both the dust and the astronaut.

So you've posted a video, claimed it supports your case. 12 frames and 37 pixels that you've never even seen for yourself.

And you're asking me for frame by frame evidence ??!?

choos

from what i can see most of the dust doesnt reach the same height as john young

I never claimed it did. I said it nearly reached the height of his boots (bottom edge).
You probably think I'm "trying to say" it was the same height!....

choos

strange i dont see what you are seeing can you point it out? i can see most of the dust not going as high as john young.. john young goes much higher..

Why are you harping on about "most" of the dust? Do you realize we've been talking about the maximum height - the 'apex' - of the dust, all along?

Can you not follow such basic points?

choos

the difference in height is why he looks like he falls much slower.. but ofcourse somone of your knowledge could surely understand why..

He not only looks like he's falling slower than the dust - he IS falling slower!

Because he is suspended by wires/pulleys, during his jump. Same as Mythbusters did.

This is not an illusion of falling slower - it really IS falling slower.

Suppose two objects fall from different heights. Object A falls from 6 ft. above ground, and Object B falls from 4 ft. above ground. Do you claim Object A will appear to fall much slower than Object B due to the height difference?

Is that what you're claiming? That if two objects are falling from different hieghts, the higher object will appear to be falling much slower than the object falling from a lower height?

You've made that claim about the dust and the astronaut falling at different heights.

Hmm. Quite a pickle you've gotten yourself into here.


The astronaut is falling a bit slower than normal speed, due to the harness and pulleys
But the dust is falling at normal speed, because it is in free fall.

A fake/simulated 1/6g jump can only reach such heights by using a harness/pulley system. But, unlike the Mythbusters jump, a fake lunar jump requires a simulated lunar surface, which means there is dust/dirt.

While the jump achieves un-Earthly heights, the dust gives it away as 1g.

The dust is faster than the jump, since it is not being controlled.

webstra
Sorry dragonridr,

You apollogists have to come to grips with the fact that they go a long way in faking and making you believe in this (and many other lies).

In my early years I have reacted the same as you do now, so i understand you.

After lot's of reading you can only come to one practical conclusion : It was a no go !

Well what about the PHOTOGRAPHIC evidence ????? Up to the point of the LRO launch the main ace up the sleeve of hoax believers was there was NO photographs of landing sites, even now we still get people on here at least once or twice in every thread saying why dont they just point the Hubble or any of the large ground based telescopes at the Moon and show a landing site.The answer is resolving power even the Hubble above the atmosphere can only resolve objects about 300ft across on the Moon.

Then since the very first images were shown we have had our fair share of very smart people and idiots that because of a lack of knowledge of photography and even there own environment here on Earth could not undestand why no stars in the pictures, shadows in different directions and how did the Astronauts produce perfectly exposed and in focus pictures (not all were you can see on line). All thoses things can happen here on Earth as the Sun lights up the Earth and Moons surface.

There are plenty of examples on line to see that if you take a picture with the correct exposure for the Moon no stars will show in your picture and if you expose for the stars the Moon becaomes an over exposed blob,watch this timelapse when exposure set to show stars look at the Moon!!!!!



Shadows FOLLOW the terrain they land on so can appear to be in different directions even using a wider angle lens can make shadows appear to point in different directions. Now the in focus perfectly exposed pictures like I said not all were and you can see them online, photographers can use a couple of tricks if they have to do manual exposre (the sunny 16 rule) and also if they dont want to have to keep refocusing they can use depth of field and hyperfocal distance to keep as much in focus as possible.

THIS was on the film back for the Hasselblad camers the Astronauts used.



Shutter speed to set and aperture depending on the position of the sun, they practiced using the cameras before they went.

The landing sites were well documented with postions and distances of objects and equipment but now because we have images from the LRO these can be checked but what is even better we can see small craters and objects from the surface photographs in the LRO images there positions can be checked and there are HUNDREDS of them.

The only thing we cant stop is the LOGIC applied by hoax believers when all of the photographic evidence can be shown to be true and not understood because of a lack of knowledge on optics,exposure and photographic techniques they would fall back on no pictures taken of the sites NOW when they have these the goalposts get moved again by claims of faking or photoshoping so from this logic we can only assume we would have to take people like you to the Moon to prove you wrong if it's one way I will donate to the cost

reply to post by turbonium1


YOU really are deluded about this you have not proved ONE SINGLE point about the videos because YOU don't understand what you are talking about!!!!

SayonaraJupiter

webstra
You need to remove thruths protective layer's one big monkey.

I hope apollogists can remove such layer's for themselves and see the lies and find the truth about the moonlandings.

I still have good hope !

I'm a little more subdued in that hope but there is some hope left. The Apollo Defenders are here to protect those layers- .... . / -... .- ... - .- .-. -.. ...

You think using morse code allows you to use obscenities and abuse?

And you have the temerity to whinge about name-calling?

Hypocrite

The Apollo Defenders don't dare think outside the box or it will shatter their illusions completely!

Go read my website and tell me I haven't done something different with the information available, as opposed to someone who spews out the same garbage every time.

The Keep-Out Zones the removal of cross-hairs from Apollo images, the dumping of the Hasselblad cameras, the loss of the telemetry tapes, the problems with moon rock lunar inventories, the problems with early photo index catalogues, the medical absurdities of Dr. Charles Berry, the problems just keep adding up until you have to plant a big red flag on "moon".

Blah blah bleat bleat, same old same old taken out of context and deliberately twisted debunked nonsense.

There is no point proving to us that Nixon was a crook or that von Braun was German - it means nothing and we already know. Try disproving the science and engineering of Apollo. You won't, because you can't.

wmd_2008
reply to post by turbonium1

 

YOU really are deluded about this you have not proved ONE SINGLE point about the videos because YOU don't understand what you are talking about!!!!

Caps a'plenty

Imagine the next thing :

Some time ago I searched in the national public library archive of my country for 'moonlanding' (translated). It returned NOTHING.

Searching for 'Apollo' didn't give me interesting stuff either. Only about Apollo 13 and 18 and other stuff not related to the suposed moonlanding ! Could not find things about 11 !!!

webstra
Imagine the next thing :

Some time ago I searched in the national public library archive of my country for 'moonlanding' (translated). It returned NOTHING.

Searching for 'Apollo' didn't give me interesting stuff either. Only about Apollo 13 and 18 and other stuff not related to the suposed moonlanding ! Could not find things about 11 !!!

Maybe if you spelled moon landing correctly it might have worked, or (and this is a crazy idea I know) 'Apollo 11'.

onebigmonkey

webstra
Imagine the next thing :

Some time ago I searched in the national public library archive of my country for 'moonlanding' (translated). It returned NOTHING.

Searching for 'Apollo' didn't give me interesting stuff either. Only about Apollo 13 and 18 and other stuff not related to the suposed moonlanding ! Could not find things about 11 !!!

Maybe if you spelled moon landing correctly it might have worked, or (and this is a crazy idea I know) 'Apollo 11'.

edit on 25-1-2014 by onebigmonkey because: extras

Nononono....ZIP NOPPES NADA for 'Apollo 11'.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

Try disproving the science and engineering of Apollo. You won't, because you can't.

Sorry, pal. Scientific claims are proved or disproved by experimentation and independent verification. (I am unable to personally verify the trips, neither are you, so we both require a third party entity to undertake the trip.)

No other man, woman or monkey has gone outside of low earth orbit, except those sent by Richard Nixon as president. That is a scientific and historical proof.

The Russians spent years building and exploring low earth space, setting endurance records, building space stations, and they had all the technology necessary to perform a 1-man trip to the moon but they never did it. (I have heard all the Western apologies for the reasons the Russians never went to the moon so no need for you to trot those out, again. Thank you.)

It should tell you a lot about Russian science. They take things step by step. They don't overreach.

Do you know what else the Russians don't do? The Russians don't lay claim to the moon with Keep Out Zones and US government proposals for National Park zones on the moon. NASA has something to hide on the moon.. they are hiding the fact that they never went down 6 times to the lunar surface in the manner that they claimed they did.

Obviously, Werner von Braun is the key-man for going to the moon. Without this one man NASA does not reach the moon by 1969, or 1980, or 1999, or 2014.

The human history shows us hundreds of explorers over centuries who were undaunted by savage tribes, merciless oceans or even the prospect of not coming back alive. History shows there are no human space explorers outside of low earth orbit since 1972. 'Magnificent desolation' does not deter the human spirit of exploration, it excites the human spirit.

It's 2014. The world is creeping up on half a century since the Apollo TV shows were aired. What a propaganda spectacle it was. Richard Nixon is LOL in his grave. Nixon is the ultimate high stakes poker player. He's been dead for 20 years, but he's still in the game.

What did Nixon say to Kissinger about history?

onebigmonkey
Go read my website and tell me I haven't done something different with the information available, as opposed to someone who spews out the same garbage every time.

Why would anyone want to download your 177MB pdf's?? Jesus Christ!

Even Jarrah White does streaming videos (for free) on youtube why are you paying for webspace for your 177MB pdf's???

I know what it is... 177MB of apollogism. No thank you, sir.

webstra
Imagine the next thing :

Some time ago I searched in the national public library archive of my country for 'moonlanding' (translated). It returned NOTHING.

Searching for 'Apollo' didn't give me interesting stuff either. Only about Apollo 13 and 18 and other stuff not related to the suposed moonlanding ! Could not find things about 11 !!!

Maybe you should try using Moon Landing !!!!

SayonaraJupiter

Do you know what else the Russians don't do? The Russians don't lay claim to the moon with Keep Out Zones and US government proposals for National Park zones on the moon. NASA has something to hide on the moon.. they are hiding the fact that they never went down 6 times to the lunar surface in the manner that they claimed they did.

Neither DO the Americans as you have been told many times as you keep misquoting what was actually requested.

The preservation of the Apollo landing sites, with particular emphasis on the Apollo 11 site at Tranquility Base

There are also concerns relating to robotic rovers accidentally running over the footprints created by Apollo astronauts, or contaminate a site via physical contact with heritage hardware. One of the worst case scenarios listed relates to the potential of Entry, Descent and Landing (EDL) errors, resulting in a “crash or off-nominal landing near a heritage site which may produce enormous amounts of debris

No restrictions in flying over or going near the site to photograph they just don't want the area disturbed ie someone driving or walking over the area you know that's what was meant but you just keep pushing the BS don't you!

wmd_2008

Neither DO the Americans as you have been told many times as you keep misquoting what was actually requested.

You have been told time and time again that Nixon was the president for Apollo. Nixon's the guy who Johnson accused of being a traitor for influencing the peace negotiations. You can't simply take Apollo out of the context of the Nixon presidency.

Nixon also said "The American people don't believe anything until they see it on television."
Nixon also said "That depends, Henry, on who writes the history."
Nixon also said "When the President does it, that means, it is not illegal."

What did Nixon do? He put Apollo on TV and he had NASA write the history of it because he knew he would get away with it. And it is my general opinion that Apollo Defenders are willfully ignorant of Richard Nixon's character, his motives and his sense of what's right and what's wrong.

Remember the Christmas Bombings of Linebacker II took place just when Apollo 17 was splashing down in December of 1972. Peace for all mankind was a lie. Nixon had no intention of peace in Viet Nam or in space. His character was to win by any means necessary. The CIA helped him to accomplish that.

Why? Because Nixon was a hateful, unrepentant, fervid anti-Communist. The Russians were winning all the space propaganda!
First woman, first space station, first EVA, first orbit, first automatic rendezvous, etc etc etc.

Even James Webb quit his job in 1968. Read that headline. Remember it. It will be on the quiz.


"U.S. lags"
"ranks second to Russia"
"still behind"
"never able to catch up"

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Why would anyone want to download your 177MB pdf's??

Because they are actually interested in the truth?

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Why would anyone want to download your 177MB pdf's??

Because they are actually interested in the truth?

But remember, some people just cannot handle the truth..... which is why they will not look at them!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter



You seem to have a rather unhealthy OBSESSION with Nixon

turbonium1

You haven't seen it frame by frame, then?

ive seen it in slow motion, down to 1/4 speed..

since you can see it frame by frame why dont you post it??

You've posted a video that claims to show dust falls at the same rate as the astronaut.
It claims to show dust falls 37 pixels in 12 frames. Then it claims to show the astronaut falls 37 pixels in 12 frames, as well.

How does he make these measurements? Well, we see he puts two bars in the clip.

He claims the top bar is at the apex of the dust. But there is clearly some dust visible above this upper bar. That would be the true 'apex' of the dust, right? So what is he supposed to be measuring here? How many people can be fooled on anything?

you are not very aware of 3 dimensional perspective are you??

Where are the 37 pixels he speaks about? He doesn't indicate where they are. Do you see them?

I bet you don't.

download the clip and with video editing software you can count the pixels it is the exact same clip as this


he gives you information of where to get the clip yourself and you can verify the amount of pixels yourself.. infact he encourages you to do it..

so why dont you since you dont believe him??

He claims these 37 pixels were measured over 12 frames, for both the dust and the astronaut.

So you've posted a video, claimed it supports your case. 12 frames and 37 pixels that you've never even seen for yourself.

And you're asking me for frame by frame evidence ??!?

you dont believe him, you can download the clip yourself, download some video editing software and verify everything yourself..

dont be lazy.. the guy encourages you to do so..

I never claimed it did. I said it nearly reached the height of his boots (bottom edge).
You probably think I'm "trying to say" it was the same height!....

so then when you say it nearly reaches the same height why do you make it sound like the dust/dirt shouldnt return to the surface earlier??

i dont know if you know this or not, but objects that reach a lower height return to the surface earlier.. ie. the flight time is shorter..

Why are you harping on about "most" of the dust? Do you realize we've been talking about the maximum height - the 'apex' - of the dust, all along?

Can you not follow such basic points?

incase you havent noticed not ALL of the dust reaches the apex..... only some

He not only looks like he's falling slower than the dust - he IS falling slower!

prove it.. you now know where to obtain the video footage and you just need to get your own video editing software..

and then you can come here and prove me wrong with actual evidence instead of your opinion..

Because he is suspended by wires/pulleys, during his jump. Same as Mythbusters did.

This is not an illusion of falling slower - it really IS falling slower.

so in 40+years of faking the moon landing.. along comes some random guy who knows nothing of physics and finds the mistake NASA has made.. the dust falls faster than john young..

one of the most analysed video footage from the apollo period and not one actual physicist or scientist has ever noticed this in 40+ years.. and all it took was one random troll with his troll physics to find the truth??

you can make so much money on this discovery!!!! why dont you get some actual real evidence so that you can prove everyone wrong?

Suppose two objects fall from different heights. Object A falls from 6 ft. above ground, and Object B falls from 4 ft. above ground. Do you claim Object A will appear to fall much slower than Object B due to the height difference?

nope, never even hinted at this.. you see they are not falling from the different heights at the SAME TIME the dust/dirt reaches its apex earlier and returns to the lunar surface earlier.. john young is still going up when the dust/dirt has already reached its apex because he still has not reached his apex..

Is that what you're claiming? That if two objects are falling from different hieghts, the higher object will appear to be falling much slower than the object falling from a lower height?

You've made that claim about the dust and the astronaut falling at different heights.

Hmm. Quite a pickle you've gotten yourself into here.

not a pickle.. just you twisting what im saying.. as above..
if you drop two objects AT THE SAME TIME from different heights they will fall at the exact same speeds..

however if you throw up two objects to different heights, the lower one will change direction earlier and may be heading back to the surface while the other object is still rising..

not difficult to understand..

The astronaut is falling a bit slower than normal speed, due to the harness and pulleys
But the dust is falling at normal speed, because it is in free fall.

A fake/simulated 1/6g jump can only reach such heights by using a harness/pulley system. But, unlike the Mythbusters jump, a fake lunar jump requires a simulated lunar surface, which means there is dust/dirt.

While the jump achieves un-Earthly heights, the dust gives it away as 1g.

The dust is faster than the jump, since it is not being controlled.

no.. the dust reaches its apex earlier and returns to the surface earlier.. giving an illusion its falling faster..

the whole point of the bars was to show you the dust falling 37pixels over 12 frames from its apex.. the same as john young..

what you are trying to describe is the dust falling >37pixels over 12 frames and john young 37 pixels over 12 frames..

what you dont realise is that the dust/dirt reaches its apex sooner than john young and is returning to the surface before john young reaches his apex..

choos

ive seen it in slow motion, down to 1/4 speed..

since you can see it frame by frame why dont you post it??

I'd like to post it asap, but I need to get the software first.

The original claim is YOURS, and YOU haven't supported it. Your video claims to measure 37 pixels over 12 frames for both the dust and the astronaut. However, NO pixels or frames are actually shown in the video.

You obviously want to believe him, and without a clue about the veracity of his claims, you accept it as true.

But then you ask ME to prove the claim is NOT true, with frame by frame evidence!

Some gall.

Where are the 37 pixels he speaks about? He doesn't indicate where they are. Do you see them?

I bet you don't.

choos

download the clip and with video editing software you can count the pixels it is the exact same clip as this

he gives you information of where to get the clip yourself and you can verify the amount of pixels yourself.. infact he encourages you to do it..

so why dont you since you dont believe him??

As I said, I intend to post the frames later.

The real question is why do you believe him without confirming it first?

Now, you tell me...

"..you can count the pixels it is the exact same clip as this.."

It's the "exact same clip"?

The first clip you posted claims 37 pixels over 12 frames were measured between two bars. The measurement was not for the entire fall of the astronaut, only part of it.

Now, this new clip claims 32 pixels were counted for the ENTIRE height of his jump. Which means 32 pixels for the entire fall, yes?

Did you not even notice this discrepancy?

So which of these "exact same clips" do you want to tell me is correct?

choos

you dont believe him, you can download the clip yourself, download some video editing software and verify everything yourself..

dont be lazy.. the guy encourages you to do so..

"Don't be lazy"?? That's a good one!

choos

so then when you say it nearly reaches the same height why do you make it sound like the dust/dirt shouldnt return to the surface earlier??

i dont know if you know this or not, but objects that reach a lower height return to the surface earlier.. ie. the flight time is shorter..

No kidding!?!?

Isn't that a no-brainer already?

choos

incase you havent noticed not ALL of the dust reaches the apex..... only some

I did notice it, like anybody else with (normal) eyesight would. It's pretty obvious.

I'm asking you why you're bringing it up. So why did you?

choos

nope, never even hinted at this.. you see they are not falling from the different heights at the SAME TIME the dust/dirt reaches its apex earlier and returns to the lunar surface earlier.. john young is still going up when the dust/dirt has already reached its apex because he still has not reached his apex..

You "never even hinted at this"?

Should I have to quote every one of your claims over and over again, all because you don't have a clue about what you've just said?

You never said they need to be falling at different times. But don't take my word for it. Please review your own posts and see for yourself.

So your actual claim is that when two objects fall from different heights, AND at different times, the higher object will appear to fall much slower.

Is that your exact claim, or did you forget anything else which you'd like to add?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

Try disproving the science and engineering of Apollo. You won't, because you can't.

Sorry, pal. Scientific claims are proved or disproved by experimentation and independent verification. (I am unable to personally verify the trips, neither are you, so we both require a third party entity to undertake the trip.)

No other man, woman or monkey has gone outside of low earth orbit, except those sent by Richard Nixon as president. That is a scientific and historical proof.

The Russians spent years building and exploring low earth space, setting endurance records, building space stations, and they had all the technology necessary to perform a 1-man trip to the moon but they never did it. (I have heard all the Western apologies for the reasons the Russians never went to the moon so no need for you to trot those out, again. Thank you.)

It should tell you a lot about Russian science. They take things step by step. They don't overreach.

Do you know what else the Russians don't do? The Russians don't lay claim to the moon with Keep Out Zones and US government proposals for National Park zones on the moon. NASA has something to hide on the moon.. they are hiding the fact that they never went down 6 times to the lunar surface in the manner that they claimed they did.

Obviously, Werner von Braun is the key-man for going to the moon. Without this one man NASA does not reach the moon by 1969, or 1980, or 1999, or 2014.

The human history shows us hundreds of explorers over centuries who were undaunted by savage tribes, merciless oceans or even the prospect of not coming back alive. History shows there are no human space explorers outside of low earth orbit since 1972. 'Magnificent desolation' does not deter the human spirit of exploration, it excites the human spirit.

It's 2014. The world is creeping up on half a century since the Apollo TV shows were aired. What a propaganda spectacle it was. Richard Nixon is LOL in his grave. Nixon is the ultimate high stakes poker player. He's been dead for 20 years, but he's still in the game.

What did Nixon say to Kissinger about history?

edit on 1/25/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: tags bloody tags

You forgot observation this means you have someone verify by seeing it. Ever been to the great wall of china or Taj MAhal ? See we know there there because people physically went there and documented it. Then it becomes a scientific fact. Just like when we send people to the moon they document it it also becomes a scientific fact. Your biggest problem is you confuse philosophy with science. Oh and by the way science does not require the experiment to be repeated only the data to be looked over. For example inm sure you have heard of Cern. See they release there data for independent study and verification because well right now what they do cant be repeated by others. The reason is no one has a super collider as big. Yet when they release their data its valid science even without someone else doing it. NASA released there data as well and in fact still do thousands of scientists do research off that data just like CERN. So you're an idiot if you believe that an experiment or study has to be repeated to be valid.

reply to post by turbonium1


You really need to pay more attention because thats not what i understood. You know whats funny you to are arguing over pixels but in the video if he had dont the same comparison are astronaut would have had to be 3 feet tall. Because in the video the key point is the physics involved on the jump. This jump has been studied by physics students all over the world. In fact in one of my classes i had the students determine what the actual gravity of the moon is by this very jump. Might i say they were quite imaginative one did i reproduction compared it to earths gravity to calculate lunar gravity. Others used frame references like his pack. And by far the most interesting still amazed he got the right answer any way he used solar angle of shadows to determine the height and then timed the jump. His approach was so different he attended a lecture with me to discuss it. So let me see we have physics majors who have determined lunar gravity using this clip and you think somethings wrong is that right?