Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

turbonium1
It was not live. Harnesses were simply edited out, it was not really hard to 'remove the evidence' of them. I've shown you a few movies, which edited out harnesses - well before Apollo.

Wrong. As in not true. Live footage from the moon was broadcast on several occasions featuring images of Earth that can be dated precisely. Likewise broadcasts from cislunar space. The signals were also pinpointed as being from the moon by independent amateur trackers and neutral observers like Jodrell Bank.

The technology to edit out the harnesses was not around. Find it and prove me wrong.

The astronauts don't behave at all like they would in a true 1/6 lunar gravity. You assume they do because they are your reference for 'genuine' 1/6 g behavior, in the first place! It's circular reasoning.

And your evidence for them not acting like they are on the moon is referenced to what, exactly?

They move at the same speed throughout the footage, which is a few hours total. It is impossible for all the astronauts to move deliberately, and consistently, at the same slow speed.

Precisely.

Only slowing down movements done on Earth to 66.66% (or 50%) can explain this.

Ohhh and you were doing so well. No, wrong. The only explanation for every single object behaving in the way it does in these live TV transmissions is zero atmosphere and lunar gravity.

Now, there are TWO different speeds the astronauts move at, during the Apollo missions. Apollo 11 astronauts all move at 50% speed. At 2x speed they become normal Earth speed in all their movements. The other missions are all at 66.66% speed. At 1.5x speed, all their movements become normal Earth speed. Hours of continuous footage is possible at 66.66% speed, as we know.

Here's the kicker - Apollo 11 only looks normal at 2x speed - the astronauts move TOO SLOW at 1.5x speed compared to movements on Earth.

And - all the other missions only look normal at 1.5x speed - the astronauts move TOO FAST at 2x speed.

Any movements will be consistent, within the same environment. In 0g, or 1/6 g, or 1g.
They can be sped up 2x, or 1.5x, or slowed to 50%, or 66.66%, and the movements will all be at the same speed!

Who hasn't seen what people on Earth look like moving around at 2x speed, or slowed to 1/2 speed? Their movements are consistent with ANY speed. All move equally as fast, or as slow.

But the Apollo 11 astronauts do not match with the other astronauts. Which means they are not on the moon.

Different cameras, different broadcasting method. Read the documents that have been posted in this thread.

I've proven hours of continuous slow-motion footage was done before Apollo, which your side claimed could not be done. And I've shown it's the exact same speed - 66.66% - as Apollo's footage. I suppose this proves nothing to you Apollo-ites, right?

No, you're making it up. No-one argued that variable frame rate filming is impossible. You proved nothing that wasn't known already. Now, if you want to prove they could do that with hours of live TV then you might get somewhere.

We had unmanned probes, back then. But you go ahead believing it was done by Apollo as they flew to the moon.

Which probes? Launched when? Where were they? How did they manage to get the people in the same shot? Stop hand waving and start coming up with the goods.

Unity_99
We actually went to the moon. It wasn't staged. They may have staged some photos to hide what is really there. But spreading this isn't reality.

You don't even have to go that far. If you look at what photos a professional takes you will find one or possibly two good photos on the spool (film back then!) and the rest are discarded. They click away taking several photos of the same subject since they know most will be crap. So , there is no way in hell an astronaut on the moon with thick gloves and fixed focus camera strapped to their chest will ever take a complete spool of perfect pictures. They have to be faked......but only to ensure the tax paying public has something to ooh and aah about.

Many photos were faked for publicity (the good ones) along with the best of the genuine ones. IMHO.

Here's the clip at 1.5x speed..



And here's the clip above, at 2x speed (or, 1.5x plus 2x original speed)..



At 1.5x speed, the dust/dirt is falling the same rate it does on Earth. And Young's jump, as we know, is a nearly perfect match to Mythbusters jump on Earth.

You claim the dust is falling more than 2x slower than it would on Earth. I see nothing even close to warranting such a claim.


But the best way to confirm that is the second clip, which is 1.5x speed plus 2x more speed.

It looks totally ridiculous. The astronaut certainly does. And the dust/dirt clearly is falling much too fast compared to anything on Earth.

And I didn't even set it fast enough to match to your claim.

So your calculations are not at all valid. Or do you really want to tell me the dust in the second clip is no faster than dust on Earth? If you want to live in denial of the reality, go ahead. But I hope you'll be honest, and admit to the truth here.

Clearly, you have erred in your calculations along the way, somewhere.

The first problem is that you have no tangible object here. Dust/dirt is not an object. It is many particles spraying over a wide area. That alone may be the reason for your errors.

Add to that, a video of poor to fair quality, shot from one angle at a fair distance.

All we know for certain is that your final figures on the speed of the dust/dirt are wrong. They do not fit.

Sorry, the clips didn't work for some reason. I'll try posting them again, later.

reply to post by turbonium1


holy smokes..

i cannot believe how stupid you really are.. this is basic maths and basic physics.. im not using methods such as:

"oh it looks about right"

i am using real physics and maths that has been established for centuries..

look im going to use random numbers to try to dumb it down to your level here:

lets work out how long it takes for an object to fall 1m on the lunar surface.. the lunar surface gravity is about 1.92m/s^2

so:

1=0.5*1.92*t^2
t=1.021seconds, thats 1.021 seconds for an object to fall 1m on the lunar surface.. this you cannot deny.. doing so is to deny reality..

you go on and continue to say that speeding up the footage 1.5x will bring it back to how it will behave on earth.. ok whatever, lets see how long it will take an object to fall 1m ON EARTH..

1=0.5*9.81*t^2
t=0.452 seconds, thats 0.452 seconds for an object to fall 1m on earth.. i hope you can follow these basic physics..

now for the tricky part..

you claim that if we slow the footage of the object on earth down 1.5x it will equal how long it took the object to fall 1m on the lunar surface..

ok lets see..

0.452 x 1.5 = 0.678 seconds (now this should equal 1.021seconds as you believe)

why doesnt it equal 1.021 seconds?? i extended the time taken for the earths footage down 1.5x yet why is it not 1.021 seconds??

follow any of that??

it works in reverse also..

on the lunar surface the object falls 1m in 1.021 seconds so if i speed it up 1.5x it should fall to the surface in 0.452seconds.. well lets calculate..

1.021 / 1.5 = 0.681seconds ?????????????????????

must be the calculations then..

in your world the following is exactly what you are claiming

1.021 / 1.5 = 0.452
and
0.452 * 1.5 = 1.021

YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS..........

yorkshirelad

Unity_99
We actually went to the moon. It wasn't staged. They may have staged some photos to hide what is really there. But spreading this isn't reality.

You don't even have to go that far. If you look at what photos a professional takes you will find one or possibly two good photos on the spool (film back then!) and the rest are discarded. They click away taking several photos of the same subject since they know most will be crap. So , there is no way in hell an astronaut on the moon with thick gloves and fixed focus camera strapped to their chest will ever take a complete spool of perfect pictures. They have to be faked......but only to ensure the tax paying public has something to ooh and aah about.

Many photos were faked for publicity (the good ones) along with the best of the genuine ones. IMHO.

You need to go to the apollo surface journal and look at the pictures. There are lots of pictures that were mistakes cut off parts of the astronauts over exposed lens glare. And you can see the problem they had with focussing and framing the subject no surprise there. Luckily they were trained to use the cameras or we wouldnt have gotten any usable pictures.

yorkshirelad

You don't even have to go that far. If you look at what photos a professional takes you will find one or possibly two good photos on the spool (film back then!) and the rest are discarded. They click away taking several photos of the same subject since they know most will be crap. So , there is no way in hell an astronaut on the moon with thick gloves and fixed focus camera strapped to their chest will ever take a complete spool of perfect pictures. They have to be faked......but only to ensure the tax paying public has something to ooh and aah about.

Many photos were faked for publicity (the good ones) along with the best of the genuine ones. IMHO.

yorkshirelad, go have a look at the Apollo Hasselblad 70mm catalogs. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here is an example from Apollo 12. Pete Conrad took pictures of dirty windows but he didn't take one single picture of his smiling crew mates, Dick Gordon or Alan Bean. Not One Single Photo in 14 Magazines, total 2119 Images.

SayonaraJupiter

yorkshirelad

You don't even have to go that far. If you look at what photos a professional takes you will find one or possibly two good photos on the spool (film back then!) and the rest are discarded. They click away taking several photos of the same subject since they know most will be crap. So , there is no way in hell an astronaut on the moon with thick gloves and fixed focus camera strapped to their chest will ever take a complete spool of perfect pictures. They have to be faked......but only to ensure the tax paying public has something to ooh and aah about.

Many photos were faked for publicity (the good ones) along with the best of the genuine ones. IMHO.

yorkshirelad, go have a look at the Apollo Hasselblad 70mm catalogs. www.lpi.usra.edu...

Here is an example from Apollo 12. Pete Conrad took pictures of dirty windows but he didn't take one single picture of his smiling crew mates, Dick Gordon or Alan Bean. Not One Single Photo in 14 Magazines, total 2119 Images.

This has already been explained to you way to beat a dead horse. Once again you lie and deceive people by not telling the whole story only the parts you want them to hear.As you said your goal is to control the narative and rewrite history. Sad part is your not very good at it. Well since you wanted to see smiling faces here is one Gordon preparing for their 1st EVA.



You didn't think that the hasselblad photos were the only ones taken did you?Here is a picture of all their camera equipment so you can stop deceiving people by not mentioning the Maurer 16 mm camera for example.

dragonridr

Catalog number please?

SayonaraJupiter

dragonridr

Catalog number please?

Do some research for a change im done playing your games ill tell you go check the apollo 12 archives from the NASA web site. See there is more footage available then just the hasselblad rolls as i said took other equipment along. See once again you have no clue what your talking about.

dragonridr

SayonaraJupiter

dragonridr

Catalog number please?

Do some research for a change im done playing your games ill tell you go check the apollo 12 archives from the NASA web site. See there is more footage available then just the hasselblad rolls as i said took other equipment along. See once again you have no clue what your talking about.

SJ knows full well what this image is because it's been used before - it's actually a training photograph. You can usually tell it's not a Hasselblad image because the uncropped ones of those tend to be square.

However he also knows full well that considerable footage of all the crew exists taken by the DAC, and there were also TV broadcasts made featuring them. He never acknowledges this because it kind of makes his ludicrous claims look, well, ludicrous.

I think he believes they were on holiday and all that expensive equipment was just there to get pictures of them waving V signs for the folks back home and not to document science and history. Somehow all those pictures of the moon from angles not possible from Earth, pictures of Earth not possible from LEO and where the date and time can be verified, pictures on the lunar surface with details not previously known about are shown, lunar samples proven to be from the moon, not to mention chunks of previously landed equipment, somehow all of this is negated because he can't see Alan Bean saying 'cheese'.

onebigmonkey

dragonridr

SayonaraJupiter

dragonridr

Catalog number please?

Do some research for a change im done playing your games ill tell you go check the apollo 12 archives from the NASA web site. See there is more footage available then just the hasselblad rolls as i said took other equipment along. See once again you have no clue what your talking about.

SJ knows full well what this image is because it's been used before - it's actually a training photograph. You can usually tell it's not a Hasselblad image because the uncropped ones of those tend to be square.

However he also knows full well that considerable footage of all the crew exists taken by the DAC, and there were also TV broadcasts made featuring them. He never acknowledges this because it kind of makes his ludicrous claims look, well, ludicrous.

I think he believes they were on holiday and all that expensive equipment was just there to get pictures of them waving V signs for the folks back home and not to document science and history. Somehow all those pictures of the moon from angles not possible from Earth, pictures of Earth not possible from LEO and where the date and time can be verified, pictures on the lunar surface with details not previously known about are shown, lunar samples proven to be from the moon, not to mention chunks of previously landed equipment, somehow all of this is negated because he can't see Alan Bean saying 'cheese'.

Personnally im sick and tired of his half truths like trying to play off there wasnt other equipment besides the hasselblads. He wants to ignore video and other pictures because it doesnt meet his criteria. Never mind the fact even on the hasselblads there is pictures of the astronauts on the surface of the moon. The worst part is even he knows they went to the moon ive seen him in other threads bring up the whole they met aliens on the moon thing. He admits surveyor 3 went but then chooses to ignore things like this.

The Apollo Defenders have tried to present these pictures of Dick Gordon on Apollo 12 but it's really Dick Gordon in a simulator.



Bad, bad Apollo Defenders

SayonaraJupiter
The Apollo Defenders have tried to present these pictures of Dick Gordon on Apollo 12 but it's really Dick Gordon in a simulator.

Bad, bad Apollo Defenders

Glad you put it side by side like that saved me the trouble look closely there not the same picture where did it come from you havnt researched it yet? Ill give you a clue they wernt taken by the same camera and obviously not at the same time. I have faith in you where did it come from.

choos

holy smokes..

i cannot believe how stupid you really are.. this is basic maths and basic physics.. im not using methods such as:

"oh it looks about right"

i am using real physics and maths that has been established for centuries..

The clip's speed is 1.5x, plus 2x more than original speed...

www.youtube.com...

By your calculations, this should be close to normal, Earth speed.

No way, no how. All movements are much faster than normal, Earth speed.

Anyone would know it is too fast, just by looking at the clip.

No measurements/calculations are required.

Observations are used all the time in countless fields, in many of the sciences. I suppose you think they're all 'stupid', too? To you, it's not a 'real' method of a 'real' science?

The clip shows an astronaut moving faster than is humanly possible. We know this.

You are the one who has it wrong, that's for sure.

The clip proves it, like I've explained to you.

Your numbers are flawed. The calculations may be correct, but they're all based on faulty numbers. Not good.

It's not hard to see why your numbers are wrong.

Dust/dirt is not even an object, to start with. It is many thousands of very minute objects, sprayed over an undefined area, all at once.

It's seen in a poor-quality video, from one POV, shot at a distance.

Nice try, anyway.

Apollogists believe in fairytales, for almost 45 year now.

It's good to have threads like this one so that more and more people can see the light (and the lies).

turbonium1

The clip's speed is 1.5x, plus 2x more than original speed...

www.youtube.com...

By your calculations, this should be close to normal, Earth speed.

No way, no how. All movements are much faster than normal, Earth speed.


Anyone would know it is too fast, just by looking at the clip.

ofcourse movements are faster than earths speed.. the whole point of speeding up lunar footage over 2x is to prove to hoax believers that they did not use that method..

and my calculations are for falling objects only..

when you say they are falling too fast do you mean that the objects are falling faster than 9.81m/s^2??

No measurements/calculations are required.

why not?? i am trying to prove to you that when you speed the lunar footage to 1.5x the dust/dirt falls too slow to represent earths gravity of 9.81m/s^2.. did you not understand my argument or something??

Observations are used all the time in countless fields, in many of the sciences. I suppose you think they're all 'stupid', too? To you, it's not a 'real' method of a 'real' science?

they start with observations, they they use maths and physics to explain the behaviour..

do you really think sir isaac newton just went oh look falling object.. lets just assume it falls at 9.81m/s^2 because it looks like it, no need to prove that it actually falls at 9.81m/s^2..

your world is serious flawed..

The clip shows an astronaut moving faster than is humanly possible. We know this.

You are the one who has it wrong, that's for sure.

prove to me that the dust falls significantly faster than 9.81m/s^2..

i have already proven to you with maths that it is falling close to 9.81m/s^2 including errors..

The clip proves it, like I've explained to you.

the clip actually proves me right.. if you analyse the footage you will see speeding the lunar footage up over 2x will show that all falling objects fall closer to 9.81m/s^2 and speeding the footage up 1.5x will show all falling objects fall at around 4m/s^2..

so is earths gravity around 9.81m/s^2 or 4m/s^2???

if you dont believe me you can use maths only:

S(e)=ut+1/2A(e)t^2
s(m)=ut+1/2a(m)t^2

where s(e) is the distant the object falls on earth and a(e) is the acceleration due to gravity of earth
and s(m) is the distance the object falls on the moon and a(m) is the acceleration due to gravity on the lunar surface..
u= initial verticle velocity and since we are assuming it is at its apex, initial verticle velocity is 0m/s

since the distance will be held constant and we only want to find the time factor involved (t.earth/t.moon) s(e)=s(m)

1/2A(e)t^2=1/2a(m)t^2
A(e)t^2=a(m)t^2
A(e)/a(m)=(t/t)^2
9.81/1.92=(t/t)^2
5.109=(t/t)^2
5.109^0.5=t/t
therefor t.moon/t.earth=2.26

so i was wrong, the factor isnt 2.45x its actually 2.26x but still a long way from 1.5x..

how about if we assume t.moon/t.earth=1.5?? which is what you are claiming
A(e)/a(m)=1.5^2
A(e)/1.92=2.25
A(e)=4.32m/s^2

by maths alone you can see that speeding up lunar footage 1.5x will show that earths gravity is 4.3m/s^2

there is still no proof at all that slowing earth footage 1.5x will give us lunar gravity..

still dont believe me.. fine..

speed up the frame rate of the jump in videodub 2.26x

original footage is at 29.97fps 2.26x faster than 29.97 = 67.73fps..
go plug in 67.73fps in videodub and go to frames 336 and 347..

verify for yourself that im not lying..

frame [email protected] corresponds to 4.961 seconds

frame [email protected] corresponds to 5.123 seconds

the time to fall 11.61cm at 2.26x speed up is 0.162seconds

using the constant acceleration equation:
s=ut+1/2at^2
where:
s=height (metres)
u=initial verticle velocity
a= acceleration due to gravity
t=time (seconds)

so:
0.1161=0+1/2*a*0.162^2
0.1161=0.013122*a
a=0.1161/0.013122
a=8.8m/s^2

not exactly 9.81 due errors in measurements and rounding errors but still close to earths gravity.

Your numbers are flawed. The calculations may be correct, but they're all based on faulty numbers. Not good.

faulty numbers?? which part?? which numbers are faulty??

did i pick the wrong frame do you want me to slow the footage down to 20fps so that i can more accurately pick which frame for the apex of the dust and which frame it hits the ground??

do you want me to use a finer grid to get a more accurate height estimate??

all it will do is bring me closer to 1.92m/s^2 and when i speed up the footage 1.5x to work out if the dust falls at 9.81m/s^2 it will just be closer to around 4m/s^2

It's not hard to see why your numbers are wrong.

Dust/dirt is not even an object, to start with. It is many thousands of very minute objects, sprayed over an undefined area, all at once.

It's seen in a poor-quality video, from one POV, shot at a distance.

Nice try, anyway.

thats why its called estimates.. the estimates although is not exact still is quite close to 1.92m/s^2

and the calculations??

speeding up lunar footage 1.5x will show that earths gravity is around 4m/s^2

speeding up lunar footage 2.26x will show that earths gravity is 9.81m/s^2

p.s. you are displaying exorbitant amounts of ignorance.. im using maths and physics to prove my point.. you are using your "opinion" to prove yours..

reply to post by choos


Yep hoax. Just like the movies. You watch WHITE HOUSE DOWN? In the movie the White House looked like it was under attack right. If there was no know actors in there and they did a live News broadcast with a black out in DC with all networks covering it you would believe it? Right you would. Ok now in 1932 the RADIO Show War Of The Worlds Radio Station broadcasting a hoax of a alien Invasion on radio live, where the USA was in panic for 60 min. It was scary we thought we was going on. Back on Subject puzzles me why don't they just point the Hubble Telescope and send back the pictures of what it takes. From those out in space star systems that they get looks very impressive. Seems like the Hubble can see a grain of sand live we would see what it looks under a microscope. The only thing that they can do is fly up in the shuttle to within a few miles of the AZMON BARRER and no more. Outer Space is like traveling in a microwave oven. Oh I saw it take off and I was there in first person to see it take off, no fake there. I saw both rockets take off no fake there. I saw it live on TV the limb joining to the rocket etc. That is where NASA sends its Video the the TV networks remember NASA sends there feeds the the MEDIA. Who faked this Disney Studios. NASA told Disney We have to go to the moon Because the Russians put SPUTNIK into orbit.

All pre planned cold war tactics. They stayed in orbit until the last hour until time for splash down While NASA feeds Fake Videos to The Networks. live again splashdown Media coverage. The astronauts were told we don't have the technology yet so we had to hoax this to full the Russians because of them sending SPUTNIK into orbit. USA couldn't let that happen and took the lead after that. What would our people think of that. You believed it all in the 1932 Hoax.

9/11 was a hoax to. Remember there was a film crew there Live. Filming Live, just happened to be there caught everything Live, live TV filmed first plane hit still filming everything then reports were sent out to media I heard saw plane hit WTC etc actors. How See above. People turned on there TV radios everything I saw it live on TC radio, the first plane Remember before any planes hit bombs went off call to networks people turned on tv radios those who were home saw first planes hit on TV. Planes were all grounded no planes at all where all the people that got killed on 9/11 in the planes. Planes Video Hoax. Towers went down the crew that took the towers down was VP Cheney Company. Yep Video Crew Disney Studios

Roughly 10% of names were real people. The rest must have been made up by a computer program. I lost a cousin in the attacks, and happened to be sitting in his father's classroom at the time, taking a college health course. His son's name was Todd Hill, but the one listed on the memorial site is African-American, not Caucasian. Everything they told us was a lie. When I served in the US army in the '80's, they told us the Soviet Union was evil. I now live in the former Soviet Union, and the people are just drunk, and stupid, not evil. Their leaders are just greedy, and self-centered. Welcome to the Grand Illusion.

Why to invade IRAQ NSA 9/11 to invade Iraq. Iraq StarGate Key to 911 and Bush Remember IRAQ Cradle of Civilization.

By galacticrt | Posted December 19, 2011 ireport.cnn.com...


letsrollforums.com...

webstra
Apollogists believe in fairytales, for almost 45 year now.

It's good to have threads like this one so that more and more people can see the light (and the lies).

Oh by all means enlighten us with your stunning insight how did they fake it?

choos

ofcourse movements are faster than earths speed....

Yes.

So let's review this...

You claimed "the dust/dirt falls at 1.92m/s^2.. and if sped up 1.5x or 66.66% its still only 4m/s^2 no where near 9.81m/s^2.."

So I sped up the footage by 1.5x, which you claimed is 4m/s^2 speed. 2 x 4m/s^2 = 8m/s^2 speed.

If your calculations are correct, this clip would show all movements will be a bit slower than normal (Earth) speed.

After you viewed the clip, you admitted..

"ofcourse movements are faster than earths speed"

You're basically admitting that your calculations are wrong.

Don't go and play dumb, for once..

choos
the whole point of speeding up lunar footage over 2x is to prove to hoax believers that they did not use that method..

To say "they did not use that method", equates to saying 'they did not use that method to hoax the footage'. They used a method, but did not use 'that' one. . A 'Freudian slip', perhaps...But I digress here..

The point of speeding up lunar footage is to show it WAS the method they used to fake lunar gravity! It still fools many people.

Nobody should be fooled anymore, though.

Today's technology has finally exposed them, and their 'tricks', to the entire world.

They made a fatal mistake by showing two different speeds. It is impossible to have a mission show movements at one speed, while all the other missions show movements at a different speed.

It wasn't a problem at the time. The change from 50% to 66.66% speed is not apparent to the human eye. It's just slower than normal 'Earth' speed.

Now, we can see it's at two different speeds.

Apollo 11 was discovered to be normal Earth speed at 2x the 'original footage'.

But 2x speed didn't look like normal Earth speed on any other mission - Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. It was obviously faster than normal Earth speed.

Everyone knows it is too fast at 2x speed by....observation !!?

No measurements and calculations were needed, either!!

And nobody spewed about how measurements and calculations are required before making any claims about the speed.

'It looks faster than normal Earth speed' is a valid observation. It is a 'real' science.

Indeed, you Apollo-ites cackled like a pack of hyenas over this from day one. A typical comment - 'Look at how goofy the astronauts look, everyone! HaHa! But, all the hoaxers think this is normal speed. How stupid can they all be?'

(It was all bulls%#, of course. Nobody made that claim, afaik. Your side made it up, for all we know.)

Apollo-ites didn't need to measure and calculate it, either, which means (to you, anyway) that they are very stupid!


We know the clip at 1.5x plus 2x speed is much faster than normal Earth speed.

You were crowing about your calculations. The clip showed your calcs were garbage.