Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by turbonium1


Thisisnt that tough to understand im thinking your doing it on purpose. Look in order to makr the lunar dust fall as the same speed on earth we have to speed up the footage. When we do that however the problem becomes the astronauts look like their motions have been sped up as well. Meaning we have to choose one or the other either the astronauts bound around the moon at a hilarious clip arms flailing all the time. Or we have the lunar dust showing its in lesser gravity by the speed it travels. So in review if we match earths gravity by speeding up the film all movements are sped up unless you can figure out a way they could have made the dirt fall slower a harness maybe?

choos

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??

A spray of dust/dirt particles is not a single, clearly defined object.

The astronaut is a single object, and is far more defined than a dust spray

So you choose to try and measure a dust spray, while ignoring the astronaut?!?

Your calculations on the speed of the dust was shown to be wrong.

If you measured an actual object, perhaps you won't end up in such a mess..

choos

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

choos

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

If it were faked then how could they have seen the alien spaceships and been warned off the moon ?


They did go to the moon, it wasn't faked, those guys and the Apollo 1 crew are heroes.

turbonium1

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..

im not playing dumb.. if you speed up lunar footage to 2.26x yes the movement goes faster but they

OBJECTS DO NOT FALL FASTER WHICH IS WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU

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.

speeding up the footage proves without a doubt that it was not hoaxed with slow motion..

ive provided the number multiple times and you have not once shown me where i went wrong..

speeding up lunar footage 1.5x will show that all falling objects will fall at 4.3m/s^2.. earths gravity is at 9.81m/s^2..

this is shown from analysis of lunar footage which i have done many times for you, since you were too lazy and incompetent to do it yourself..

speeding up the lunar footage to 2.26x the correct factor, proves that all objects fall at 9.81m/s^2 earths gravity.. but the movements are inhuman (too fast)..

using slow motion to fake the moon landing was not what they did, unless they had a gravity field manipulator.. are you going to say they had a gravity field manipulator also???

Nobody should be fooled anymore, though.

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

how?? from your opinion??

ive even helped you analyse footage sped up 1.5x to see your own folly but you refuse to acknowledge you messed up..

speeding up lunar footage 1.5x in your world should have all falling objects falling at 9.81m/s^2 but on analysis all falling objects falls at 4.3m/s^2

analysis of sped up footage proves you wrong with evidence not opinion.

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.

obviously its faster than earth movement that is why people use it as EVIDENCE MAN LANDED ON THE MOON, only you use it as evidence man didnt land on the moon..

read this and get it into your head

WHEN YOU SPEED UP LUNAR FOOTAGE 2.26x ALL FALLING OBJECTS FALL AT 9.81m/s^2 THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT OF USING THAT SPEED UP FACTOR TO ANALYSE FALLING OBJECTS THAT WILL REPRESENT EARTHS GRAVITY AND THEN COMPARING NORMAL HUMAN MOVEMENT TO THE SPED UP INHUMAN FOOTAGE

do you understand yet??

turbonium1

A spray of dust/dirt particles is not a single, clearly defined object.

The astronaut is a single object, and is far more defined than a dust spray

So you choose to try and measure a dust spray, while ignoring the astronaut?!?

Your calculations on the speed of the dust was shown to be wrong.

If you measured an actual object, perhaps you won't end up in such a mess..

yes thats why we estimate it.. its still very close to lunar gravity...

would you say the unedited lunar dust falls closer to 1.92m/s^2 or around 4.3m/s^2??

turbonium1

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.

ill take it back, im guessing you mean 1.5x PLUS 2x and not 1.5x multiplied by 2x..

anyway.. its still not exactly right..

assume an object falls 1m on the lunar surface

1=1/2*1.92*t^2
t^2=1/0.96
t=1.021 seconds

2.5x is what i think you are trying to explain should equate to 8m/s^2 because 2x4m/s^2 = 8m/s^2

anyway, 2.5x faster than 1.021seconds is 0.408 seconds

which represents gravity of:

1=1/2*a*0.408^2
a=12m/s^2

not the 8m/s^2 you erroneously claimed.. you really did fail high school physics didnt you?

dragonridr

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?

Shall I post with the same post-manners like apollogists often do ?

'I'm happy you finally ask the question yourself : How did they faked it'.

You are improving.

dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Thisisnt that tough to understand im thinking your doing it on purpose. Look in order to makr the lunar dust fall as the same speed on earth we have to speed up the footage. When we do that however the problem becomes the astronauts look like their motions have been sped up as well. Meaning we have to choose one or the other either the astronauts bound around the moon at a hilarious clip arms flailing all the time. Or we have the lunar dust showing its in lesser gravity by the speed it travels. So in review if we match earths gravity by speeding up the film all movements are sped up unless you can figure out a way they could have made the dirt fall slower a harness maybe?

First, you need to find a specific particle of dust in the video.

Next, you need to identify your particle, observing it throughout its passage toward the ground.

If you do all that, then we can start to talk about measuring the dust.

Otherwise, it's simply a waste of time.

The calculation of dust by choos was shown to be wrong - no surprise.

turbonium1

First, you need to find a specific particle of dust in the video.

Next, you need to identify your particle, observing it throughout its passage toward the ground.

If you do all that, then we can start to talk about measuring the dust.

Otherwise, it's simply a waste of time.

The calculation of dust by choos was shown to be wrong - no surprise.

find a specific particle of dust??

hmmm.. sounds like you are just searching for excuses..

but anyway maths alone proves your theory of 66.66% wrong..

does NASA have a gravity manipulator??

how about you start proving how NASA can, with ropes or strings, make everything fall at exactly 4.3m/s^2 with no error whatsoever including dust??

choos

turbonium1

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.

ill take it back, im guessing you mean 1.5x PLUS 2x and not 1.5x multiplied by 2x..

anyway.. its still not exactly right..

assume an object falls 1m on the lunar surface

1=1/2*1.92*t^2
t^2=1/0.96
t=1.021 seconds

2.5x is what i think you are trying to explain should equate to 8m/s^2 because 2x4m/s^2 = 8m/s^2

anyway, 2.5x faster than 1.021seconds is 0.408 seconds

which represents gravity of:

1=1/2*a*0.408^2
a=12m/s^2

not the 8m/s^2 you erroneously claimed.. you really did fail high school physics didnt you?

edit on 9-2-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

So let's see the clip at 1.5x plus 1.5x speed...

www.youtube.com...

It's still too fast for normal Earth speed.

Btw, do you even know what the goal is behind these calculations? How can you claim to know so much about maths when you have no clue on what you're trying to calculate for?

Did you just read the chapters on maths and calculations, and skip the chapters on 'Theoretical Applications' ?

The purpose is to have the video around where you've claimed we would see it in Earth speed. I've told you this already, more than once.

So go ahead and calculate it with 1.5x (instead of 2.5x), and show me what you get...

turbonium1

choos

turbonium1

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.

ill take it back, im guessing you mean 1.5x PLUS 2x and not 1.5x multiplied by 2x..

anyway.. its still not exactly right..

assume an object falls 1m on the lunar surface

1=1/2*1.92*t^2
t^2=1/0.96
t=1.021 seconds

2.5x is what i think you are trying to explain should equate to 8m/s^2 because 2x4m/s^2 = 8m/s^2

anyway, 2.5x faster than 1.021seconds is 0.408 seconds

which represents gravity of:

1=1/2*a*0.408^2
a=12m/s^2

not the 8m/s^2 you erroneously claimed.. you really did fail high school physics didnt you?

edit on 9-2-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-2-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

So let's see the clip at 1.5x plus 1.5x speed...

www.youtube.com...

It's still too fast for normal Earth speed.

Btw, do you even know what the goal is behind these calculations? How can you claim to know so much about maths when you have no clue on what you're trying to calculate for?

Did you just read the chapters on maths and calculations, and skip the chapters on 'Theoretical Applications' ?

The purpose is to have the video around where you've claimed we would see it in Earth speed. I've told you this already, more than once.

So go ahead and calculate it with 1.5x (instead of 2.5x), and show me what you get...

While you're waiting for him to explain something he's already explained, you can explain how they slowed down a live TV broadcast with audio and video signals coming from the moon.

turbonium1

So let's see the clip at 1.5x plus 1.5x speed...

why dont you stop with the maths and just give us the speed up/slow down factor..

1.5x plus 1.5x is misleading..

do you mean 2.5x speed up or 2.25x or 3x times speed up from the lunar footage??

It's still too fast for normal Earth speed.

already told you.. the proper factor to replicate earth gravity is 2.26x.. you need to speed up lunar footage 2.26x to replicate earths gravity..

that doesnt mean that objects will move at earths speed, IT WILL HOWEVER MEAN THAT OBJECTS WILL FALL AT THE SAME RATE AS ON EARTH

Btw, do you even know what the goal is behind these calculations? How can you claim to know so much about maths when you have no clue on what you're trying to calculate for?

yes i do.. but i have a sneaking suspicion that you do not, otherwise you would not have asked such a stupid question..

the reason i am saying you need to speed up lunar footage 2.26x is because in order to have objects falling on the moon to appear as they are falling on earth you need to speed up lunar footage 2.26x..

but if you speed up lunar footage 2.26x inorder to has objects fall as they would on earth, human movement is too fast.. thus proving man landed on the moon..

get it yet??

Did you just read the chapters on maths and calculations, and skip the chapters on 'Theoretical Applications' ?

did you skip highschool maths and physics altogether??

The purpose is to have the video around where you've claimed we would see it in Earth speed. I've told you this already, more than once.

So go ahead and calculate it with 1.5x (instead of 2.5x), and show me what you get...

i have calculated it at 1.5x speed.. its was the one of the first calculations i done..

remember the 4.3m/s^2 acceleration due to gravity?? thats the gravity you get if you speed up lunar footage 1.5x..

i showed you the calculations for that a week or two ago.. try to keep up..

but since i know you wont look back nor will you follow simple procedures in the previous post since the methods are exactly the same just with different numbers..

let me show you AGAIN since you are too LAZY AND IGNORANT to do anything for yourself..

assume an object falls 1m on the lunar surface

1=1/2*1.92*t^2
t^2=1/0.96
t=1.021 seconds

1.5x faster than 1.021seconds is 0.681seconds

which represents gravity of:

1=1/2*a*0.681^2
a=4.31m/s^2

RIP Yutu

China’s maiden moon rover ‘Yutu’, beloved by millions worldwide, has been lost.

Too cold...did the apollo astronauts ever said they had cold feet ?

webstra
RIP Yutu

China’s maiden moon rover ‘Yutu’, beloved by millions worldwide, has been lost.

Too cold...did the apollo astronauts ever said they had cold feet ?

edit on 12-2-2014 by webstra because: (no reason given)

Actually, it pretty much punctures the theory that Apollo was done by robotic craft.

reply to post by webstra



They gave them socks and boots attached to a space suit.

dragonridr
reply to post by webstra

 

They gave them socks and boots attached to a space suit.

Did their mums made the socks for them ?

You know what apollogists...you all should be ashamed of yourselves defending such an obvious lie in the name of science.

webstra
You know what apollogists...you all should be ashamed of yourselves defending such an obvious lie in the name of science.

edit on 12-2-2014 by webstra because: (no reason given)

Science and engineering got us to the moon. Your lack of understanding of those subjects is not science and engineering's problem. If that is the level of your proof, science and engineering isn't going to worry too much.

DJW001

webstra
RIP Yutu

China’s maiden moon rover ‘Yutu’, beloved by millions worldwide, has been lost.

Too cold...did the apollo astronauts ever said they had cold feet ?

Actually, it pretty much punctures the theory that Apollo was done by robotic craft.

A Howard Hughes mobot could have snapped these pictures on Apollo 12. No human required.

SayonaraJupiter

DJW001

webstra
RIP Yutu

China’s maiden moon rover ‘Yutu’, beloved by millions worldwide, has been lost.

Too cold...did the apollo astronauts ever said they had cold feet ?

Actually, it pretty much punctures the theory that Apollo was done by robotic craft.

A Howard Hughes mobot could have snapped these pictures on Apollo 12. No human required.

And so could little green men from mars or the toothfairy. Since i know you know that couldnt have happened becuase the mobot was the size of a bus. But hey lets not let your pretty pictures go to waste so lets all sit here and think how silly you must be for bringing this up again in the same thread with the information disproving it. Hmmmmm wonder how someone could be so delusional. Ok back to reality as they say you are the weakest link. Continue the show people nothing else new to see here