Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by dragonridr


You really need to study this pal.


And then study this one.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You dont even know what a testimonial statement is do you? Because i was the one calling you stupid for reposting the mobot thing after it was shown to be not possible. A testimonial statement would be if i said Obama would obviously think your an idiot for rehashing stuff thats been disproven. See thats a testimonial no wonder you cant win a debate without trying to divert the conversation, See what you do as a debate tactic s called redirect this means you contribute useless knowledge to a debate to avoid discussing the real argument.

Deny at any cost...that's what apollogists do.

Because the price of losing is to big.

webstra
Deny at any cost...that's what apollogists do.

Because the price of losing is to big.

Does this involve socks again just curious.

choos

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

You're joking, I hope...

2.26x speed is clearly faster than normal, Earth-bound speed.

All movements are too fast, including the descent.

It matches up at 1.5x speed, as the Mythbusters jump showed so well.

This is confirmed with all the other footage (except Apollo 11). At the same 1.5x speed, it's all at Earth speed.

It's not possible on the moon. Only on Earth.


Do I need to mention the 50% speed, too?

webstra
Deny at any cost...that's what apollogists do.

Because the price of losing is to big.

The Apollogists know they have lost. They can hear the ghost of Richard Nixon saying deny, deny, deny. "Well, I'll tell you I am not a crook."

Then it's the ghost of Richard Nixon apollogizing. "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

But the Apollo Defenders want to keep Apollo in a spotless condition, they can't deal with any incongruities in the narratives. Like the number of cameras smuggled by astronauts or Arizona State University with the "stealth LRV" images.


I am sure some Apollo Defenders will come along and try to say that the BLACK BLOB is a LRV. They would be stupid to try to do that when the picture clearly shows a BLACK BLOB.

reply to post by turbonium1


Please show us this footage id love to see it so show us where its been sped up and we can compare it to the original. See i see you talking about alot of ifs but have dont nothing to present your point. Ive seen videos that were sped up didnt look realistic to me so you pick one that you think looks good and will look at it.

dragonridr
reply to post by turbonium1

 

Please show us this footage id love to see it so show us where its been sped up and we can compare it to the original. See i see you talking about alot of ifs but have dont nothing to present your point. Ive seen videos that were sped up didnt look realistic to me so you pick one that you think looks good and will look at it.

I have the footage you are looking for.

turbonium1

You're joking, I hope...

2.26x speed is clearly faster than normal, Earth-bound speed.

its been mathematically proven..

the dust falls about 11.61cm in about 0.367seconds..

this corresponds to an acceleration due to gravity of about 1.72m/s^2 which is close to 1.92m/s^2 of what the moon should be due to accuracies..

2.26x faster than 0.367 is 0.162 seconds which corresponds to 8.8m/s^2 again due to inaccuracies in measurements and rounding..

All movements are too fast, including the descent.

partially correct.. when lunar footage is sped up 2.26x human movement is too fast, that part is correct.. however it is proven mathematically that all falling objects fall as fast as they should on earth..

remember mathematically..

if i drop an object on earth from a 1 metre height it will take it 0.452 seconds to fall to the ground.

if i drop an object on the moon froma 1 metre height it will take it 1.021 seconds.. 2.26x faster than 1.021 is 0.452 seconds..

maths proves you wrong..

It matches up at 1.5x speed, as the Mythbusters jump showed so well.

it may look more human, but things FALL TOO SLOW WHEN SPED UP 1.5x..

is earths gravity 4.3m/s^2 or 9.81m/s^2 you still have yet to answer this question..

jesus how many times does one need to repeat himself before you understand this..

This is confirmed with all the other footage (except Apollo 11). At the same 1.5x speed, it's all at Earth speed.

only from your opinion.. but when you analyse the footage at 1.5x speed the apparent gravity in the film is around 4.3m/s^2..

is earths gravity 4.3m/s^2 or 9.81m/s^2??????

It's not possible on the moon. Only on Earth.

if you speed up lunar footage to 1.5x speed its definitely not filmed on earth.. the apparent gravity in the film when sped up 1.5x is about 4.3m/s^2.. and that is not earths gravity..

Do I need to mention the 50% speed, too?

go for it.. if you have the footage perhaps this time you can analyse it with maths.. instead of your opinion..

If you speed up a 1/6g jump by 1.5x, will it match up to a 1g jump?

Within 0.2-0.3 seconds ?

It will not match up, of course.

So how come they matched?

They don't match 2.26x speed, as you claim they would.

You can't even use your 'magic' dust, now.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

But the Apollo Defenders want to keep Apollo in a spotless condition, they can't deal with any incongruities in the narratives. Like the number of cameras smuggled by astronauts or Arizona State University with the "stealth LRV" images.

Exactly the contrary. It is you Hoaxies who are so out of touch with the messiness of reality that you consider minor incongruities due to faulty memories or departures from plan to be evidence of fraud. If your bus does not arrive on time, does that incongruity prove that the bus company doesn't exist?

turbonium1
If you speed up a 1/6g jump by 1.5x, will it match up to a 1g jump?

Within 0.2-0.3 seconds ?

It will not match up, of course.

So how come they matched?

They don't match 2.26x speed, as you claim they would.

You can't even use your 'magic' dust, now.

i just noticed something..

i was using lunar gravity as 1.92m/s^2 which is incorrect.. gravity of the moon is 1.62m/s^2 so the factor is not 2.26x its back to 2.46x sorry for confusing..

so, a 1/6g jump at 2.46x would match up very well with a 1g jump..


im not the one using magic dust here..

you are the one who believes the dust falls too fast when sped up to about 2.46x..

on earth for dust or dirt to fall 11.61cm it will take about 0.154seconds to hit the ground..

if you speed up the jumping salute 2.46x (original frame rate is 29.97fps so 2.46 multiplied by 29.97 = 73.7fps)

all the dirt/dust is pretty much on the ground by frame 347 or by 4.708seconds.. frame 336 corresponds to 4.559 seconds in the clip at 73.7fps.

so by roughly analysing the clip when sped up 2.46x the dust takes about 0.149seconds to hit the ground.. pretty damn close to 0.154seconds calculated above aint it?

reply to post by DJW001

Exactly the contrary. It is you Hoaxies who are so out of touch with the messiness of reality that you consider minor incongruities due to faulty memories or departures from plan to be evidence of fraud. If your bus does not arrive on time, does that incongruity prove that the bus company doesn't exist?

Really, DJ, what you are suggesting here (by means of a card-stacking technique) is utterly ridiculous. If the bus does not arrive on time the conclusion should be that "the bus is late". It does not automagically mean the bus company doesn't exist!

What you are describing is Defender Logic. It's a leap of faith. For example "I saw the launch therefore it's all real." Leaps of faith are not logical. Here's a good one "I saw it on TV therefore it's all real they couldn't fake it or they'd all be lying about it."

That's the kind of logic I encounter in these threads from time to time. Why are you espousing it? Let's not talk about hypothetical bus company scenarios. Let's talk about the facts.

The gunboat threat in the Gulf of Tonkin was a grave threat and LBJ invaded Viet Nam to save America from Communism. The Viet Nam war cost $111 Billion in 1965-1975 dollars. The Apollo program (cost $24 billion, roughly ten years) landed on the "moon" 6 times to beat the Russians and For All Mankind. Just days before Apollo 17 splash landed in the Pacific Ocean Richard Nixon ordered a $4 Billion carpet bombing campaign on North Viet Nam.... over Christmas break, 1972.

It is a matter of fact that political will determined these outcomes. It is political will that determined no humans or monkeys have been outside of low earth orbit since December of 1972. Political will does not rest on logic - it deals in obedience.

As always, the Apollo Mythology is firmly planted in the Richard Nixon presidency.... a presidency he owed to Howard Hughes. Hughes had the Mobot technology, a network of 30+ satellites, Hughes had the Surveyor landers equipped with TV and film cameras, Hughes had the lasers technology which were needed for the mirror reflectors placed on the real moon by automatic landing, unmanned and remote controlled system that Bob Maheu called "HALO".

BTW, don't call us "Hoaxies" that's clearly another way for you to demonize your opponents in this thread. You are using name-calling in the hope that "Hoaxies" will escalate the name-calling against you... which will bring the moderators to shut it all down, which is probably your ultimate goal.

Ain't gonna happen.

The Apollo Hasselblad Controversy is real, very real. It has been a struggle to get this far. It has taken pages and pages of discussion to finally realize the Apollo Defenders don't know the real camera counts, they are speculating about it.

This causes some serious questions to be raised about the visual narrative of Apollo because the cameras are the very foundation of it. If the camera counts are impeachable so too are the magazines and the lenses; allegations which inevitably lead to more questions about the provenance of the negatives and who controlled them.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Tour camera controversy only exists in your mind you have a deluded sense of reality. You act as if the cameras were important when we have the films. See cameras use these things called tolls of film to capture the image. See this was before digital cameras and they didnt store pictures in memory or flash drives. The cameras take light focus it through a lens onto photosensitive film we call them negatives. And from these negatives we can shine a light thri them and with again paper that again is light sensitive we make whats called photographs. Once we have the film the camera is no longer needed to make pictures from the negatives. But once again in your deluded world it makes a difference even though hasselblad made hundreds of these cameras they were a very popular model. And if they needed to remake the lens they could. In fact they still make them and have them for sale if you are so obsessed with them.

www.doobybrain.com...

Or if you prefer one of the ones NASA owned theres this one bit pricey but here you go.

www.doobybrain.com...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Really, DJ, what you are suggesting here (by means of a card-stacking technique) is utterly ridiculous. If the bus does not arrive on time the conclusion should be that "the bus is late". It does not automagically mean the bus company doesn't exist!

Oh? Then why does Hasselblad not knowing how many of its cameras someone else left on the Moon mean NASA faked landing on the Moon? Explain the difference between the two assertions.

What you are describing is Defender Logic. It's a leap of faith. For example "I saw the launch therefore it's all real." Leaps of faith are not logical. Here's a good one "I saw it on TV therefore it's all real they couldn't fake it or they'd all be lying about it."

Whereas it requires no leap of faith to go from Richard Nixon watching The Godfather to Richard Nixon hoaxing Apollo.

Goodbye.

SayonaraJupiter

webstra
Deny at any cost...that's what apollogists do.

Because the price of losing is to big.

The Apollogists know they have lost. They can hear the ghost of Richard Nixon saying deny, deny, deny. "Well, I'll tell you I am not a crook."

Then it's the ghost of Richard Nixon apollogizing. "When the president does it, that means that it is not illegal."

But the Apollo Defenders want to keep Apollo in a spotless condition, they can't deal with any incongruities in the narratives. Like the number of cameras smuggled by astronauts or Arizona State University with the "stealth LRV" images.

I am sure some Apollo Defenders will come along and try to say that the BLACK BLOB is a LRV. They would be stupid to try to do that when the picture clearly shows a BLACK BLOB.

edit on 2/15/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: add BLACK BLOB

Hey whos the black blob and what are they doing at the apollo landing site? Didnt they know we have laser beams and particle weapons to enforce the keep out zone. Man SJ i guess you better inform these blob people not going to say black because your showing to be a tad bit racist there guy. But any way you better email them and tell them apparently they havnt read your posts.

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Really, DJ, what you are suggesting here (by means of a card-stacking technique) is utterly ridiculous. If the bus does not arrive on time the conclusion should be that "the bus is late". It does not automagically mean the bus company doesn't exist!

Oh? Then why does Hasselblad not knowing how many of its cameras someone else left on the Moon mean NASA faked landing on the Moon? Explain the difference between the two assertions.

What you are describing is Defender Logic. It's a leap of faith. For example "I saw the launch therefore it's all real." Leaps of faith are not logical. Here's a good one "I saw it on TV therefore it's all real they couldn't fake it or they'd all be lying about it."

Whereas it requires no leap of faith to go from Richard Nixon watching The Godfather to Richard Nixon hoaxing Apollo.

Goodbye.

Please dont ask him to explain he doesnt do that he just throws stuff up in the air hoping some idiot hoaxie will believe him. Trust me he knows better than to try to debate he learned early on hes not good at it as every point he has made has been shown to be his fantasy. I stopped asking him to prove anything because ultimately he knows he has no proof. Though he does have a weird fixation with Nixon im thinking he might be related or just in love hard to tell.

choos

turbonium1
If you speed up a 1/6g jump by 1.5x, will it match up to a 1g jump?

Within 0.2-0.3 seconds ?

It will not match up, of course.

So how come they matched?

They don't match 2.26x speed, as you claim they would.

You can't even use your 'magic' dust, now.

i just noticed something..

i was using lunar gravity as 1.92m/s^2 which is incorrect.. gravity of the moon is 1.62m/s^2 so the factor is not 2.26x its back to 2.46x sorry for confusing..

so, a 1/6g jump at 2.46x would match up very well with a 1g jump..


im not the one using magic dust here..

you are the one who believes the dust falls too fast when sped up to about 2.46x..

on earth for dust or dirt to fall 11.61cm it will take about 0.154seconds to hit the ground..

if you speed up the jumping salute 2.46x (original frame rate is 29.97fps so 2.46 multiplied by 29.97 = 73.7fps)

all the dirt/dust is pretty much on the ground by frame 347 or by 4.708seconds.. frame 336 corresponds to 4.559 seconds in the clip at 73.7fps.

so by roughly analysing the clip when sped up 2.46x the dust takes about 0.149seconds to hit the ground.. pretty damn close to 0.154seconds calculated above aint it?

What did you just say here?...

"..a 1/6g jump at 2.46x would match up very well with a 1g jump.."

Why don't you ever show videos to support your claims?

Not to worry, I'll do it for you. Here's the video at 2.46x speed..

www.youtube.com...

Obviously, Young's jump at 2.46x speed is much faster than Mythbusters jump in 1g.
That's why you didn't post it, and why you didn't address the issue.

You've continually ignored the fact that Young's jump at 1.5x speed matches the Mythbusters jump in 1g, within 0.2-0.3 seconds.

I'll ask you one last time...

At what speed is Young's jump (ie: the descent) better match to the speed of the Mythbusters jump (ie: the descent)?

A) 2.46x speed

B) 1.5x speed


Please answer this honestly.

No more excuses...

turbonium1

What did you just say here?...

"..a 1/6g jump at 2.46x would match up very well with a 1g jump.."

Why don't you ever show videos to support your claims?

what would i compare it too?? showing it by itself will prove nothing.. i have been using maths to prove that they fall at 9.81m/s^2 when sped up to 2.46x..

not my opinion, but maths..

Not to worry, I'll do it for you. Here's the video at 2.46x speed..

Obviously, Young's jump at 2.46x speed is much faster than Mythbusters jump in 1g.
That's why you didn't post it, and why you didn't address the issue.

i have addressed the issue many times already..

im not exactly sure why your video is 2seconds long.. have you got any explaination why you made the original 15second video only 2seconds long??

i bumped the frame rate upto 200fps and the clip is now 2.325 seconds long.. similar to the youtube video you posted..

200 fps represents a speed up of about 6.67x no one has has asked you to speed it up that much..

if you want the entire clip at 2.46x you need to change the frames per second to 73.7fps not 200fps like in the youtube video you posted..

You've continually ignored the fact that Young's jump at 1.5x speed matches the Mythbusters jump in 1g, within 0.2-0.3 seconds.

ive explained it to you already.. the difference of 0.2-0.3 is the difference between 1.5x speed and 2.46x speed..

from the video the original jump takes a total of about 1.5seconds.. and he jump about 43.7cm

1.5x faster than 1.5seconds is about 1second
2.46x faster than 1.5seconds is about 0.609seconds..

thats a difference of about 0.4seconds between 1.5x speed up and 2.46x speed up.. i explained this to you a very long time ago already..

I'll ask you one last time...

At what speed is Young's jump (ie: the descent) better match to the speed of the Mythbusters jump (ie: the descent)?

A) 2.46x speed

B) 1.5x speed


Please answer this honestly.

No more excuses...

2.46x..

there are no excuses.. a jump in 1/6g sped up 2.46x will match a jump at 1g..

theres no way around it.. john young falls 43.7cm in about .734seconds which would give us lunar gravity of 1.62m/s^2

2.46x faster than 0.734seconds is 0.298seconds which gives us earths gravity of 9.82m/s^2..

so if we speed up john youngs jump 2.46x john young will fall 43.7cm in 0.298seconds..

how long will it take an object to fall 43.7cm on earth??

.437 = .5 x 9.81 x t^2
t^2 = 0.437 / 4.905
t = 0.089^0.5
t = 0.298 seconds

reply to post by choos


The reason the video is 2 seconds long is because at that speed he looks like hes been sped up. Notice that arm swing for the salute i think he threw his arm out of socket it was moving at like mach 3 ive seen jet fighters move slower.