Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter

Garbage argument. Please. Please. Please stop with the garbage arguments.

correct me if im wrong but you did say and i quote

SayonaraJupiter
Please spare us from your inadequate review of history. It's pathetic. Nixon managed Apollo just like he managed his trip to China. It was all PR and TV media manipulation. You are a sucker.

we all know that you believe Nixon scripted the fake apollo..

and the above quote you clearly state that nixon managed apollo just like he managed his trip to China..

now if you believe Nixon managed apollo in the same manner as he managed his trip to china.. and you also believe that Nixon managed apollo to be a hoax..

one would be led to believe that you are also arguing that Nixon faked his trip to china..

it is not my argument.. it is really your argument.. so you should heed your own words and i quote again:

SayonaraJupiter

Garbage argument. Please. Please. Please stop with the garbage arguments.

SayonaraJupiter

various clips from Apollo 12.

why yes they are..

thank you for acknowledging that that is clips from Apollo 12..

just like you asked.. you wanted proof apollo 12 was in cis-lunar space.. and you have acknowledge that that clip is various clips from apollo 12..

p.s. funny how you think its easier to fake film than it is to fake still images..

choos

maths doesnt lie..

we know for a fact that earths gravity is at 9.81m/s^2

therefore we know for a fact that if we drop an object from a height of 43.7cm it will hit the ground in about 0.298 seconds..

john young drops from the height of his apex of 43.7cm on the lunar surface in about 0.734seconds.. john young is a very large object.. and is demonstrating lunar gravity, there is no conceivable reason why NASA would not make his lunar jump that is representing lunar gravity at 1.62m/s^2.. ie. john young must fall at 1.62m/s^2

dropping 43.7cm in 0.734seconds is lunar gravity of 1.62m/s^2.. there should be no reason to deny this right??

so what happens when you speed up the drop 1.5x? he hits the ground in 0.489seconds which represents an arbitrary gravity of about 3.6m/s^2.. ie. objects fall too slow, movement might "look" right but objects fall too slow..

but what happens when you speed the drop to 2.46x?? he hits the ground in 0.298seconds.. which is what would happen on earth..

so do you get it yet?? if you speed up the footage 2.46x objects will fall as they would on earth.. however it will not represent human movement..

if you are suggesting the maths is flawed then i think you are extremely deluded.. the maths has been founded, studied and used for centuries.. it didnt happen over night..

so again, im not presenting this as my opinion, this is maths..
however you saying it looks like it falls too fast at 2.46x speed is merely your opinion, but your opinion has been debunked with maths but you refuse to acknowledge it.. ignorant much?

edit on 16-2-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

It's not my opinion. It is fact.

I've asked you many times to post the jump at 2.46x speed, to no avail.

You gave me a flimsy excuse for the version I posted earlier.

So now, I've taken the same clip you linked - 29.97 fps, 15.649 seconds long, and using Virtualdub, I sped it to 2.46x.

Here is the result - 73.7262 fps, 6.361 seconds long ..

www.youtube.com...


Same result as before - the jump is much faster than the Mythbusters jump.

Maths don't 'lie'. Only people can lie.

But maths can be wrong, in whole or in part. And, your maths are wrong..


The video proves it.

turbonium1

It's not my opinion. It is fact.

no it is your opinion.. you posted a video and said that it looks like it falls too fast.. does "look like" equal fact??

i have been using maths to show you that speeding up lunar footage 2.46x objects will fall just as fast as they would on earth..

I've asked you many times to post the jump at 2.46x speed, to no avail.

if the video you posted is at 2.46x as you said it is it will look just like that.. why do i need to repost a video that will look exactly the same??

You gave me a flimsy excuse for the version I posted earlier.

So now, I've taken the same clip you linked - 29.97 fps, 15.649 seconds long, and using Virtualdub, I sped it to 2.46x.

Here is the result - 73.7262 fps, 6.361 seconds long ..

Same result as before - the jump is much faster than the Mythbusters jump.

no its not.. that is merely your opinion.. i have shown you that john young appears to fall at 9.81m/s^2 when you speed up the footage 2.46x by using maths..

Maths don't 'lie'. Only people can lie.

But maths can be wrong, in whole or in part. And, your maths are wrong..

The video proves it.

look simple constant acceleration equation.. a very well known and very basic maths equation:

s=ut+1/2at^2

have you got any problem with this equation?? most likely no..

in the lunar footage john young must fall at 1.62m/s^2.. there should be no doubt here because if he doesnt fall at 1.62m/s^2 than obviously he would NOT be on the moon and it would easily prove a hoax.. so NASA would never get this wrong..

if john young falls from a height of 43.7cm how long will it take him to hit the ground??

.437=0+1/2 x 1.62 x t^2
t^2 = 0.437 / 0.81
t = (0.539)^0.5
t = 0.734 seconds..

so john young must fall 43.7cm in 0.734seconds for the clip to represent lunar gravity.. NASA will not get this wrong assuming they must fake it..

now speed up the footage 2.46x and how long will john young take to fall 43.7cm??

0.734 / 2.46 = 0.298 seconds

thats right 0.298 seconds if you speed up john youngs jump 2.46x..

what gravity does falling 43.7cm in 0.298 seconds represent??

same equation

s=ut+1/2at^2
0.437 = 0 + 1/2 x a x 0.298^2
a = 0.437 / 0.0444
a = 9.83m/s^2

ive shown you all the steps, you can easily follow all the steps with a calculator.. the method is correct unless you want to show me where i went wrong??

absolute proof that speeding up lunar footage 2.46x will show falling objects to fall just as fast as on earth.. if the maths is wrong show me where..

and now that you finally have the same clip as me, confirm for me frame 336 and 347 at 2.46x speed up or at 73.7fps the times that they occur.. do they or do they not occur at 4.557 and 4.707 seconds respectively??

remembering that frame 336 and 347 at normal speed occur at 11.211 and 11.578 seconds respectively..

do you or do you not deny that they are the same exact frames occuring at different times due to the different frame rate??

dragonridrSee what you are not aware of is there was live feeds to the press as well even from the camera that allen bean broke. Which is the main reason apollo 12 isnt as documented as the other missions but you know this. However there is video footage from before he broke the camera.Here What the BBC recorded of the live broadcast.And you get to see an astonaut and no mobot like you crazy idea.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I made a screenshot just for you to remember the exact moment TIME ON MOON 0:36:29

choos

no it is your opinion.. you posted a video and said that it looks like it falls too fast.. does "look like" equal fact??

i have been using maths to show you that speeding up lunar footage 2.46x objects will fall just as fast as they would on earth..

Let's compare the jumps...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

You still think the two jumps are at the same speed?

Do you need a side-by-side comparison, or do you finally grasp the obvious?

SayonaraJupiter

dragonridrSee what you are not aware of is there was live feeds to the press as well even from the camera that allen bean broke. Which is the main reason apollo 12 isnt as documented as the other missions but you know this. However there is video footage from before he broke the camera.Here What the BBC recorded of the live broadcast.And you get to see an astonaut and no mobot like you crazy idea.

news.bbc.co.uk...

I made a screenshot just for you to remember the exact moment TIME ON MOON 0:36:29

Yeahdid you see them preparing for the EVA notice it was astronauts who had faces and not your crazy theory about mobots. So once again you have had your crazy ideas shot down with live footage. See you apparently didnt realize but there was alot of live footage sent directly to the news agencies. NASA didnt even bother to record alot of it the cameras were just on so the media had something to do. They learned this with apollo 11 alot of journalists standing around with nothing to report and they complained. So to Solve this they had the camera feeds sent directly to the press area in houston so they could see what the controllers saw. What we watched there was the BBC reporter watching a live feed to send back to the UK. I guess its a good thing they archived the footage because it prevent crazy people from saying there wasnt astronauts on board only robots made by Howard Hughes.

turbonium1

choos

no it is your opinion.. you posted a video and said that it looks like it falls too fast.. does "look like" equal fact??

i have been using maths to show you that speeding up lunar footage 2.46x objects will fall just as fast as they would on earth..

Let's compare the jumps...

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

You still think the two jumps are at the same speed?

Do you need a side-by-side comparison, or do you finally grasp the obvious?

yes they fall at the same speed.. ie. mythbusters at normal speed and john young at 2.46x fall at about the same speed.

do a side by side comparison.. i dont know how to so i cant help you there..

but you didnt answer my question.. so ill ask another way..

if i drop an object from a 1m height on the lunar surface it will hit the ground in

1 = 0 + 1/2 x 1.62 x t^2
t = (1 / 0.81)^0.5
t = 1.1111 seconds

do you deny that if an object is dropped from a 1m height that it will hit the lunar surface in 1.111 seconds??

what about on earth?

1 = 0 + 1/2 x 9.81 x t^2
t = (1 / 4.905)^0.5
t = 0.452

do you deny that if you drop an object on earth in a vacuum from a 1m height that it will hit the ground in 0.452 seconds??

what is the factor between the two?

1.111 / 0.452 = 2.46

all the steps are laid out easy enough for anyone to follow with a calculator.. do you or do you not deny that an object will fall from a height of 1 metre in 1.111 seconds on the lunar surface and 0.452 seconds earths surface??

Who needs maths?

The Mythbusters jump is filmed at normal speed and 'lacks the smooth motion of low gravity'.

the Apollo jump is speeded up, and the astronauts' movement is ridiculously jerky and high speed.

A side by side comparison would make the claims that Apollo footage is slowed down look stupid, because they are.

choos

yes they fall at the same speed.. ie. mythbusters at normal speed and john young at 2.46x fall at about the same speed.

do a side by side comparison.. i dont know how to so i cant help you there..

Here's a side-by-side comparison (though it's not a good quality splitting job)...

www.youtube.com...


The speed of Young's jump at 2.46x is clearly faster than the Mythbusters jump at normal Earth speed.


You've run out of excuses...

turbonium1

choos

yes they fall at the same speed.. ie. mythbusters at normal speed and john young at 2.46x fall at about the same speed.

do a side by side comparison.. i dont know how to so i cant help you there..

Here's a side-by-side comparison (though it's not a good quality splitting job)...

www.youtube.com...


The speed of Young's jump at 2.46x is clearly faster than the Mythbusters jump at normal Earth speed.


You've run out of excuses...

And you need to look carefully at what the video shows.

Here's a grab taken from the start:



Notice how far off the ground Young is already, whereas the Mythbusters guy is barely off the ground.

Notice that Mythbusters guy needs guys hauling ropes on a harness rig to get him to the height Young achieves. There are no ropes in the Apollo footagew and no harness rig.

Notice when Young jumps how the dirt is moved in a way entirely consistent with low gravity and zero atmosphere.

Notice how much more Mythbusters guy has to bend his knees on landing compared with Young.

Notice how Young rebounds on landing, whereas Mythbusters guy doesn't.

And most of all, notice how the footage that's been edited out looks utterly ridiculous. When the live Apollo TV broadcast footage is speeded up the motion is too fast and unrealistic, because it was never in slow motion in the first place.

You don't need maths to prove that allegations of speeding up the footage are stupid, you just need eyes.

turbonium1
Here's a side-by-side comparison (though it's not a good quality splitting job)...

www.youtube.com...


The speed of Young's jump at 2.46x is clearly faster than the Mythbusters jump at normal Earth speed.


You've run out of excuses...

they are about the same..

the difference is the start of the jump and the height obtained.. you are comparing john young about half way or more to his apex and the mythbusters still touching the ground, OBmonkey has already pointed this out.. any reason why there is such a large difference at the start??

also, why do you keep ignoring my question??

do you or do you not deny that if an object is dropped from a 1m height that it will hit the ground in 1.111 on the lunar surface and in 0.452 seconds on earths surface?? simple question..

choos


also, why do you keep ignoring my question??

Members like him will never admit when they get something wrong it's that simple.

I used to think this theoryu was somewhat plausable but the LRO photos make it obvious that we went. How do the hoax believers discount these pictures? Just curious.

LouisCypher


I used to think this theoryu was somewhat plausable but the LRO photos make it obvious that we went. How do the hoax believers discount these pictures? Just curious.

Some of them will simply claim that the LRO images of the landing sites were photoshopped...

...which means NO AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE would suffice, because they will simply claim that the evidence was fake. Therefore, there is no possibility of convincing those people. They have a pre-conceived notion that the moon landings were a hoax, and they will continue believing that forever, no matter the evidence to the contrary.

They will find ways to dismiss and ignore any evidence that challenges what they think they know. It seems they don't know how to use new information to learn new things and new ideas.

Soylent Green Is People
Some of them will simply claim that the LRO images of the landing sites were photoshopped...

But wouldn't some photo shop experts then point out they were photo shopped and show NASA was full of it? This really becomes too circular at some point. I mean, hell, you can see the tire tracks from the rover.

LouisCypher


I used to think this theoryu was somewhat plausable but the LRO photos make it obvious that we went. How do the hoax believers discount these pictures? Just curious.

LouisCypher, What Apollo subjects are you curious about? If you wanna learn about Apollo this thread is the place*!

You made a derogatory comment when you said "hoax believers" therefore, by logic, I concluded, that you are an Apollo Defender. Am I right about that?

Here are some thoughts that every Apollo Defender needs to know when posting in an Apollo thread.

Did you know that every Apollo lunar mission took place when Richard Nixon was President of the United States? Reference: Apollo 10 (the dress rehearsal), A11, A12, A14, A15, A16, A17.


2. Do you know why James Webb Quit NASA before Apollo 8 went to the "moon"?



3. Did you know what movie Richard Nixon screened at the White House when Apollo 16 landed on the "moon"? That's right.


4. Did you know that Howard Hughes built the Surveyor spacecraft and without Surveyor there would be no "moon" landings?


5. Did you know that Stanley Kubrick listed in his top 10 films "Hell's Angel's" 1930 which was a Howard Hughes film?


6. Do you know how NASA/ASU processed these images of the Black Blob LRV and the Pixel Flag?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Talking loud, saying nothing.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Nixon just happened tobe President during the landings. He was not President during the Mercury and Gemini missions, nor was he President at the outset of the Apollo missions and he had not been inaugurated when Apolo 8 circumnavigated the Moon.

Obsessing abour the personalities andorganisations involved in the Apollo and LRO programmes is a convenient smokescreen for your lack of actual hard evidence opposing the Apollo landigs.

You can claim LRO fakery all you like, but it isn't just the Apollo hardware that would need to to be faked, as I have shown you many times - rocks and craters were photographed with complete accuracy, which can only be explained by Apollo astronauts actually being there.

onebigmonkey
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

Talking loud, saying nothing.

Just doing like it like NASA does.... confirming my own claims!

OUCH!

It's gotta hurt to be an Apollo Defender today!

SayonaraJupiter

Just doing like it like NASA does.... confirming my own claims!

OUCH!

It's gotta hurt to be an Apollo Defender today!

you know NASA is not just one person right?? or are you hinting to us that YOU are an organisation of thousands of individuals??

sharing accounts could get you banned on this site right? unless im mistaken..

ps quite the ego you have there champ.. first comparing yourself to LBJ and now NASA..