Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

choos

as far as I know you have not told me how.. You haven't told me which myth busters video you are using you haven't told me which recording program you haven't told me how you are running the videos side by side..

Well, if the programs I used caused the missing frames, we should find different ones. I used Youtube video downloader to download the clips. I used Virtual bud to speed up Young's jump to 2.46, and to edit both clips to show only the jumps. I captured each frame with TNT screen capture, and AVS video editor to create the split screen.

I'm not sure where the frames were dropped along the process, but I'll try and find out.

In the meantime, do you remember saying this?....

choos

you have had two weeks to get your proof but obviously you were too lazy for it..

it took me no more than 1hr to download a free basic video editing software and the original jumping salute and verify that the dust does NOT fall too fast as your have claimed..

i cant post the video as i dont want to, just do it yourself if you dont believe me..

Right - you harped about how lazy I was, and that you used Virtualdub, etc. to measure the dust, and that it took you no time at all to do.

And then, you said you "don't want to" post the video, and that I should do it myself if I don't believe you.


So I used Virtualdub to put Young's jump to 2.46x speed. You said it was the same speed as Earth speed - but you only said the descent was the same speed.

As I think more about it, you've done everything you can to avoid a comparison of Young's jump at 2.46x speed to Mythbusters jump at Earth speed. You didn't show a video of it. And when I did, you talked only about the descent speed.

I'm sure you know that gravity will work the same way in the ascent, but in reverse - deceleration instead of acceleration? I'm not an expert in physics - unlike you claim to be - and even I know that.

That means the entire jump should be at the same speed, not just the descent.

We have to compare the entire jump, not one part of it,

I'm now going to do that, and I'll post the results....

turbonium1

Well, if the programs I used caused the missing frames, we should find different ones. I used Youtube video downloader to download the clips. I used Virtual bud to speed up Young's jump to 2.46, and to edit both clips to show only the jumps. I captured each frame with TNT screen capture, and AVS video editor to create the split screen.

I'm not sure where the frames were dropped along the process, but I'll try and find out.

honestly i dont think its possible to record those missing frames..

unless you have a recorder that is able to record at a very very high rate..

but try slow motion that should work..

Right - you harped about how lazy I was, and that you used Virtualdub, etc. to measure the dust, and that it took you no time at all to do.

And then, you said you "don't want to" post the video, and that I should do it myself if I don't believe you.


So I used Virtualdub to put Young's jump to 2.46x speed. You said it was the same speed as Earth speed - but you only said the descent was the same speed.

As I think more about it, you've done everything you can to avoid a comparison of Young's jump at 2.46x speed to Mythbusters jump at Earth speed. You didn't show a video of it. And when I did, you talked only about the descent speed.

I'm sure you know that gravity will work the same way in the ascent, but in reverse - deceleration instead of acceleration? I'm not an expert in physics - unlike you claim to be - and even I know that.

That means the entire jump should be at the same speed, not just the descent.

We have to compare the entire jump, not one part of it,

I'm now going to do that, and I'll post the results....

i never said that *only* the descent would match..

the ascent will match as well, provided you get the apex close together..

do you remember the dust kick video??


YOU were the one who claimed you cant see the dust hit the ground.. I was the one claiming you dont need to see it hit the ground when you can see it reach its apex..

why do you need to get the apex close together?? because the mythbusters jumps higher..

also i never claimed to be an expert in physics, i only claimed that YOU lack any basic knowledge in basic physics, which was evidently true..

p.s. regarding how you have finally realised gravity works in the same way in the ascent phase.. its good to see you are learning, albeit slowly..

turbonium1

Unlike you, I don't automatically believe someone's every word just because I once shook hands with them.

However, it is a perfect example of Apollo-ite idol-worship. You look at the Apollo astronauts as if they were living Gods.

Shaking hands with one of your Gods has definitely left an indelible impression on you.

lets compare shall we?

charlie duke claims to have went to the moon, has abundant LIVE video footage of his mission occuring, has support of several hundred people who built the machines to send him there, to track his mission, to record his mission etc.

and on the other hand we have jarrah white and his 66.66% slow down THEORY

jarrah white claiming that lunar footage is normal earth footage slowed to 66.66% with his own edited footage..

nah you dont automatically believe someones every word just because you shook hands with them.. not at all.. you believe their every word because they say so..

has jarrah explained to you yet how slowing down 1g earth footage down 66.66% to achieve lunar footage will mean that EVERYTHING MUST BE FILMED AT A CONSTANT GRAVITY OF 3.645m/s^2?? or did he conveniently leave that bit out?

why must everything have been filmed at 3.645m/s^2?? because lunar dust falls at 1.62m/s^2

if you speed up lunar footage 1.5x then dust will fall at 3.645m/s^2..



the dust in this video falls at 1.62m/s^2.. john young falls at 1.62m/s^2



but nope you just believe jarrah white because he says lunar footage is 66.66% slowed earth 1g footage..

choos

why do you need to get the apex close together?? because the mythbusters jumps higher..

Go back and view the clip I posted earlier, where they both land at about the same time.

Pause the clip at the point where Young is just about to begin his jump.

Where is the Mythbusters guy in the same frame?

He is high above the ground, right?

Go through the rest of the clip, frame by frame.

How much higher does the Mythbusters guy go?

Not a lot higher than he was when Young was still on the ground, right?

He had already attained at least 3/4 of his final height before Young had even begun his jump. The last 1/4 was reached after Young had started his jump.

How can they land at the same time if both jumps are at the same speed?

Let's say 3/4 of Mythbusters jump is the apex of Young's jump.

It's impossible for Young to land at the same time as Mythbusters guy if both are jumping at 1g speed.

You can calculate it, if you'd like. Or we could demonstrate it with two objects.

Suppose you throw Ball 'A' eight feet high, and you throw Ball 'B' six feet high. But you don't throw Ball 'B' into the air until Ball 'A' has reached a height of six feet (3/4 of its final height).

Will Ball 'B' reach its apex of six feet at the same time Ball 'A' has descended to six feet?

That's what you're saying about Young and Mythbusters...

reply to post by webstra

Ok, don't worry , i will remember you again on your links when you forget it.

As I suspect you know, those links were to a Russian Moon Hoax website. Let me try to respond to your initial challenge: naming the scientists who received and analyzed samples from the Apollo missions. As the Russian conspirators claim, the most logical scientist to study this material would be the one in charge of analyzing the samples returned from the Lunokhod missions, Alexander P. Vinogradov. Although he had written many papers comparing the samples, Russian Moon Hoax propagandists claim that he never received or studied Apollo material. They are, of course, lying:



Scroll down to page 159.

In addition, this from a Russian source:

Luna-24 brought back 170.1 grams of lunar soil packed in a 160-centimeter-long cylindrical column. It was more than three times the amount delivered by a previous Soviet sample-return mission -- Luna-20. (118) Samples were studied and stored at the Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytical Chemistry, GEOKhI, of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Some samples from the Luna-24 mission were provided to the Geological institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, as well as 0.91 grams to the British scientists. During his visit to Moscow three months after Luna-24's return to Earth, NASA scientist Dr. Michael Duke exchanged three grams of samples from Luna-24 for 0.5 grams of samples delivered by Apollo astronauts. Luna-24 samples were then studied in the lunar research institute in Houston as well as a number of US academic institutions.

www.russianspaceweb.com...

So, we have a photograph of one exchange actually happening, and a citation suggesting that at least one other one took place. In any event, the lunar samples would have wound up at the Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry. Here is a link to their web page:

www.meteorites.ru...

Well? Doesn't this make those Russian propaganda sites you've been frequenting look silly?

turbonium1
How much higher does the Mythbusters guy go?

compare their starting points and compare their relative size and realise that the mythbusters camera is further away than the camera filming john young..

im basically saying that because the mythbusters are further from the camera the height they jump looks similar to the height john young jumps..

john young is about 175cm.. adam savage is about 182cm tall

You can calculate it, if you'd like. Or we could demonstrate it with two objects.

Suppose you throw Ball 'A' eight feet high, and you throw Ball 'B' six feet high. But you don't throw Ball 'B' into the air until Ball 'A' has reached a height of six feet (3/4 of its final height).

Will Ball 'B' reach its apex of six feet at the same time Ball 'A' has descended to six feet?

That's what you're saying about Young and Mythbusters...

not really

what i am saying is if you throw ball A to a height of 8 feet, and you delay throwing ball B to a height of 6 feet so that they both approach their respective apex at the same time... they will both fall at the same rate..

also, why would you believe that NASA managed to screw up john youngs jump as they are trying to "show off" lunar gravity to the world? at 1x speed is john young too fast or too slow??

we already know that you believe that 1.5x is perfect even though it should be too slow given that the mythbusters jumps higher and lands before john young..

turbonium1

Watch the Mythbusters jump, it will provide the answers to your first 4 questions.

No. it answers the queation as to how mythbusters did it. It does not answer any of the claims you are making. Quite the opposite given the efforts that mythbusters had to go to to replicate a just few seconds of Apollo activity.

The answer to the last question is also in the Mythbusters episode. Watch the guy skip along with wires/harness attached. It doesn't get tangled up either.

Two guys, not one. Two. Duke and Young. They manage not to get their invisible wires in their invisible harnesses handled by invisible technicians tangled up when they walk around and walk past each other.

The dust does behave like it does on Earth. We've gone over this point already, not that it's relevant to the specific issue at hand.

No it does not. It has not been adequately discussed by you, you have consistently ignored it, and it is extremely relevant because while you can make up nonsense about Young and Duke's jumps, you can't explain why the dust behaves in a manner exactly consistent with a lunar environment and in no way consistent with a terrestrial one.

Unlike you, I don't automatically believe someone's every word just because I once shook hands with them.

However, it is a perfect example of Apollo-ite idol-worship. You look at the Apollo astronauts as if they were living Gods.

Shaking hands with one of your Gods has definitely left an indelible impression on you.

Unlike you I don't have a knee-jerk response to anything I don't understand, I do research and work things out. I don't believe Charlie Duke walked on the moon because I met him. I went to meet him because I know he walked on the moon.

I am more than happy to state that the Apollo astronauts are heroes of mine. That you are so scientifically illiterate as to doubt what they did is your problem, not mine. Your sneers say more about you than they do me.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

No. it answers the queation as to how mythbusters did it. It does not answer any of the claims you are making. Quite the opposite given the efforts that mythbusters had to go to to replicate a just few seconds of Apollo activity.

That Mythbusters episode #104 has been debunked. Mythbusters/Discovery Channel had the help of NASA, the Bad Astronomer and JayUtah. That's crap television garbage and you know it. Nixon's knows it, too. Nixon said that "The American people don't believe anything until they see it on television."


Why are you defending network shills like the Mythbusters when you should be impeaching them????? Especially the laser segment which did not prove anything at all. What a travesty of television. Mythbusters is pure brainwashing entertainment yet the Apollo Defenders have now linked themselves with that tv program... that's a losing battle. Whatever. Mythbusters episode #104 is not the best defense for Apollo. Think about it.

SayonaraJupiter
That Mythbusters episode #104 has been debunked.

Who says? You?

What do you base that false claim on?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

What a travesty of television.

All television is travesty. As for Mythbusters, I have never seen the program in question. You need to stop watching TV and get out in the world. This will allow you to evaluate evidence realistically.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

No. it answers the queation as to how mythbusters did it. It does not answer any of the claims you are making. Quite the opposite given the efforts that mythbusters had to go to to replicate a just few seconds of Apollo activity.

That Mythbusters episode #104 has been debunked.

Not by anyone with any intelligence who knows what they're talking about.

Mythbusters/Discovery Channel had the help of NASA, the Bad Astronomer and JayUtah.

Wow - they asked experts about the thing they know about - how dumb is that. Email Phil Plait and tell him what you think of him. I emailed him asking a question and he sent a nice reply. You can even find him on twitter to engage him in debate. He'll probably block you and call you names but at least you'll have tried. You can engage JayUtah in any number of forums - why don't you? Are you scared? Afraid he'll show you how little you understand about a subject in which you are claiming expertise? If you know so much, take them on.

That's crap television garbage and you know it.

That's crap conspiracy forum garbage. Don't presume to tell me what I know or believe. You know nothing.

Nixon's knows it, too. Nixon said that "The American people don't believe anything until they see it on television."

Blah blah blah Nixon blah blah blah. That's all you have. That quote says more about Nixon's low opinion of his fellow countrymen than the standard of TV programmes. He has a point.

Why are you defending network shills like the Mythbusters

Firstly, who I defend and why is none of your business. Answer the points raised instead of reaching for the ad hominems - the shill accusation is the shrill response of people who no argument of their own and can't believe that other people have the temerity to disagree with them. Secondly, who are you claiming they are 'shilling' for? Do you even understand what it means? Are they only pretending they believe in what they say? So what, prove it wrong. Discuss the argument, not the person.

when you should be impeaching them?????

I think you need to look up the word impeach and see what it means and why that is a stupid statement.

Especially the laser segment which did not prove anything at all.

The existence of laser retroreflectors placed there by Apollo astronauts is proven by this segment of the programme, by many other TV programmes that have also done it, and the many scientists who have used them. Prove them wrong.

What a travesty of television. Mythbusters is pure brainwashing entertainment yet the Apollo Defenders have now linked themselves with that tv program... that's a losing battle. Whatever. Mythbusters episode #104 is not the best defense for Apollo. Think about it.

Prove any of it wrong. It might involve thinking about it but surely it won't hurt that much.

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

What a travesty of television.

All television is travesty. As for Mythbusters, I have never seen the program in question. You need to stop watching TV and get out in the world. This will allow you to evaluate evidence realistically.

DJW, you're getting sloppy. How is it possible for you to participate in this thread, reading the lengthy exchanges between Turbo and choos, et al, regarding the Mythbusters Moon Hoax Episode #104... and you still say you have never seen episode #104??? Why are you even commenting on it?


You can watch it here on Discovery www.discovery.com...
You can read about it on iMDB www.imdb.com...
You can read another detailed review here mythbustersresults.com...

MythBusters: Season 6, Episode 11
NASA Moon Landing Hoax (27 Aug. 2008)
TV Episode - 44 min - Documentary | Mystery

Are you at all familiar with the cv's of the two hot-shot hosts of Mythbusters?/DiscoveryChannel?? Both Jamie Hyneman and Adan Savage are Hollywood special effects technicians.

www.imdb.com...
www.imdb.com...

Lemme repeat that for you in large text
Hollywood special effects technicians

SayonaraJupiter

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

What a travesty of television.

All television is travesty. As for Mythbusters, I have never seen the program in question. You need to stop watching TV and get out in the world. This will allow you to evaluate evidence realistically.

DJW, you're getting sloppy. How is it possible for you to participate in this thread, reading the lengthy exchanges between Turbo and choos, et al, regarding the Mythbusters Moon Hoax Episode #104... and you still say you have never seen episode #104??? Why are you even commenting on it?


You can watch it here on Discovery www.discovery.com...
You can read about it on iMDB www.imdb.com...
You can read another detailed review here mythbustersresults.com...

MythBusters: Season 6, Episode 11
NASA Moon Landing Hoax (27 Aug. 2008)
TV Episode - 44 min - Documentary | Mystery

Are you at all familiar with the cv's of the two hot-shot hosts of Mythbusters?/DiscoveryChannel?? Both Jamie Hyneman and Adan Savage are Hollywood special effects technicians.

www.imdb.com...
www.imdb.com...

Lemme repeat that for you in large text
Hollywood special effects technicians

You know what i heard mythbusters was actually controlled by Richard Nixon to cover up plots by the new world order who are actually aliens from zeti reticuli here to harvest humans for research. Just trying to help since we all know Nixon was a super genius in control of everything,though oddly couldnt keep himself from being impeached. Or in other words what difference does it make who the myth busters are its a TV show used for entertainment. And even with there limited science ability they could show how ridiculous hoaxers claims were.If you dont agree with the show simply explain why they're wrong .Or to put it simply if those two clowns were smart enough to figure out the truth why cant you?

reply to post by onebigmonkey

Don't presume to tell me what I know or believe.

Please keep that in mind at all times here on ATS. Don't preach it, do it.

I'm calling your bluff, mate.

You can engage JayUtah in any number of forums - why don't you? Are you scared? Afraid he'll show you how little you understand about a subject in which you are claiming expertise? If you know so much, take them on.

Scared of what? Discovery channel CIA shills? Please.

Apollo Defenders all seem to have the same weakness... Richard Nixon. I will be happy to school you on Richard Nixon's Nazi connections, his connections to Operation Paperclip and Howard Hughes all of the historical details which YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE.

It's easy to wipe the floor with these Apollo Defenders because they ain't got no concept about Richard Nixon, James Fletcher, Howard Hughes, Mobots, Surveyors, Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, Frank Shakespeare or Farouk El-Baz, or anything outside of the "Official NASA Apollo narratives"... like Ed Nixon over at Bellcomm or like Jim Irwin's cover job at Hughes Aircraft working on missile systems or the fact that a Hughes man was connected to the Apollo 15 stamp scandal.

Apollo will always be in the context of Richard Nixon's presidency. The Apollo Defenders use tactics to dismiss Richard Nixon.

That's a technique called guarding the goalposts. The Apollo Defenders don't want anyone to think "outside the box" because they mistakenly believe that they control that "box" of Apollo narratives.

It's a literally a Pandora's Box when you take the time to scratch the surface of Apollo, "open the box". There are Nazis, Nixons, Howard Hughes Hollywood connections.

We also know that Neil Armstrong was selling his secrets for "hundreds of pounds."

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

DJW, you're getting sloppy. How is it possible for you to participate in this thread, reading the lengthy exchanges between Turbo and choos, et al, regarding the Mythbusters Moon Hoax Episode #104... and you still say you have never seen episode #104??? Why are you even commenting on it?

It is not a primary source, and has nothing to contribute to the historical record. But then, you are interested in everything but the historical record.

SayonaraJupiter

We also know that Neil Armstrong was selling his secrets for "hundreds of pounds."

if neil armstrong was selling his secrets for "hundreds of pounds" why didnt he sell the secret that they faked it??

SayonaraJupiter
Please keep that in mind at all times here on ATS. Don't preach it, do it.

I'm calling your bluff, mate.

Any time you want to answer the numerous questions I've asked you about specific pieces of evidence feel free. My website is in my sig, all the work I've actually done while you sit around re-arranging your Nixon realdolls is there for you to analyse and discuss. Don't preach it, do it.

Scared of what? Discovery channel CIA shills? Please.

What's that noise? Is it..is it a chicken? Why yes I think it is....

Apollo Defenders all seem to have the same weakness... Richard Nixon. I will be happy to school you on Richard Nixon's Nazi connections, his connections to Operation Paperclip and Howard Hughes all of the historical details which YOU CHOOSE TO IGNORE.

BECAUSE I DO NOT CARE AND IT IS NOT RELEVANT. Clear enough? Stop thinking that you're educating anyone, Nixon's record is common knowledge, you are not the only person who knows about it - you're just the only one who's bothered.

It's easy to wipe the floor with these Apollo Defenders

Then how come you've failed so far?

because they ain't got no concept about Richard Nixon, James Fletcher, Howard Hughes, Mobots, Surveyors, Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, Frank Shakespeare or Farouk El-Baz, or anything outside of the "Official NASA Apollo narratives"... like Ed Nixon over at Bellcomm or like Jim Irwin's cover job at Hughes Aircraft working on missile systems or the fact that a Hughes man was connected to the Apollo 15 stamp scandal.

Apollo will always be in the context of Richard Nixon's presidency. The Apollo Defenders use tactics to dismiss Richard Nixon.

There are no tactics involved. Nixon is irrelevant. He neither conceived nor wanted Apollo, which is why he cancelled it. He took the credit and killed it. That's all there is to know. Your opinion that it is important is sadly mistaken.

That's a technique called guarding the goalposts. The Apollo Defenders don't want anyone to think "outside the box" because they mistakenly believe that they control that "box" of Apollo narratives.

You're as obsessed with thinking everyone is employing tactics and strategies to defeat you, when all people are doing is pointing out how wrong you are. This is about defending the truth about science, not defeating you. You suggesting otherwise smacks of paranoia.

It's a literally a Pandora's Box

No, because then that would be Pandora's box.

when you take the time to scratch the surface of Apollo, "open the box". There are Nazis, Nixons, Howard Hughes Hollywood connections.

Only in your imagination.

We also know that Neil Armstrong was selling his secrets for "hundreds of pounds."

No, you are deliberately taking an appearance fee out of context and trying to make it sound bad.

Now, how about you try and explain how photographs taken by Apollo 15's ascent video and by the Hasselblad show features that are an exact match for images taken by the LRO? See if you can answer that question without resorting to diversionary tactics, obfuscation, some crap about Reseau crosses and Nixon.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


You forget he already told you hes not here to disprove apollo. Mostly because he knows he cant but he said he is here to be a shill. He likes to watch people run around because the slightest thing he says gives him power. Makes him feel complete so he doesnt feel so bad about his life. And it allows him to talk about his Hero Richard Nixon all around a win win for him. He has never posted one shred of evidence of any hoax other than his sincerity on the topic since on other threads hes admitted they went to the moon but there he was claiming they were told to leave because of aliens. Does this tell you who your dealing with? Just go to his profile look at some of his comments on other threads its most enlightening.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

some crap about Reseau crosses

Like I said, Apollo Defenders do not respect the ethics of photojournalism, they will accept CGI/photoshopped pictures from NASA/ASU.. without so much as a whimper.

Nixon is irrelevant. He neither conceived nor wanted Apollo, which is why he cancelled it. He took the credit and killed it. That's all there is to know.

James Webb quit NASA because he knew WHO was coming into office and what was coming up ... starting with Apollo 8 Nixon's Apollo astronaut Bible readings at Christmas time, brought to you through the magic of television!

See the Apollo Defender once again tries to diminish the historical relevance of Richard Nixon's presidency to the Apollo program. Foolish, to say the least. Nixon cancelled Apollo and immediately spent $4 Billion dollars bombing Viet Nam... "We Came in Peace For All Mankind" The Space Shuttle program was built up by the NASA Administrator James Fletcher, a Mormon scientist who worked for Howard Hughes.

See it's not a matter of money, it's a matter of political will. And Richard Nixon had a lot political will in 1969-1972. Nixon had been hunting commies for a long, long time. He was never going to let the commies beat him to the "moon".

No, you are deliberately taking an appearance fee out of context and trying to make it sound bad.

Because it is BAD! It hurts your Apollo-worshipping ego to see that guy (Neil Armstrong) taking "hundreds of pounds" EACH from the attendees of the Australian CPA conference.

In the end, you approve of CGI manipulation of Apollo images by NASA/ASU; you approve of astronauts smuggling Apollo gear and selling it for personal gain; and you approve of keeping Richard Nixon out of the Apollo narratives when you say he is not relevant.

In my humble opinion Apollo Defenders have not picked their battles very wisely.

What's that noise? Is it..is it a chicken? Why yes I think it is....

Can't win so you start the name calling. I thought we had been over name calling before? Apollogies to all those who have seen this graphic before... but it needs to be posted ever 5 pages to remind Apollo Defenders how to play the game.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Hey! Just out of curiosity... could you give us some sense of where you stand on the Ukraine situation? This is not as off topic as you might think.