Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by FoosM


Well, the Russians landed an unmanned craft on the moon two and a half years before the Americans did (Luna 2), so yes, I'd say they have demonstrated that. Have you demonstrated that you can read and understand science rather than parroting half-remembered factoids from proven charlatans such as Jarrah the boy genius [sic] White?

DJW001

FoosM

wmd_2008

FoosM

wmd_2008

demus

so guys, can anyone tell me for sure did "we" landed on the Moon or not?
I mean 100% sure?

Well all the landing sites were pictured by the LRO in orbit around the Moon and very small craters and rocks that are in the Hasselblad images taken by the Astronauts can be seen in the LRO images there are hundreds of these small objects so that alone is enough proof well for anyone with a reasonable level of common sense.

LRO was owned by who? The Russians?

Hey SHADOW man it doesn't matter who owns it there are HUNDREDS of small objects/craters that can be seen on LRO images that match with Hasselblad images.

So NASA's Hasselblad images match their own LRO images...
Wow. Amazing. Bravo. Who would have thunk?

They also match images from Chandra, Kaguya, Lunikh....

And they all show footprints and remnants of the moonlanding?

Rob48
reply to post by FoosM

 

Well, the Russians landed an unmanned craft on the moon two and a half years before the Americans did (Luna 2), so yes, I'd say they have demonstrated that. Have you demonstrated that you can read and understand science rather than parroting half-remembered factoids from proven charlatans such as Jarrah the boy genius [sic] White?

And these landings were verified, how?
What independent agency or country verified these probes landed on the moon?

Soylent Green Is People

FoosM
Take it up with ATS, YOUTUBE, or your internet provider, why are you bothering me with it when
I provide directs links as well.

The problem is with the way YOU are trying to link it.
It's caused by improper formatting on YOUR end, not an ATS or YouTube issue.

No its not.

DJW001
I wish to apologize to any new member who has stumbled onto this thread. Moon Hoax debates aren't usually this lame. Much of the content here is being recycled from this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 25-3-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Yeah, sorry for bringing up the facts that haven't been debunked vs the crap
you guys always try to use for debunking. We aren't going to make it easy for you.

And any reader out will see we have gone far beyond the waving flag issue.
The moonlanding conspiracy has been as seriously studied these last years as
JFK and conspiracies. And its gaining traction. People are waking up from the
lies they grew up.

FoosM

No, thats not how it works.
If any of the photos have been faked, it invalidates all photos as evidence.

You seem to have a bit of a problem with logic, don't you?

If EVEN ONE PHOTO can be demonstrated to have been indisputably taken on the moon by a human being then, ipso facto, man has been to the moon. The fact that there are thousands and thousands of such photos leaves HBs without a leg to stand on.

Let me extend your premise to its logical conclusion:

If ANY one piece of the "evidence" provided by hoax believers/Apollo deniers/knights of the Shining Truth (some people seem to get touchy about the HB label so call yourselves what you will) is proven to be faked or incorrect, that invalidates the whole hoax theory.

Fair's fair? You pick the rules, then let them apply to both sides? Agreed?

FoosM

DJW001

FoosM

wmd_2008

FoosM

wmd_2008

demus

so guys, can anyone tell me for sure did "we" landed on the Moon or not?
I mean 100% sure?

Well all the landing sites were pictured by the LRO in orbit around the Moon and very small craters and rocks that are in the Hasselblad images taken by the Astronauts can be seen in the LRO images there are hundreds of these small objects so that alone is enough proof well for anyone with a reasonable level of common sense.

LRO was owned by who? The Russians?

Hey SHADOW man it doesn't matter who owns it there are HUNDREDS of small objects/craters that can be seen on LRO images that match with Hasselblad images.

So NASA's Hasselblad images match their own LRO images...
Wow. Amazing. Bravo. Who would have thunk?

They also match images from Chandra, Kaguya, Lunikh....

And they all show footprints and remnants of the moonlanding?

They verify that the topography is correct. Where is your evidence that the images are fake?

FoosM

DJW001
I wish to apologize to any new member who has stumbled onto this thread. Moon Hoax debates aren't usually this lame. Much of the content here is being recycled from this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

edit on 25-3-2014 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)

Yeah, sorry for bringing up the facts that haven't been debunked vs the crap
you guys always try to use for debunking. We aren't going to make it easy for you.

And any reader out will see we have gone far beyond the waving flag issue.
The moonlanding conspiracy has been as seriously studied these last years as
JFK and conspiracies. And its gaining traction. People are waking up from the
lies they grew up.

FACTS that's good coming from you care to explain this picture of yours to all the new members on here please explain your logic for producing this



What FACTS were used in working out the light path for the shadows

reply to post by FoosM

And any reader out will see we have gone far beyond the waving flag issue.

Yes, now you are confused by the way shadows form and how parallax works.

The moonlanding conspiracy has been as seriously studied these last years as
JFK and conspiracies.

By many of the same crackpots.

And its gaining traction.

Further proof of a failing educational system.

People are waking up from the lies they grew up.

And learning new ones online. YouTube: the future of ignorance.

reply to post by FoosM

Have you ever heard of Jodrell Bank? It's a radio telescope right here in the UK. just one of many independent sites that confirmed what Russia was doing.

In contrast to its failure to pick up Luna 1 earlier that year Jodrell Bank now promptly picked up signals. It may be interesting to examine the technical details of the receiving system. The antenna feed for 183.6 MHz was a folded wire dipole with a reflector and on 20 MHz a folded wire dipole without reflector was used. The bandwidth used to receive signals on 183.6 MHz was 5 kHz and on 750 Hz on 20 MHz (10). Signals were recorded on tape and sent to the Russians. The tape recording of the signals on 19.992 MHz from Luna 2 were made with the tape recorder connected directly to the radio receiver, while the signals on 183.6 MHz were recorded via a microphone (11). This is the reason for hearing voice announcements and timing information on the tapes with signals from Luna 2 on 183.6 MHz. Also, the local oscillator of the 183.6 MHz receiver was not under crystal control and the pitch variations heard on the tape sent to Moscow therefore were due to receiver drift.

On 13 September 1959, Moscow again sent pointing data for Jodrell Bank. The data series starts at 1700 UT, the time when the probe would rise above Jodrell's horizon and ends at 2100 UT, the expected time of hitting the moon!:

The announcement by professor Lovell that the signals from Luna 2 had ceased at 2102:23 UT on 13 September 1959 was the first confirmation the world received that an object made by humans had travelled from the earth to another heavenly body!

Read all about it

What is it with HBs? You ask all these questions that you could find the answers to in minutes if you actually cared? And you would know that the answers are not the answers you hope or expect to receive when you toss out these casual questions. HBs: "Ah ha, but did anyone confirm it?" Answer: yes, and here is some reading matter. HBs: *deafening silence*

reply to post by FoosM


How about this FoosM

Apollo 11 trace

From the above

In the second half of the graph you can see a smoother signal which then shows several wiggles up and down. These wiggles show where Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Lander to fly it over uneven ground.

Rob48

FoosM

No, thats not how it works.
If any of the photos have been faked, it invalidates all photos as evidence.

You seem to have a bit of a problem with logic, don't you?

If EVEN ONE PHOTO can be demonstrated to have been indisputably taken on the moon by a human being then, ipso facto, man has been to the moon. The fact that there are thousands and thousands of such photos leaves HBs without a leg to stand on.

Let me extend your premise to its logical conclusion:

If ANY one piece of the "evidence" provided by hoax believers/Apollo deniers/knights of the Shining Truth (some people seem to get touchy about the HB label so call yourselves what you will) is proven to be faked or incorrect, that invalidates the whole hoax theory.

Fair's fair? You pick the rules, then let them apply to both sides? Agreed?

How can you criticize my logic if you are using my logic to make your point?

Here is the problem that you have.
You can't prove that any of the photos that were made were made on the moon by a human
being on the moon in the late 1960's to early 70's. You can't prove it.

But I can prove, and have shown, inconsistencies in the photographic record that would be impossible
on the moon or here on Earth. Therefore we can safely conclude the photos were faked and staged.

Now its on you "believers" you "faithful" to provide undeniable proof that any of the Apollo photos that
were claimed to be made by astronauts on the moon, were made on the moon.

We all await this evidence.

DJW001

FoosM

DJW001

FoosM

wmd_2008

FoosM

wmd_2008

demus

so guys, can anyone tell me for sure did "we" landed on the Moon or not?
I mean 100% sure?

Well all the landing sites were pictured by the LRO in orbit around the Moon and very small craters and rocks that are in the Hasselblad images taken by the Astronauts can be seen in the LRO images there are hundreds of these small objects so that alone is enough proof well for anyone with a reasonable level of common sense.

LRO was owned by who? The Russians?

Hey SHADOW man it doesn't matter who owns it there are HUNDREDS of small objects/craters that can be seen on LRO images that match with Hasselblad images.

So NASA's Hasselblad images match their own LRO images...
Wow. Amazing. Bravo. Who would have thunk?

They also match images from Chandra, Kaguya, Lunikh....

And they all show footprints and remnants of the moonlanding?

They verify that the topography is correct. Where is your evidence that the images are fake?

Watch my videos

But why dont they show footprints, et al?

wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

How about this FoosM

Apollo 11 trace

From the above

In the second half of the graph you can see a smoother signal which then shows several wiggles up and down. These wiggles show where Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Lander to fly it over uneven ground.

So this somehow explains how Dave and Jim tilted the leg of their LM?
I dont think so.

FoosM


So NASA's Hasselblad images match their own LRO images...
Wow. Amazing. Bravo. Who would have thunk?

If the Hasselblad images didn't match the LRO images then I'm sure you'd be trumpeting it from the rooftops!

So, in HB land,
images matching = evidence of a hoax
images not matching = evidence of a hoax
image quality too good = evidence of a hoax
image quality too poor = evidence of a hoax
not enough photos taken (eg mugshots of Apollo 12 crew in cislunar space) = evidence of a hoax
too many photos taken = evidence of a hoax

Let me ask you, is there ANYTHING that you don't consider to be evidence of a hoax?

FoosM

DJW001

FoosM

DJW001

FoosM

DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

Once again, you have posted a dead link. Are you doing that deliberately?

No, but I think Dave and Jim deliberately lifted the leg of the LM to show it was fake.


www.youtube.com...

Where do they do that? Your video doesn't work. And you owe me an apology.

Im not going to apologize if you cant watch videos on ATS.
Maybe your job is blocking content.
Would that be NASA perhaps?

video

The apology is for accusing me of lying. That makes you the liar, not me. I finally managed to see the video. Remember when we discussed it three years ago? The ladder doesn't move, the camera moves. It is mounted on a hinged platform that can shake when the astronauts bounce down the ladder. Remember?

The ladder moves. And it moves while the astronauts are on the ground, not bouncing down the ladder.
Sorry, you fail again.
Watch this folks:

But if you insist its the camera moving, why doesn't the entire image tilt?

No They didnt even if it was a mock up it would still be just like the one they had on earth weighing hundreds of pounds. So they would still have to be superman. As far as the moving leg take the time to look how the camera was mounted. It will answer all your questions More specifically look at the landing gear design and see where it attaches to the ship ill give you a clue it opens up Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly as it lands. From there its easy to figure out why it looks like it moves the secondary strut just took up weight from the astronaut causing the camera to move. Here everything you could want to know about apollo landing gear is in here.


ntrs.nasa.gov...

FoosM
Here is the problem that you have.
You can't prove that any of the photos that were made were made on the moon by a human
being on the moon in the late 1960's to early 70's. You can't prove it.

Well yes we can, what with live TV showing images of Earth that could only have been taken in space and on the lunar surface because they show weather patterns acurrate for the time they were broadcast. Rocks and craters shown on live TV and featured in the following day's newspapers that were not photographed again for another 40 years. Astronauts in lunar gravity, samples of lunar material, data broadcast from the lunar surface, photographs of Apollo hardware, the list of supporting evidence is massive.

But I can prove, and have shown, inconsistencies in the photographic record that would be impossible
on the moon or here on Earth. Therefore we can safely conclude the photos were faked and staged.

I must have blinked and missed this. Now not only are the photos not taken on the moon they weren't taken on Earth either.

Now its on you "believers" you "faithful" to provide undeniable proof that any of the Apollo photos that
were claimed to be made by astronauts on the moon, were made on the moon.

The historical record is there for you to disprove, go ahead and do it. I've done my bit on my website to demonstrate that Apollo is a proven historical fact, you need to provide some evidence that you've done that it isn't. Not your special HB friends, not a youtube video that someone else did, not someone else's website. Yours. Your own work that you did. Let's see it.

Rob48
reply to post by FoosM

 

Have you ever heard of Jodrell Bank? It's a radio telescope right here in the UK. just one of many independent sites that confirmed what Russia was doing.

In contrast to its failure to pick up Luna 1 earlier that year Jodrell Bank now promptly picked up signals. It may be interesting to examine the technical details of the receiving system. The antenna feed for 183.6 MHz was a folded wire dipole with a reflector and on 20 MHz a folded wire dipole without reflector was used. The bandwidth used to receive signals on 183.6 MHz was 5 kHz and on 750 Hz on 20 MHz (10). Signals were recorded on tape and sent to the Russians. The tape recording of the signals on 19.992 MHz from Luna 2 were made with the tape recorder connected directly to the radio receiver, while the signals on 183.6 MHz were recorded via a microphone (11). This is the reason for hearing voice announcements and timing information on the tapes with signals from Luna 2 on 183.6 MHz. Also, the local oscillator of the 183.6 MHz receiver was not under crystal control and the pitch variations heard on the tape sent to Moscow therefore were due to receiver drift.

On 13 September 1959, Moscow again sent pointing data for Jodrell Bank. The data series starts at 1700 UT, the time when the probe would rise above Jodrell's horizon and ends at 2100 UT, the expected time of hitting the moon!:

The announcement by professor Lovell that the signals from Luna 2 had ceased at 2102:23 UT on 13 September 1959 was the first confirmation the world received that an object made by humans had travelled from the earth to another heavenly body!

Read all about it

What is it with HBs? You ask all these questions that you could find the answers to in minutes if you actually cared? And you would know that the answers are not the answers you hope or expect to receive when you toss out these casual questions. HBs: "Ah ha, but did anyone confirm it?" Answer: yes, and here is some reading matter. HBs: *deafening silence*

Take your fingers out your ears and hear this question:

Did Jodrell Bank track Apollo from Earth to the Moon continuously?

FoosM

wmd_2008
reply to post by FoosM

 

How about this FoosM

Apollo 11 trace

From the above

In the second half of the graph you can see a smoother signal which then shows several wiggles up and down. These wiggles show where Neil Armstrong took manual control of the Lander to fly it over uneven ground.

So this somehow explains how Dave and Jim tilted the leg of their LM?
I dont think so.

That was EXPLAINED to you a long time ago so long in fact it's in the SHADOWS of your mind

FoosM


How can you criticize my logic if you are using my logic to make your point?

To show you that your logic is flawed. "Reductio ad absurdum" - sorry to hurt your brain with three whole words of Latin but it's a rather common method of proof.

Here is the problem that you have.
You can't prove that any of the photos that were made were made on the moon by a human
being on the moon in the late 1960's to early 70's. You can't prove it.

Define proof. Eyewitness proof, vast amounts of supporting evidence all of which is self-consistent, not to mention thousands of expert witnesses, all of which would be more than sufficient to stand up in any court in the land. I call that PROOF.

But I can prove, and have shown, inconsistencies in the photographic record that would be impossible
on the moon or here on Earth.

Can you? Go on then. You say you can but so far you have utterly failed to produce any evidence whatsoever other than vague ramblings and badly produced videos. If you want to produce some evidence then do so. Here, and now. We're waiting. Paste a link to the one photo you can prove is fake. And explain, without resorting to WooTube, why it is a fake. Have at it with as many annotated screenshots as you can muster. We'll wait.