Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by cestrup

My points were clear and I never stated every scientist on the Earth was in on a conspiracy. So you're not understanding me correctly and using fallacy to debate. No thanks.

So just assume I'm stupid and explain yourself clearly so that I can understand you. Why do you think men have not traveled to the Moon?

lotusfoot
Anyone who knows what a clone tool is should be suspicious of nasa. They have an entire photoshop department. The british guy Gary Mckinnon found it when he hacked into their system and got busted and almost extradited here.

"An entire photoshop department"?

You do realise, don't you, that the photographs and cine film taken on the moon are analogue artifacts that exist entirely independently of the digital world. You can't Photoshop a physical photographic print that was produced from a physical negative in 1969!

These photographs were printed, distributed, appeared in newspapers right at the time of the Apollo program. The negatives still exist for any serious researcher who wants access to them. How on earth could they have been "photoshopped"?

lotusfoot
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Has nothing to do with the lighting...

I misread your post; I thought your wrote "studio lighting" rather than "studio landing"

...its the perfect circular motion in which it lands, that's thing was only capable of going straight up and down according to nasa

Huh? I never heard NASA claim that the LM could only move straight up and down. In fact the opposite is true; NASA designs for the LM shows that it has 16 Reaction control system (RCS) thrusters that were used to maneuver the LM. The RCS thrusters were used to control the pitch, roll, and yaw of the LM.



LEM RCS Lunar Module Reaction Control

Apollo Experience Report Lunar Module Reaction Control System

I have NEVER heard them say it could only move straight up and down. Please provide the source for your claim.

someone was filming from the moon when the thing took off if it really was the moon.

Did you miss my explanation above about the remote-control camera on the rover?

Yes NASA officially said they lost the original video, that was the real kicker for me.

Yes, that's a shame, but I think the problem was that everyone was so used to viewing the copies that the locations of the originals were forgotten. I mean, they had the copies, so they probably didn't have an immediate need for the originals.

Buzz Aldrin is full of it talking about 3 mile wide ufos in NASA videos, hahahah, you trust this guy that cant tell a speck of dust on camera from a 3 mile wide ufo? I cant remember the rest of you beef.

That's not my question, but I agree with the poster above who asked you to please provide us a link to the quote, or some other confirmation that Aldrin actually said this.

reply to post by DJW001


I don't assume your stupid. What's with this? I think you're highly intelligent albeit, biased towards the authoritatiive narrative and unwilling to see that perhaps science can be manipulated.

I don't think we went to the moon. I think there's clearly an agenda as to why we'd fake it (I won't go into all of it because I'm sure you've heard it all before). I believe the videos look exactly like a man on a harness with video slowed down. I have seen anomalies in photo graphic evidence that have not been explained to my content. Conflicting reports about the VA Belt. The fact we nor anyone else has even been a fraction of how far the Apollo missions went. The transmissons seem fishy as well as all of the "lost" info/data.

I realize you have talking points for all of these ad nauseum. I've read them. Here's the part where you assure me I'm stupid because I don't agree with them verbatim (see, I can use fallacy too!)

reply to post by DJW001


ok give me a minute and Ill find another one, there definitely is one where he specifically yells and says that. UFO hunters thought the same thing until a cameraman disproved it to them. That's when I said someone needs to tell Aldrin because he thinks those are real..

reply to post by cestrup

I don't think we went to the moon. I think there's clearly an agenda as to why we'd fake it (I won't go into all of it because I'm sure you've heard it all before).

There is also clearly an agenda for convincing people that it was faked. Why do you subscribe to this agenda?

I believe the videos look exactly like a man on a harness with video slowed down.

That is a belief, not a fact. In fact, the videos are so long, continuous and cover such large distances that they cannot have been faked in that way.

I have seen anomalies in photo graphic evidence that have not been explained to my content.

Here is your opportunity to present one.

Conflicting reports about the VA Belt.

There are no conflicting reports about the Van Allen Belts. They have been thoroughly studied and the technology we use on a daily basis requires that understanding.

The fact we nor anyone else has even been a fraction of how far the Apollo missions went.

Extremely irrelevant.

The transmissons seem fishy as well as all of the "lost" info/data.

Can you be more specific? Fishy is a highly subjective term.

I realize you have talking points for all of these ad nauseum. I've read them. Here's the part where you assure me I'm stupid because I don't agree with them verbatim (see, I can use fallacy too!)

No, this is where I ask you to get specific.

DJW001
reply to post by cestrup

 

I don't think we went to the moon. I think there's clearly an agenda as to why we'd fake it (I won't go into all of it because I'm sure you've heard it all before).

There is also clearly an agenda for convincing people that it was faked. Why do you subscribe to this agenda?

I believe the videos look exactly like a man on a harness with video slowed down.

.

What is this agenda? Honestly, I've never heard of it nor imagined it. What is it?

lotusfoot
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Has nothing to do with the lighting, its the perfect circular motion in which it lands, that's thing was only capable of going straight up and down according to nasa

So let me get this straight, Nasa spent billions designing a lunar lander that can only go "straight up and down"? Could you tell me three things:

1) Who told you this?

2) What does "straight up and down" mean when you are in orbit around the moon?

3) How then do you explain this footage of the LM quite clearly manoeuvring on its axis? YouTube link. Watch from 8:45 onwards.


As for the missing footage, again, there is no missing footage.

Do you understand the difference between a video camera and a cine camera?

The Apollo 11 TV camera transmitted live video, through space, to the Earth, where it was broadcast on television (and recorded off the TV) and also stored on tape. We have the recordings of those broadcasts off the TV equipment; what we don't have is the actual tape recording, which is in an obsolete format anyway. Would it be nice to have it, and perhaps be able to get much better quality images from it? Yes it would. Have they lost anything particularly important, or that wasn't recorded by other means? No.

The cine cameras used film. Remember film? Recording tiny 16mm photographs up to 24 times a second on long spools of physical film. That film was carried back to Earth in the capsules.

cestrup
I believe the videos look exactly like a man on a harness with video slowed down.

DJW001
That is a belief, not a fact. In fact, the videos are so long, continuous and cover such large distances that they cannot have been faked in that way.

DJW --

it's not only that, but the physics of the motions of the various objects in those films (such as the falling dust) don't work if we attempt to explain it was hoaxed by "slowing the film down". Not only that, but the dust does not hang in the "air" at all in the videos (because there is no air on the moon) rather than creating suspended clouds of dust.

I suppose the lack of suspended dust (due to lack of air) could have been done in a studio located in a super-sized vacuum chamber on Earth (a really big one), but that does not explain the inconsistencies with the gravity.

"Wired" Magazine Article -- The Acceleration of Moon Dust

Here is a video (from the article above) of what it would look like if the dust was falling a earth gravity (9.83 m/s/s). According to the hoax theory, this would be the "raw video" that was filmed in normal speed prior to slowing it down to make the dust appear to fall at moon gravity (1.63 m/s/s). As you can see, the video does not look right at all.




cestrup --

I have never seen a good image/video of what people call "wires". I have seen video showing the sun glinting off of the antennas on the backpack of the astronauts and the associated lens flare (what some Hoax believers incorrectly claimed were wires), but nothing that was positively wires.

Please provide a link/source/image of what it is specifically you are talking about so we can all be talking about the same thing.

FoosM

choos

FoosM

choos

FoosM

Keep digging and you will find enough info pointing to the fact that it was impossible for any human to go through the belts with Apollo space craft. They weren't designed for radiation. No protection on the windows, thin walls, etc.

thin walls?? after a quick search

Get back to me when you do a real search with the real numbers.

but that certainly does not describe "thin" now does it.. and that is only the inner shell and the outer shell..
there is also firbous insulation in between the two shells..
not to mention all the hardware inside the inner shell..
the clothing they wear..
the entire CSM and lunar module attached to the CM with all of the fuel
and consumables inside the tanks..

hardly thin

edit on 28-3-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

Like I said, go do some more research on it, and you will find out why people are using the word "thin".
And why do you keep skipping the fact they had windows?

Why are you skipping the fact the command module has two hulls??

Why are you skipping the fact the command module has a lot of equipment onboard?

Why are you skipping the fact that the astronauts was wearing suits during the passage through the belts?

Why are you skipping the fact that the command module has fibrous insulation between the outer and inner hull?

Why are you skipping the fact the csm was still attached to the command module??

cestrup

DJW001
reply to post by cestrup

 

I don't think we went to the moon. I think there's clearly an agenda as to why we'd fake it (I won't go into all of it because I'm sure you've heard it all before).

There is also clearly an agenda for convincing people that it was faked. Why do you subscribe to this agenda?

I believe the videos look exactly like a man on a harness with video slowed down.

.

What is this agenda? Honestly, I've never heard of it nor imagined it. What is it?

I haven't heard of that either. But if he means that the hoaxbelievers-agenda is bringing the truth to the people he has a point there i think.

cestrup
What is this agenda? Honestly, I've never heard of it nor imagined it. What is it?

I don't know about "agenda", but there is certainly a cottage industry (books, DVDs, commercial websites, commercial YouTube channels, TV appearances) that is fed by promoting and propagating the belief of a moon hoax. I suppose in a broad sense it could be called an "agenda"

Soylent Green Is People

cestrup
What is this agenda? Honestly, I've never heard of it nor imagined it. What is it?

I don't know about "agenda", but there is certainly a cottage industry (books, DVDs, commercial websites, TVfactor into- appearances) that is fed by promoting and propagating the belief of a moon hoax. I suppose in a broad sense it could be called an "agenda"

edit on 3/28/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Fame and money ? Not for me....

And lot's of apollo-lovers wrote also books about apollo..that wasn't for the money and becoming famous ?

webstra

Soylent Green Is People

cestrup
What is this agenda? Honestly, I've never heard of it nor imagined it. What is it?

I don't know about "agenda", but there is certainly a cottage industry (books, DVDs, commercial websites, TVfactor into- appearances) that is fed by promoting and propagating the belief of a moon hoax. I suppose in a broad sense it could be called an "agenda"

edit on 3/28/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Fame and money ? Not for me....

And lot's of apollo-lovers wrote also books about apollo..that wasn't for the money and becoming famous ?

Not everyone.
Similar to you, I'm not getting fame or money for believing we went to the Moon, either.

The cottage industry feeds on people similar to yourself (although perhaps you personally never bought a Moon Hoax book or DVD, nor ever visited a Moon Hoax website that sells ads) by freely promoting the Moon hoax, then hoping people would buy their product/visit their commercial websites/Youtube channel looking for additional information.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Other than the obvious choppy video - I'm failing to see anything odd. Then again, I'm not the world's foremost expert on dust. No offense - I appreciate your response.

cestrup
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

 

Other than the obvious choppy video - I'm failing to see anything odd. Then again, I'm not the world's foremost expert on dust. No offense - I appreciate your response.

But why would it be choppy if it was filmed at normal speed?

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


Maybe someone can help me out but there are shots on video of "pings" high above the antennae of the PLSS. Forgive me, buddy. I'm new to ATS and not familiar with all of the embedding/linking

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People


I don't think any of the film is of the greatest quality. Just my opinion

How was the photo of the moon rock with a clear "C" on it and another "C" in the foreground next to the rock ever addressed? I'm sure you're familiar with what I'm speaking of. Was is classified as pariedolia?

reply to post by cestrup


reply to post by cestrup

Rather than asking us to do all your research, why not look it up? You're on the internet: you can find just about all of human knowledge on here!

I remember reading about the "C" rock 10 years ago or more. Even back then it was common knowledge that it was a hair or fibre on a photographic print, not on the original image at all. If you go back to the original negatives it isn't there.

Read all about it here.

The difference between those who believe in a hoax and those who believe in the truth of the landings seems to be that the first group says "that looks funny, must be fake!" while the second says "that looks funny, I'm going to find out what it is!"

One kind of person just looks to argue and snipe and belittle, whereas the other has an enquiring mind and wants to learn.

See SJ's question about the reflections. I didn't know the answer so I went and looked at the design of the windows, looked at the footage and it soon became clear what was happening.

Sorry if I sound abrupt but it is quite frustrating seeing the same questions and theories bouncing around for ever. At least you are asking slightly more reasonable questions than the rubbish spouted by lotusfoot, although judging from his spelling, grammar etc I don't think he is a native English speaker so maybe something is getting lost in translation. At least I hope that's the explanation.