Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by Rob48

 

I love how you make the leap of logic from "something is missing from one NASA document" to "the whole thing was a fake". To me, that raises a "red flag" over the state of your powers of logic.

I didn't actually make that jump... you made it for me.

Orloff/NASA, in NASA SP-4029, omitted the Apollo 15 tv press conference at 270 (270 in the timeline) so that nobody would go looking for the video. As DJW pointed out there are no floating objects in that video and it's pretty impossible to prove that the video was recorded in 0g.

Jim Irwin said not just a "tame simulation"... he said "a VERY tame simulation". Lol. Maybe that's why NASA doesn't want people looking for that video. These Apollo 15 guys are stamp smugglers, they can't be trusted.

These are also the guys who put the Genesis Rock in Sample bag 196, but it wasn't in the bag when they opened it up back on Earth.

Thank you for illustrating all my points in a single post.

reply to post by DJW001


What did you think of that James Fletcher/Howard Hughes connection. I bet you didn't see that coming.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by DJW001

 

What did you think of that James Fletcher/Howard Hughes connection. I bet you didn't see that coming.

So what? Seriously, explain the significance of someone in the aerospace industry collecting space memorabilia as evidence of staged Moon landings. Why would someone want to collect something if they knew it hadn't really been to the Moon?

DJW001

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by DJW001

 

What did you think of that James Fletcher/Howard Hughes connection. I bet you didn't see that coming.

So what? Seriously, explain the significance of someone in the aerospace industry collecting space memorabilia as evidence of staged Moon landings. Why would someone want to collect something if they knew it hadn't really been to the Moon?

Well hes right we didnt see that one coming where not sure there's any connection to reality. See he said in this thread hes not trying to prove Apollo didnt go to the moon. And well with posts like that now we know why.

PS dont try to figure out his logic there isnt anything if it mentions Howard Hughes or Nixon hes posting it. but at least its getting easier since he all ways posts the same thing with the same graphics either its someone elses work or hes getting lazy.

SayonaraJupiter


Jim Irwin said not just a "tame simulation"... he said "a VERY tame simulation". Lol. Maybe that's why NASA doesn't want people looking for that video. These Apollo 15 guys are stamp smugglers, they can't be trusted.

The video that was actually a live TV press conference and where the transcript has been publicly available for decades?

Here's the context for that quote, because you won't give it:

****

270:45:05 Henize: Question number 14. It seemed this flight had as many problems as some of the old Gemini missions. Which of these gave you the most concern; and, for Dave, did you ever feel you were back on Gemini VIII?

270:45:23 Scott: Well, I guess we weren't aware we had that many problems. I thought this was a rather trouble-free flight, myself. We went a long way, we spent a long time doing the job, and I think, relative to the number of systems we have in all the spacecraft, that we had very few problems. I can think of none that were significant that would enable me to compare it with Gemini VIII at all. We had a - I guess the first little problem we had was a - a leak in our water system, which was cleared up rather rapidly by somebody having already done some investigation and having a procedure at hand. I believe our system is such that people have all the anticipated problems understood, and, when they have them understood, they come up with solutions which are quite meaningful and successful. And I feel like the spacecraft and the life support systems on the Moon and everything worked exceedingly well. I - I guess really I couldn't ask for much more. [To Jim.] How about you?

270:46:37 Worden (onboard): Well, I really don't...

270:46:38 Scott (onboard): No, go ahead.

270:46:40 Irwin: You know really, we had very few problems. It seemed like a very tame simulation, as far as I was concerned.

*****

So he wasn't saying the mission was a tame simulation which is what you are slyly inferring, he was saying that it felt like one, that the problems were not that big a deal, that they had covered all the bases in their training.

These are also the guys who put the Genesis Rock in Sample bag 196, but it wasn't in the bag when they opened it up back on Earth.

Again you are exposed by the lack of depth in your knowledge.

During the collection of the sample they mention bag 196, but the next bag they mention is bag 170, so clearly they just got mixed up and meant 169.

Watch the video of them collecting it. Their movements, and the movements of all the lunar regolith they disturb, are entirely consistent with lunar gravity. The sample itself has been analysed and it is entirely consistent with being from the moon, How about that.



E2a: If anyone doubts that it was a live on TV press conference, check out the date on this press wire photo

www.ebay.co.uk...

The BS stands for Baltimore Sun, not what some will claim it does,

onebigmonkey
...So he wasn't saying the mission was a tame simulation which is what you are slyly inferring, he was saying that it felt like one, that the problems were not that big a deal, that they had covered all the bases in their training...

Absolutely correct. When the context of what Jim Irwin said is considered, it is clear that the "it" in the phrase "it seemed like a tame simulation" is "the mission", as in

"[the mission] seemed like a tame simulation", as in "the mission went off as well as our best simulations".

The only way someone could think Irwin was implying that it was all just a simulation would be to ignore the context of the discussion -- and I'm not sure why anyone would want to ignore the context, unless they were trying to be intentionally disingenuous.

Soylent Green Is People

onebigmonkey
...So he wasn't saying the mission was a tame simulation which is what you are slyly inferring, he was saying that it felt like one, that the problems were not that big a deal, that they had covered all the bases in their training...

Absolutely correct. When the context of what Jim Irwin said is considered, it is clear that the "it" in the phrase "it seemed like a tame simulation" is "the mission", as in

"[the mission] seemed like a tame simulation", as in "the mission went off as well as our best simulations".

The only way someone could think Irwin was implying that it was all just a simulation would be to ignore the context of the discussion -- and I'm not sure why anyone would want to ignore the context, unless they were trying to be intentionally disingenuous.

Thats correct, they are interchangeable.
And thats the whole point.
Missions and Simulations were one in the same.
The only differences being a rocket actually flew to low earth orbit, like they always
have since the 60's.

choos

oh you dont believe do you?? fine ill get screen shots of it apparently you are too good to check it yourself..

frame 10 time of 0.333
frame 24 time of 0.800
frame 38 time of 1.267

total air time 0.934seconds
fall from apex time 0.467

estimated height from if falling for 0.467seconds is 1.07m

does it look like the mythbusters jumped 1.07m?? no it doesnt

Again, you've ignored the comparison I made of the two jumps. Of course, you will NEVER address it, since you'd destroy your own argument in the process.

I've asked you repeatedly to discuss the material I presented to you - ie: Young starting to jump at the 3/4 point of Mythbusters apex, yet both landing at the same time. You've refused to address it.

That's sad.

choos
yes dust again.. i realise you would like to neglect the dust since you cant control its rate of fall and everything but unfortunately for you its there and cannot be ignored..

it is the largest flaw in JW's 1.5x speed slow down, and you realise this.. ignoring it wont make it go away..

so how about it?? why is it that no physicist in the entire world of any nationality has not said that the dust does not fall/behave according to lunar gravity??

edit on 30-3-2014 by choos because: (no reason given)

We've gone over this many times.

A dust cloud is NOT an object - it is countless little airborne objects, all scattered about randomly over an undefined area, all at the same time.

Under ideal conditions, say, within an enclosed area, having the proper equipment to measure microscopic airborne particles... we might be able to calculate the speed of a specific dust particle. That is, if we first manage to locate and identify a specific particle, and can track it over a measurable distance.

And you'd still have problems getting a valid measurement.

What you have is a complete joke.

It is impossible to even LOCATE OR IDENTIFY a specific dust particle from this crap-quality video clip, which is shot from one angle, at some distance.

Which one of these miniscue airbornel objects is being measured, anyway ? What is it's trajectory? How were they able to track it so precisely? I'd really like to know, please tell me...

Sheesh...

FoosM
Thats correct, they are interchangeable.
And thats the whole point.
Missions and Simulations were one in the same.
The only differences being a rocket actually flew to low earth orbit, like they always
have since the 60's.

Wrong. The simulators did not have the photographic detail shown in Apollo missions, the simulators could not replicate lunar or zero gravity for the astronauts, the simulators could not make dirt behave as if it was in a vacuum under lunar gravity. saying it don't make it so, provide us with some proof.

Speaking of which, you kind of forgot to respond to the points I made about one of your earlier posts, the one where the idea that the Apollo 11 footage from cislunar space was taken in LEO gets blown out of the water, right down to there being measurable rotation of the Earth in the TV footage.

How did they do that? And I don't mean Jarrah's BS about "Well they faked it so they would know how to fake it", I mean actually explain with no room for any doubt how TV footage that could not have been taken in LEO showing a hurricane that only appeared in the configuration shown in the broadcast on that day, where the terminator is exactly where it should be for the time of the broadcast, and where satellite records of the scene in view was not available appears on the next day's front pages? Explain to us how that was done, by whom, with what and where.

Explain how they did front pages like this one



on sale right now if you want to put your money where your mouth is

www.ebay.co.uk...

And if people are going to use what astronauts say as proof of anything, then here are the words of Dave Scott of Apollo 15 in this speech:

www.planetary.org...

"See our tracks, we were there, it wasn't a hoax"

FoosM

Thats correct, they are interchangeable.
And thats the whole point.
Missions and Simulations were one in the same.
The only differences being a rocket actually flew to low earth orbit, like they always
have since the 60's.

So who made all those footprints on the moon then? The ones that are there on the surface right now at this very moment? Simple question: can you give me a simple answer?

turbonium1

Again, you've ignored the comparison I made of the two jumps. Of course, you will NEVER address it, since you'd destroy your own argument in the process.

I've asked you repeatedly to discuss the material I presented to you - ie: Young starting to jump at the 3/4 point of Mythbusters apex, yet both landing at the same time. You've refused to address it.

That's sad.

i have addressed it..

and i cant compare them, the mythbusters jump has interference whereas john youngs at 2.46x doesnt.

thats why i posted that post.. does it look like the mythbusters jumps 1m into the air?? no it doesnt, therefore the ropes have interfered with the jump, john youngs jump is natural without ropes they wont match up like that.

it will only be close if you slow the mythbusters down, but cant speed up john youngs jump to match the mythbusters because the mythbusters is using ropes.. that was my error.

however.. that doesnt mean that the correct factor is not 2.46x.. maths proves it is the correct factor.. and john young is falling according to lunar gravity at 1x speed.. that has been proven already.. or are you still denying that??

We've gone over this many times.

A dust cloud is NOT an object - it is countless little airborne objects, all scattered about randomly over an undefined area, all at the same time.

Under ideal conditions, say, within an enclosed area, having the proper equipment to measure microscopic airborne particles... we might be able to calculate the speed of a specific dust particle. That is, if we first manage to locate and identify a specific particle, and can track it over a measurable distance.

And you'd still have problems getting a valid measurement.

What you have is a complete joke.

It is impossible to even LOCATE OR IDENTIFY a specific dust particle from this crap-quality video clip, which is shot from one angle, at some distance.

Which one of these miniscue airbornel objects is being measured, anyway ? What is it's trajectory? How were they able to track it so precisely? I'd really like to know, please tell me...

Sheesh...

your ignoring it wont make it go away..

you can estimate it. you can estimate the overall trajectory you can estimate the highest height you can estimate when it reaches there. everything a proper physicists needs to confirm lunar gravity..

i have previously shown you two different sources of people calculating lunar dust and confirming it falls at 1.62m/s^2.. i have shown you my own calculations previously, thats three different sources.. all able to confirm the dust falls around 1.62m/s^2 and no where near the 4m/s^2 that you are claiming.. and yet you are telling me its impossible??




are you suggesting that you cant see how high the dust reaches in these clips??

you cant ignore the dust.. so explain it..

ive shown you three different sources that has estimated lunar dust to fall according to lunar gravity previously.. you have shown me nothing but to ignore it.

for eg. if it was recorded on earth and dust was thrown say 20 cm into the air it will take the dust roughly 0.202 seconds to reach the ground.. if they then slowed that footage down to 1.5x as you claim.. it will hit the ground from a 20cm height in about 0.303 seconds..

on the lunar surface how high must an object fall if it hits the ground in 0.303 seconds?? 7.4cm.. and yet in your imaginary world you would have us believe that dust, in the apollo clips, will fall from a height of 20cm in the same time it should take to fall from a height of 7.4cm..

the gravity that the lunar dust will be showing is about 4.3m/s^2 no where close to 1.62m/s^2.. on the lunar surface it will take the dust about 0.5 seconds to hit the ground from a 20cm height.. THATS ABOUT A 60% INCREASE IN FLIGHT TIME..

and here you are trying to tell me that not a single physicist of any nationality in the entire world for over 40years was able to work this out??

FoosM
Thats correct, they are interchangeable.
And thats the whole point.
Missions and Simulations were one in the same.
The only differences being a rocket actually flew to low earth orbit, like they always
have since the 60's.

I'm confused here about what you are trying to say.

So, if (for example) a firefighter is goes through training in a controlled environment that trains him how to put out a fire efficiently, then he actually goes to a real fire and puts it out in a similar manner,and using the methods he learned in his fire simulation...

...he then says "putting out that fire went as well as my training", does that mean he never really put out that second fire?

onebigmonkey

FoosM
Thats correct, they are interchangeable.
And thats the whole point.
Missions and Simulations were one in the same.
The only differences being a rocket actually flew to low earth orbit, like they always
have since the 60's.

Wrong. The simulators did not have the photographic detail shown in Apollo missions,

Since you never have been to the moon, you dont know what it really looks like, do you?
So what detail are you exactly talking about? Seeing the starry constellations in the photos... Oh wait.

the simulators could not replicate lunar or zero gravity for the astronauts,

Actually, neither could NASA, as they failed to demonstrate it in their videos and films.
Astronaut could barely, jump, or hit a golf ball or throw a javelin any farther than if they were on Earth.

the simulators could not make dirt behave as if it was in a vacuum under lunar gravity. saying it don't make it so, provide us with some proof.

No, you use special effects for that. Animations, compositions, etc.

Speaking of which, you kind of forgot to respond to the points I made about one of your earlier posts, the one where the idea that the Apollo 11 footage from cislunar space was taken in LEO gets blown out of the water, right down to there being measurable rotation of the Earth in the TV footage.

How? They had Satellites that were taking photos of the Earth.
Those Satellites didn't have to be in LEO. Why do fail to see it?
Im sure you have just as hard of a time understanding magic tricks when
explained to you.

Whats worse, you don't even challenge yourself to figure it out on your own!
You just sit there and accept it. Asking for others to do the brainwork for you.
Thats why you can get fooled over and over again.
You don't question.
Try it once.
Look at the photos and ask yourself how they could be faked.
You might be surprised what you come up with.

Soylent Green Is People

FoosM
Thats correct, they are interchangeable.
And thats the whole point.
Missions and Simulations were one in the same.
The only differences being a rocket actually flew to low earth orbit, like they always
have since the 60's.

I'm confused here about what you are trying to say.

So, if (for example) a firefighter is goes through training in a controlled environment that trains him how to put out a fire efficiently, then he actually goes to a real fire and puts it out in a similar manner,and using the methods he learned in his fire simulation...

...he then says "putting out that fire went as well as my training", does that mean he never really put out that second fire?

edit on 4/6/2014 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)

Dude. Really? Really?
Im going to give you an opportunity for you to review what you just wrote and really think
about how your example is apples to oranges to what we are talking about it here.
Unless you really just want me to expose you for intentional derailing.
Which will expose you as being intellectually dishonest.

reply to post by FoosM


So what you're saying is you have totally run out of evidence and now you're just going to argue semantics?

I think this thread is done. The hoaxers don't have a leg to stand on and they know it. Never mind that there's endless photos and videos and physical evidence - the fact that one astronaut said the mission went as smoothly as a simulation blows the whole thing out of the water! Pathetic. You don't even have a coherent hoax theory. You just pick and choose little snippets that you think don't look or sound right and claim it's all a hoax, even though the methods you claim they used (if you even bother to come up with a method) are totally self contradictory.

I ask again: what will you do when the first independent mission to the moon - Chinese, maybe, or privately funded - shows the landing sites just as they were when the astronauts left, and just as we have already seen them from the LRO?

Will the disconnect make your head explode? Or do you secretly already know the truth but can't admit it because you have painted yourself into a corner?

Just admit the truth and get on with your life. The sun won't fall from the sky if you acknowledge the fact that men have walked on the moon. You'll feel better, honestly.

FoosM
Im going to give you an opportunity for you to review what you just wrote and really think
about how your example is apples to oranges to what we are talking about it here.
Unless you really just want me to expose you for intentional derailing.
Which will expose you as being intellectually dishonest.

That's fine; go ahead.
This is an open discussion board, so if I misunderstood your position on this during the discussion, then expose away.

My understanding is that you took Jim Irwin's quote about the mission going as well as the simulation as some sort of evidence that the mission was hoaxed.

onebigmonkey
Wrong. The simulators did not have the photographic detail shown in Apollo missions,

FoosM
Since you never have been to the moon, you dont know what it really looks like, do you?
So what detail are you exactly talking about? Seeing the starry constellations in the photos... Oh wait.

The terrain on the LM flight simulator looked like a model. It looked nothing like the images of the moon we have seen from the orbital probes from the Russians, Japanese, and Chinese. It looked like what it was -- a physical model of the terrain and a camera hovering over that model. That was what flight simulators were like in the 1960s.

As for stars, if they were hoaxing, then why not just show the stars. If Star Trek could show fake stars on their TV show, then I'm sure NASA could have faked stars in a similar manner. By the way, it seems the Russians, Chinese, and Japanese must all be using NASA hoaxing manual, because the images from those countries' probes also show a virtually starless sky when viewing a lit Moon.

FoosM


Since you never have been to the moon, you dont know what it really looks like, do you?
So what detail are you exactly talking about? Seeing the starry constellations in the photos.

YOU should NEVER talk about pictures they confuse you to much!!!

FoosM


Since you never have been to the moon, you dont know what it really looks like, do you?

What a ridiculous argument. I've never been to the Grand Canyon but I've seen enough photos to know what it looks like, and I know that a rough polystyrene model wouldn't fool me. How is it that the photos of the moon look just like the actual surface as seen by later probes, whereas the model in the simulation didn't?

How is it that tiny 1-metre or smaller rocks visible in photos from the lunar surface can be picked out in LRO images taken 40 years later?

Rob48


I ask again: what will you do when the first independent mission to the moon - Chinese, maybe, or privately funded - shows the landing sites just as they were when the astronauts left, and just as we have already seen them from the LRO?

I think if you go back through this thread you'll find that the evidence was purposely planted there for just this eventuality by remote controlled jumping robots. Or something.

reply to post by JuniorDisco

Oh yes, how could I forget - the Mobot!



Any possible hoax would require far more advanced technology than simply landing a couple of Mk1 Homo sapiens there.