Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by Rob48

The original negatives of the Apollo missions are currently in the process of being rescanned at Arizona State University. Arizona State University is, I think you will find, not contained within NASA's "secure, controlled environment facility".

I wasn't aware that ANY Apollo negatives left the secure facilities (there are two different storage locations didya know?) for the Apollo-ASU image processing program.

I'd like to know your source on that. I'm asking because I've argued with other Defenders about the ASU/CGI pictures many times and the story that the negatives were moved out of the secure facility was never mentioned before.

mrwiffler

Apollo Defenders often argue that Apollo was the best documented science and engineering feat in the history of mankind.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

That's because it is, and none of you hoax guys has even the slightest shred of credible evidence to the contrary.

ALL the technology was real...with thousands of individual testimonies, thousands of hours of footage and millions of pages of documents to back it all up...oh, and the actual hardware.

ALL the relevant theory was real, again, with literally millions of pages of documentation, studies done by thousands of scientists and technologists over a period of decades.

What have the hoax crowd got? A bunch of pathetic, lame, hideously ill informed bunch of speculation...at best. The gist of which would fill two printed pages...with no scientific documentation, no testimonies, no footage, no physical evidence of any kind...good grief. Stop being idiotic.

mrwiffler, I beg to differ. These are nothing but glittering generalities and name-calling tactics.

Note to Apollo Defenders, don't follow the example of mrwiffler. Because you will get one of these

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

NASA would be scrambling at a trial

There's an idea: why not band together and sue NASA for misappropriation of funds? All you need to do is present all your evidence in court. Oh, wait, you don't have any evidence. Here is my challenge to you: sue NASA. Put up or shut up, this is getting repetitive and dull.

Why bother with an expensive law suit against NASA when the court of public opinion is so much more manipulatable? People watched TV for years not realizing that it was programming them in the literal sense of the word.

Are you bored with the regular Apollo talk? So am I.

Why don't we settle this in the debate forum? It's just a friendly idea. The Debate Forum on ATS is the *totally dead zone* these days. Perhaps we could get more people interested in debating if debates were run more frequently?

I'll give YOU the advantage of selecting the specific topic, I will give YOU the advantage of selecting/recruiting 2 moderators, I will give YOU the advantage of going first. How does that sound to you, DJW?

reply to post by choos

given 1960's technology..

how did they fake it and continue to fake it for the next 40+years fooling every single scientist, astronomist, astrophysicist in the entire world for many generations..
which includes faking hours and hours of continuous lunar gravity footage, lunar dust behaviour, colour images of the entirety of earth in one photo some even showing natural phenomena such as a hurricane..

something along those lines..

choos I was really hoping you could do better than this. You are telling me glittering generalities.

By the way choos, what is an "astronomist"? Is that a twist on astronomer that I don't know about?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by choos

 

given 1960's technology..

how did they fake it and continue to fake it for the next 40+years fooling every single scientist, astronomist, astrophysicist in the entire world for many generations..
which includes faking hours and hours of continuous lunar gravity footage, lunar dust behaviour, colour images of the entirety of earth in one photo some even showing natural phenomena such as a hurricane..

something along those lines..

choos I was really hoping you could do better than this. You are telling me glittering generalities.

No, these are not glittering generalities and we do not have to accept your say-so on what is acceptable in this discussion.

It is a fact that not one single qualified scientist has ever come forward to discredit the Apollo evidence, and the hours of lunar gravity footage, lunar dust behaviour and images of Earth are pieces of factual and verifiable evidence.

Simply dismissing arguments you don't like is unacceptable, attempting to act as a gatekeeper to the discussion by defining only a narrow range of material you consider to be appropriate is unacceptable. You need to demonstrate that they are what you claim, and that the evidence is false. You have repeatedly failed to do this and repeatedly ignored every piece of evidence that doesn't fit in with your revisionist agenda.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

every piece of evidence that doesn't fit in with your revisionist agenda.

Richard Nixon was a pro at revising presidential history. He edited his own White House tapes for chrissakes. What if Nixon had all the Apollo tapes edited? He had the power to do that you know because: he also had the power to cancel Apollo, to cancel Mars, and to chain NASA to lower earth orbit for 40+ years... with the lower earth orbit Space Shuttle.

Emphasis on lower earth orbit

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Apologies SJ, I was wrong on that. The source I used stated that the scanning work was being done "at Arizona State University", but on checking up further I see that the actual scanning step was indeed done inside the JSC film archive building. My fault for trusting a secondary source, rather than a primary one. Perhaps you could learn something from that?

There, I have admitted I was mistaken on that. Are you now going to admit you were mistaken, or at least being deliberately misleading, on the "seven Hasselblads" claim?

Also why do you keep trying to steer this discussion into the Debate forum? Is it because you know you have no facts or evidence to present and you hope you can win arguments with blarney?

You can't debate facts. Facts are what they are. I might as well ask you to debate whether the Earth goes round the sun.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

every piece of evidence that doesn't fit in with your revisionist agenda.

Richard Nixon was a pro at revising presidential history. He edited his own White House tapes for chrissakes. What if Nixon had all the Apollo tapes edited? He had the power to do that you know because: he also had the power to cancel Apollo, to cancel Mars, and to chain NASA to lower earth orbit for 40+ years... with the lower earth orbit Space Shuttle.

Emphasis on lower earth orbit
[/quote


You got it backwards actually he was shown to be inept at manipulation. See he never would have gotten impeached if he was good at manipulation.But the problem was he was a drunk and well a scumbag in general. And he showed he was truly incapable of stepping into the shoes of the white house. Thats why he goes down as the worst president in history so where is that master of manipulation exactly?

reply to post by dragonridr

Exactly. Nixon didn't manage to keep his dodgy dealings a secret. We KNOW he was a crook because he failed to hide it. If he was such a master conman then we'd be sitting here talking about the great squeaky clean president who never did any wrong.

In case SJ hadn't noticed, he had to resign in disgrace under threat of impeachment! If all those thousands of people were in on Nixon's fake Apollo program then what was to stop then joining in the pile-on once he was exposed as a crook? None of it even makes sense as the plot of a bad movie.

SayonaraJupiter

choos I was really hoping you could do better than this. You are telling me glittering generalities.

By the way choos, what is an "astronomist"? Is that a twist on astronomer that I don't know about? transfer technique

so is that how you would debate the topic that you said you would let me choose?? you would prefer to use your transfer technique instead of tackling the topic??

i dont think that will get you very far if thats the case..

p.s. since obiviously you dont know.. Astronomist is Astronomer.. simple mistake herp derp..

SayonaraJupiter

Richard Nixon was a pro at revising presidential history. He edited his own White House tapes for chrissakes.

Badly. Ineptly. Got caught out there by people who recognised that the testimony that was being glase

What if Nixon had all the Apollo tapes edited?

'What if' is not any kind of evidence, it's unsupported strawman conjecture. Which means you get one of these:

He had the power to do that you know because: he also had the power to cancel Apollo, to cancel Mars, and to chain NASA to lower earth orbit for 40+ years... with the lower earth orbit Space Shuttle.

Ooh glittering generalities there to go with the strawman. That means you get another one of these:



You do realise that the presidency changed hands after Nixon ran away right? That several other presidents have been involved in setting NASA's budgets and therefore their priorities?

You do know that NASA used Apollo technology for several missions in LEO after Nixon turned yellow? Skylab and Apollo Soyuz. Proven technology and techniques. You do know that, because I told you earlier.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

Why bother with an expensive law suit against NASA when the court of public opinion is so much more manipulatable?

Thank you for admitting that you are more interested in manipulating opinion than determining truth. As for a debate, how about : Richard Nixon faked the Moon landings? Are you confident you could win that?

choos

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.

No, your whole argument was the error, and left you nothing but 'dust'....as usual!


The Mythbusters jump has been viewed countless times, measured down to the milliseconds, studied down to its smallest details...

NOTHING WAS FOUND TO BE WRONG WITH IT... NEVER.

Until it proved you wrong.

Then, you 'discover' something, which you never, ever noticed before! The video is..gasp..flawed!

It's almost a miracle, really! Such perfect timing, too!


Good story....in the fantasy section.

reply to post by turbonium1

The Mythbusters jump has been viewed countless times, measured down to the milliseconds,

Please provide a link to this data.

turbonium1

No, your whole argument was the error, and left you nothing but 'dust'....as usual!

ok, please explain how 2.46x is wrong then??? mathematically prove to me how if we speed up john youngs jump 2.46x then his jump will NOT resemble a jump at 9.81m/s^2..

what i got wrong was assuming that the mythbusters would not be affected by the ropes.. but that was not my entire argument..

The Mythbusters jump has been viewed countless times, measured down to the milliseconds, studied down to its smallest details...

NOTHING WAS FOUND TO BE WRONG WITH IT... NEVER.

Until it proved you wrong.

Then, you 'discover' something, which you never, ever noticed before! The video is..gasp..flawed!

It's almost a miracle, really! Such perfect timing, too!

Good story....in the fantasy section.

ok good, you obviously are showing that you are more concerned with trying to ridicule me instead of trying to prove how they done the lunar dust..

why is that?? you feel good now that you can gloat about how i made a mistake?? well heres your next chance..

show me how slowing down the footage 1.5x can get lunar dust to fall and behave according to lunar gravity.. go on continue to make a fool of me, it will make you feel great..

prove your theory, if you believe 100% that its slowed 1.5x then you should have no problem proving the dust falls too fast to everyone else.. and at the same time make me look more of a fool, i encourage it educate me please.

I was a moon-hoax believer during many years, but not anymore...
why?
it's simple,
is the moon-hoax theory is possible?....definitely yes
did america have good reasons to fake moon landing?....definitely yes
is it possible to fool everyone, even people from nasa working on the project?....definitely yes
is it possible they faked a mission to the moon?....definitely yes
is it possible they faked SEVEN missions to the moon and that 1 of them turned totally wrong (apollo 13)????.....NOT AT ALL

seriously, I'm still believing its possible america faked a moon landing, but 6 faked moon landings + the story of apollo 13??
why they would have created a catastrophic scenario??
If moon landing are faked, that means apollo 13 mission is faked too!!
IMO that is total nonsense...

Imagine that they faked a moon landing, do you really think they tell themselves: "hey, we fooled everyone, let's try and fake another mission" ???

That is the reason why I don't believe in the hoax anymore, and I'm sure they went on the moon...
Did they find something on the moon that they hide?? That's a question we can ask ourselves!

reply to post by sweeper84

is it possible to fool everyone, even people from nasa working on the project?....definitely yes

I would definitely disagree with at least this point. There's no way the people working on the project itself could be fooled. If they were being fooled then they would still had to have been designing and building genuinely moon-capable hardware. The engineers and scientists knew what was required and so would have immediately spotted the hoax if they were instead directed to make substandard hardware instead.

Even if you argue that this genuinely moon-capable hardware was instead used for some kind of fake landing (and seeing as it was capable of going to the moon, why bother?), then the scientists would spot the deception as soon as they saw that the telemetry wasn't coming from the right part of the sky for the genuine mission flight.

There's no half and half solution. Either the whole programme was real or none of it was. The whole programme was real.

reply to post by Rob48


yes you are right!

the point I wanted to bring is that, yes, the theory of faked moon landing is possible, for 1 mission.
I'm not saying they faked 1 and the others were real.
Moon hoax believers tend to forget that 7 missions to the moon was made, and 1 failed!
It could have been possible that america faked all this, if only 1 mission to the moon was made, not 7!

Faking 1 mission to the moon would have been a huge task, now think of 7!

I've just got back from listening to a presentation by TK Mattingly, the guy grounded from Apollo 13 who eventually went on to be Command Module Pilot for Apollo 16 and flew on two shuttle missions.

He described Apollo 13 as a perfect example of why the other 6 succeeded: every procedure documented to the nth degree, every possibility worked through.

He also said he flew around the Moon. Witness testimony.

reply to post by Rob48

Apologies SJ, I was wrong on that. The source I used stated that the scanning work was being done "at Arizona State University", but on checking up further I see that the actual scanning step was indeed done inside the JSC film archive building. My fault for trusting a secondary source, rather than a primary one. Perhaps you could learn something from that?

There, I have admitted I was mistaken on that. Are you now going to admit you were mistaken, or at least being deliberately misleading, on the "seven Hasselblads" claim?

Also why do you keep trying to steer this discussion into the Debate forum? Is it because you know you have no facts or evidence to present and you hope you can win arguments with blarney?

You can't debate facts. Facts are what they are. I might as well ask you to debate whether the Earth goes round the sun.

Rob48, It's good to get the Apollo negatives cleared up. The Apollo negatives will never be allowed to leave those secure facilities controlled by NASA for any reasons, except, maybe the structural/environmental integrity of the buildings.

After returning to Earth, the film was developed and stored at Johnson Space Center (JSC), where they still reside. Due to the historical significance of the original flight films, typically only duplicate (2nd or 3rd generation) film products are currently available for study and used to make prints. Source apollo.sese.asu.edu...

And,

All the original Apollo film can be found in the Film Archive (Building 8) at Johnson Space Center (JSC). Due to the importance in preserving these films, the original film is not allowed to leave the building. Source apollo.sese.asu.edu...

And,

The scanned images are loaded onto 500-gigabyte removable hard drives and shipped overnight to ASU. Undergraduates load the files into the ASU system and create smaller-resolution versions and other related data for each image. The full-resolution raw scans and the extra products are all made available to the public on the ASU Apollo Scan project webpage. The hard drives are then shipped back to JSC and the cycle starts again. Source www.nasa.gov...

About the "seven Hasselblads". I made that graphic illustration to point out that Apollo Defenders do not know the final disposition of many Apollo Hasselblad cameras. They try to dispute this, but in actuality, the camera counts are important. The camera counts are important because it illustrates the ignorance of certain Apollo Defenders with regard to provenance of the negatives which are claimed to be taken using some of these missing cameras.

As far as the debates are concerned, I was just offering a friendly debate. Quoting you from a different post/same page:

There's no half and half solution. Either the whole programme was real or none of it was. The whole programme was real.

All or nothing? Would you mind offering us your humble opinion on the Apollo 12 70mm catalogs? Or will you be relying on expert witness source material for that?