Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

Answered questions for you here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What you described in that thread is that it does NOT matter if Nixon was president nor Vice President..

Also what you have described in that thread was that Apollo was very real with real intentions to land men on the moon, completely out of control of Nixon..

Also what you have described in that thread is that since everything was prepared as genuine Nixon had to fake Apollo within a few months.. I remember you claiming that was not the case?

So I'm guessing by reading that post that you believe Apollo was genuine?

originally posted by: choos

im not even disputing that NASA cannot make 1/6g in the vomit comet.. the whole purpose of the vomit comet was to study the effects of different gravity..

it doesnt even matter whether or not the vomit comet was well known.. the things is is that NASA had use of it.. it doesnt make any sense for NASA to show the world a fake 1/6g at all, sometime in the future after apollo the world will know about the vomit comet..

and you would have me believe that the organisation that was able to hoax the moon landing and keep it secret for over 40 years are so shortsighted in hiding their own hoax??

To keep it secret over 40 years is not exactly "shortsighted", is it?

Apollo didn't have realistic-looking 1/6g.

It's not relevant to know why they did it, it only matters that they did.

The End.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

im not even disputing that NASA cannot make 1/6g in the vomit comet.. the whole purpose of the vomit comet was to study the effects of different gravity..

it doesnt even matter whether or not the vomit comet was well known.. the things is is that NASA had use of it.. it doesnt make any sense for NASA to show the world a fake 1/6g at all, sometime in the future after apollo the world will know about the vomit comet..

and you would have me believe that the organisation that was able to hoax the moon landing and keep it secret for over 40 years are so shortsighted in hiding their own hoax??

To keep it secret over 40 years is not exactly "shortsighted", is it?

Apollo didn't have realistic-looking 1/6g.

It's not relevant to know why they did it, it only matters that they did.

The End.

no you are not understanding my point again..

if NASA had knowledge of the vomit comet, and knowing that in the future it would be open to the public..

why would they choose to show us a fake 1/6g environment?? that is shortsighted..

apollo does have realistic looking 1/6g its just that you refuse to acknowledge it due to your extreme prejudice, as shown by your last sentence (ie. its not relevent to know why they did it, it only matters that they did)

a reply to: choos

So I'm guessing by reading that post that you believe Apollo was genuine?

Apollo was genuinely... a Howard Hughes/CIA production.

Why did Nixon gave out all of those tiny specks of moon rocks locked inside acrylic spheres? Because Nixon knew they were all fake specimens and Nixon knew that nobody would ever smash one open to check it out scientifically. Nixon is the high stakes gambler and successful lawyer with all the Commie hating experience to get the job done for America. Go for lift-off, Nixon's Apollo!

You may check the facts choos. Nobody has ever smashed open one of Nixon's gift rocks for testing. Or did I miss that segment on Mythbusters, eh choos?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

So I'm guessing by reading that post that you believe Apollo was genuine?

Apollo was genuinely... a Howard Hughes/CIA production.

so not Nixon then?? have a change of heart again??

Nixon is the high stakes gambler and successful lawyer with all the Commie hating experience to get the job done for America. Go for lift-off, Nixon's Apollo!

being a high stakes gambler..
why do you believe Nixon chose not to risk flying man to the moon?? they had the equipment to do so you said so yourself.. they prepared everything to land men on the moon and Nixon only appeared to take the credit..

so if Nixon was such a high stakes gambler, why did he not choose the risk to land men on the moon?

and if he was such a commie hating person, do you also believe that the soviets were also in on the hoax? some hoax believers have to hold onto the notion that the soviets were part of the hoax.. im guessing you are not one of them.

originally posted by: choos
no you are not understanding my point again..

if NASA had knowledge of the vomit comet, and knowing that in the future it would be open to the public..

why would they choose to show us a fake 1/6g environment?? that is shortsighted..

apollo does have realistic looking 1/6g its just that you refuse to acknowledge it due to your extreme prejudice, as shown by your last sentence (ie. its not relevent to know why they did it, it only matters that they did)

You say...

"apollo does have realistic looking 1/6g"

A Freudian slip, perhaps?


It is very obvious to see that Apollo is NOT in real 1/6g.

Not even close to it.


The reason(s) why don't matter.

I can only speculate on it...


NASA knew how people moved in a 1/6g environment.

And, NASA would have wanted to simulate a "realistic-looking" 1/6g.

So if they knew what it looked like, and they wanted to replicate it...

The problem was in executing it, right?


Maybe they found out they couldn't simulate it, or not close enough to it.

Maybe it was possible, but would take years to do, and/or too expensive, etc.


They'd have to develop unknown special effects, rendered over massive-scale stage sets, etc.


So what if they could do it, and they did it?

Nothing would be different.

They'd know the difference, but so what?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Why did Nixon gave out all of those tiny specks of moon rocks locked inside acrylic spheres? Because Nixon knew they were all fake specimens and Nixon knew that nobody would ever smash one open to check it out scientifically.

I have no idea whether anyone has ever tested the tiny fraction of the Apollo rocks that were given as gifts by Nixon. (They would have extra value because of their presidential connection so I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't.)

But you are conveniently ignoring the many thousands of scientific papers published over the past four decades by scientists all around the world who have studied pieces of rock and soil brought back by Apollo.To this day hundreds of sample requests are granted every single year to scientists who wish to study the rocks.

What makes the tiny pieces mounted in commemorative acrylic spheres so special? Why would you smash one of them open when you could just make a request for a study sample instead?

originally posted by: turbonium1
To keep it secret over 40 years is not exactly "shortsighted", is it?

Apollo didn't have realistic-looking 1/6g.

It's not relevant to know why they did it, it only matters that they did.

The End.

You seem to be the only person who has a problem with Apollo being in genuine one-sixth gravity, including people who have been in one-sixth gravity themselves. Every scientific analysis of the film footage concurs that it was filmed in a lunar gravity environment.

You even admit here that you have no idea how or why or where it was faked, and you don't care. Your entire argument boils down to "it doesn't look how I, with no experience of lunar gravity, think it should, therefore it never happened". That really is "The End" of your credibility in this thread.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: choos

So I'm guessing by reading that post that you believe Apollo was genuine?

Apollo was genuinely... a Howard Hughes/CIA production.

so not Nixon then?? have a change of heart again??

Change of heart? Nope. I'm ready to claim this thread a victory for Apollo Reviewers.

being a high stakes gambler..
why do you believe Nixon chose not to risk flying man to the moon??

That's a damned good question. (Strangely enough Gary Kasparov recently equated Vladimir Putin to a poker player with a bad hand and said he (Putin) is bluffing in the Ukraine.)

Webb and Johnson built that program so both of them quit their jobs before any Apollo's went out of low earth.

Armstrong said there was a 50-50 chance of success.

Armstrong: "I thought we had a 90% chance of getting back safely to Earth on that flight but only a 50-50 chance of making a landing on that first attempt. There are so many unknowns on that descent from lunar orbit down to the surface that had not been demonstrated yet by testing and there was a big chance that there was something in there we didn't understand properly and we had to abort and come back to Earth without landing." www.theguardian.com...

50-50 are not good odds, choos. I"ll bet you Richard Nixon would never take those odds. Yes, he is a high stakes gambler that does not mean he is a reckless poker player. As far as Hughes was concerned - he would never tolerate those odds either.

What could Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon do about it? They had to make those odds better, somehow, closer to, let's say, 100%. That means they had a Plan B set up which would have some of the performances be real and some of them be un-real, just in case of emergencies. Landing a man on the moon, bringing him safely back to earth by the JFK deadline easily meets the criteria of a national emergency.... that's how it was being managed anyway, as an emergency project to save the American prestige.

I got an ebay purchase this morning, a book published in 1972 about the Apollo missions.

Here are a couple of photos form it of the weightless/lunar gravity training - taken with my phone just now.

Conspiracy lovers do tend to post their photos and videos as if they are somehow sensational new discoveries never before seen, when in fact they have mostly been public domain before most of them were born.

Apollo 12:


Alan Shepard:


What these two photos show is that the training regime and the use of the 'Vomit Comet' was well known, and was used to simulate lunar gravity. Simulate being the word. It is not lunar gravity. In order to get that they had to go to the moon.

if anyone can spot any large craters, mountains, lunar modules, lunar rovers, scientific equipment and masses of lunar dust in those pictures, feel free to point them out.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Change of heart? Nope. I'm ready to claim this thread a victory for Apollo Reviewers.

You do nothing but declare victory. You still haven't even explained what your theory actually is! They sent three men to the Moon with a robot that did the actual landing? Then, they secretly signed a pact with some passing extraterrestrials? Meanwhile, Howard Hughes was creating a clone of Richard Nixon....

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Conspiracy lovers do tend to post their photos and videos as if they are somehow sensational new discoveries never before seen, when in fact they have mostly been public domain before most of them were born.

Yes, and a few days ago I posted an extract from an article published in January 1965 detailing the "vomit comet" flights. It was public knowledge even before the first proper Apollo missions took off.

All this stuff was going on for so long: years of training and preparation, whereas he hoax view seems to be that it was a few quick jaunts to the moon out of the blue with no connection to anything else that happened before or since.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos
no you are not understanding my point again..

if NASA had knowledge of the vomit comet, and knowing that in the future it would be open to the public..

why would they choose to show us a fake 1/6g environment?? that is shortsighted..

apollo does have realistic looking 1/6g its just that you refuse to acknowledge it due to your extreme prejudice, as shown by your last sentence (ie. its not relevent to know why they did it, it only matters that they did)

You say...

"apollo does have realistic looking 1/6g"

A Freudian slip, perhaps?


It is very obvious to see that Apollo is NOT in real 1/6g.

Not even close to it.

ive shown you multiple times that objects fall at 1.62m/s^2.. prove to me that objects do not fall according to lunar gravity, otherwise you can retract your statement.

The reason(s) why don't matter.

I can only speculate on it...

specualate, you do that with all your conclusions..

NASA knew how people moved in a 1/6g environment.

And, NASA would have wanted to simulate a "realistic-looking" 1/6g.

So if they knew what it looked like, and they wanted to replicate it...

The problem was in executing it, right?

like going to the moon right??

but please show me where on object is not falling at 1.62m/s^2, and maybe you might have an argument..

Maybe they found out they couldn't simulate it, or not close enough to it.

Maybe it was possible, but would take years to do, and/or too expensive, etc.

maybe maybe maybe..

i have shown you multiple times of objects falling at 1.62m/s^2.. show me your best evidence of an object that is not falling at 1.62m/s^2 with your calculations.. simple as that.

They'd have to develop unknown special effects, rendered over massive-scale stage sets, etc.

So what if they could do it, and they did it?

what if, maybe.. have you got any evidence at all??

Nothing would be different.

They'd know the difference, but so what?

and they would also know that sometime in the future it could have been 3 days after apollo 11 or 100years.. they would have known the vomit comet would go public..

this would mean that everyone will know they used fake gravity.. so why would they use fake gravity?? your logic makes no sense whatsoever..

originally posted by: Rob48

You seem to be the only person who has a problem with Apollo being in genuine one-sixth gravity, including people who have been in one-sixth gravity themselves. Every scientific analysis of the film footage concurs that it was filmed in a lunar gravity environment.

You even admit here that you have no idea how or why or where it was faked, and you don't care. Your entire argument boils down to "it doesn't look how I, with no experience of lunar gravity, think it should, therefore it never happened". That really is "The End" of your credibility in this thread.

They seem to be 'floating' around inside the Vomit Comet. One man does a somersault in mid-air, with complete ease. That's how people move in GENUINE 1/6g

Not in Apollo footage, clearly. They don't appear to 'float' about effortlessly, in any way. They appear to move normal, except at slower speed.

That is a significant difference -they don't move at a slow speed in real 1/6g, not like Apollo.

a reply to: turbonium1

Good grief. You are confusing 1/6 gravity and freefall.

a reply to: turbonium1

They seem to be 'floating' around inside the Vomit Comet. One man does a somersault in mid-air, with complete ease. That's how people move in GENUINE 1/6g Not in Apollo footage, clearly. They don't appear to 'float' about effortlessly, in any way. They appear to move normal, except at slower speed.

You didn't really just say that did you? Really? You've been arguing with knowledgeable people about technical aspects of gravity and in that one post above you show you don't even have knowledge worthy of a primary school student.

It's no shame to not know about gravity, physics can be difficult, but you're just fooling yourself by participating in these discussions.

a reply to: mrwiffler

No, he's making sense to some of us. That's my biggest problem with Apollo. The TV footage is just slowed down footage from Earth. I know, look at the way the dust falls and how could the movie set be that big, right? If you can't figure out these dilemmas then I wouldn't quit your day job to head off to directing school.

a reply to: cestrup

But it's not slowed down footage from Earth. If you speed it up to make the acceleration equal to 9.8m/s^2 then the astronauts are running around flapping their arms like Usain Bolt on amphetamines.

People who argue that Apollo astronauts are moving in slow motion have watched too many bad movies.

Repeat after me: They are not moving in slow motion. A lot of the time they aren't even moving slowly.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

That's a damned good question. (Strangely enough Gary Kasparov recently equated Vladimir Putin to a poker player with a bad hand and said he (Putin) is bluffing in the Ukraine.)

Webb and Johnson built that program so both of them quit their jobs before any Apollo's went out of low earth.

Armstrong said there was a 50-50 chance of success.

your article says he thought he only had about a 50/50 chance of landing safely on the first attempt.. but a 90% chance of returning to earth safely

90% chance of reaching the moon and returning safely..

is Nixon a chicken??? knowing they could safely orbit the moon and return with 90% chance of success.. leaving only a 50/50 chance of actually being able to land..

im guessing by you bringing up the article means you admit that man was able to atleast orbit the moon and return safely then..