Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: Rob48

Funny analogy but I disagree. youtu.be...

To me, it looks rather terrestrial. I realize opinions can differ greatly on this but it's simply my red flag. And in my opinion - a rather large one. Also, if they were on harnesses to take the weight off of their suits and achieve a look of lunar gravity, then I agree with you - making the film at the rate of gravity on Earth would look like what you said. Yes, I believe that they could achieve this with clever directing. I also realize I won't change your mind, it's not my intention. You're a well-versed sonofagun for the Apollo missions authenticity

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: cestrup

But it's bit 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.

Now speed it up 1.5x (or 2x for Apollo 11).

Nice try, though.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: cestrup

But it's bit 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.

Now speed it up 1.5x (or 2x for Apollo 11).

Nice try, though.

if we speed it up 1.5x you will require ropes/wires/strings..

is every single dust particle attached to strings?

So...

How can we determine if people are moving at 1/2 or 2/3 speed, or it's merely a magical illusion where everyone looks really slow?

And if Apollo is such an illusion of being slow, I'd like to see your proof for it.

Go to it..

originally posted by: choos

if we speed it up 1.5x you will require ropes/wires/strings..

is every single dust particle attached to strings?

No, just the particles you've identified and measured so very accurately have strings attached to them.

But you already knew that, of course.

originally posted by: turbonium1

Now speed it up 1.5x (or 2x for Apollo 11).

Nice try, though.

Speeding it up 1.5x doesn't make things fall at the right rate. The square root of 6 is 2.45. To simulate one sixth gravity you have to slow it down 2.45 times.

As seen in the video cestrup posted above, even at 2x speed the footage is clearly not terrestrial. Then you have to speed it up almost 25% more than that!

And then it looks really silly.



Not to mention, of course, that the astronauts were reacting and having conversations with the ground in real time, in one-sixth gravity, with pictures broadcast live. How do you speed up live footage in real time, exactly?

originally posted by: turbonium1
So...

How can we determine if people are moving at 1/2 or 2/3 speed,

How about you prove it.

or it's merely a magical illusion where everyone looks really slow?

They don't.

And if Apollo is such an illusion of being slow, I'd like to see your proof for it.

Go to it..

Nope - you do it.

As far as I am concerned when I watch Apollo footage they are moving normally, they are just moving normally in 1/6g, which means that their movements can be exaggerated. If you believe otherwise, do some maths and prove it.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: choos

if we speed it up 1.5x you will require ropes/wires/strings..

is every single dust particle attached to strings?

No, just the particles you've identified and measured so very accurately have strings attached to them.

But you already knew that, of course.

then why dont you provide your analysis of this? why is this guy and myself able to estimate lunar gravity.. not only that but able to get soo close to what the actual gravity should be at??



so why is it that the dust appears to be at the height that it can be estimated to be at and at the right time if this footage was slowed 1.5x??

if the footage was slowed 1.5x then there will be dust where there should not be dust, but that is not the case at all..

so then how?? the answer must be that the dust is also tied to strings.. why dont you just admit it?? each dust particle is tied to strings instead of outright denial..

Whoa, I actually think the regular footage looks silly. Especially the rover. It's in reduced film speed. Why do moving objects appear slower on the moon?

a reply to: cestrup
If you think that looks slowed down then I can't help you. I don't understand. Walking and jumping on the moon looks slower because everything falls 2.45x more slowly. You can't take the next hop until you've fallen back down to the surface. But the physical movements made by the astronauts, the arm movements etc, do not look slowed down.

And, like I said, video was transmitted live. Astronauts were talking to the ground and reacting to them in real time. How is it possible to slow down live footage in real time?

a reply to: Rob48

Yeah, I understand the gravity aspect but their movements seemed slowed in my opinion (hence why I mentioned the rover). How do I know what I'm looking at is live? Because NASA tells me it is? I don't trust them or their partners. It could have been shot over and over again to follow a script. Me or you didn't interact with them as they were in space, other people did. Like I've stated, if this were a hoax - it would have to be convincing for many years to come, not just in the early 70s. The jump salute looks identical to the mythbuster's harness jump. Exactly. So movements CAN be simulated here on Earth. And there were special effects in the 1960s to go along well with shoddy footage. I'm open to being wrong, Rob - I very well could be. But I rarely see the need to be 100% convinced of anything produced by my television set. It's been a tool of propaganda for many years now. Interestingly enough, the CIA got involved in the late 50s via operation mockingbird to control this propaganda. Pretty good timing too

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

Yeah, I understand the gravity aspect but their movements seemed slowed in my opinion (hence why I mentioned the rover). How do I know what I'm looking at is live? Because NASA tells me it is? I don't trust them or their partners. It could have been shot over and over again to follow a script. Me or you didn't interact with them as they were in space, other people did.

Every so often that live footage would show a view of Earth. That view of Earth would show a terminator and land masses entirely consistent with what ought to be visible at the time of broadcast, and the weather satellite data confirm that they were taken at that date and time. The live broadcasts show rocks and craters that were not known about before the landings, and were only confirmed by later probes.

Lack of trust is not the same as 'not true'.

Like I've stated, if this were a hoax - it would have to be convincing for many years to come, not just in the early 70s.

It still is.

The jump salute looks identical to the mythbuster's harness jump. Exactly. So movements CAN be simulated here on Earth.

Simulated using complex arrangements of wires and harnesses and people to operate those harnesses, none of which can be seen in the Apollo footage, and no astronaut ever gets entangled in those wires when they cross paths.

And there were special effects in the 1960s to go along well with shoddy footage.

Such as? I have yet to see any that show anything like Apollo's level of detail. And don't just cite Kubrick. Kubrick got stuff wrong. If anyone at the time of Apollo wanted genuine accuracy and true to life special effects, they used Apollo images.

I'm open to being wrong, Rob - I very well could be. But I rarely see the need to be 100% convinced of anything produced by my television set. It's been a tool of propaganda for many years now. Interestingly enough, the CIA got involved in the late 50s via operation mockingbird to control this propaganda. Pretty good timing too

Again, lack of trust or dislike does not alter the facts or invalidate the science. Not liking something is not the same as 'it did not happen'. The CIA can't change the laws of gravity.

a reply to: cestrup

How do I know what I'm looking at is live? Because NASA tells me it is? I don't trust them or their partners. It could have been shot over and over again to follow a script. Me or you didn't interact with them as they were in space, other people did.

As well as what OBM says above — rocks and craters present in the TV footage which HAD NEVER BEEN SEEN BEFORE and had never been seen since until the advent of high-resolution orbital imagery in the past five years or so — there were TV and press journalists from all over the world in Mission Control.

They were observing the ground crew talking to the astronauts live on the moon too, as it happened. If they had spotted any fakery going on they would have had the scoop of the century. NASA doesn't control the world's media!

I know none of this will convince you. If you have decided it was a hoax on the basis of no evidence, then no evidence will change your mind. It's a religion, I get it. But just in case anyone is still "on the fence", it's still worth mentioning all this evidence.

a reply to: Rob48

So there's no way that either the Earth or that undiscovered craters could have been fabricated or lied about? That's it for you? And I could change my mind - I've already admitted that so I don't understand why you posted that. My last post I admitted I could be wrong - but I'm going to need more than pictures and all evidence controlled by the entity I believe is doing the deceiving.

a reply to: cestrup

How can you fabricate a crater? They are there, on the moon. It's not just NASA that has seen them, it's China as well. The Chang'e 2 probe mapped the moon at 7 metres per pixel - not enough to see the hardware but enough to show small craters in exactly the same place they are in the NASA imagery.

I'm a scientist by training, not a theologian. I don't get into arguments about faith or religion, because you can't argue with faith. It just offends both parties. I like hard evidence.

You say you don't believe what you see on TV. Fine. Neither do I. If had to take the TV pictures purely on faith with no other evidence, I wouldn't necessarily be convinced (although I would still find it very hard to see how they could have faked it). But the TV pictures are a tiny part of the whole thing. You could take them away and there would still be a mountain of irrefutable evidence. And the evidence is still there!

Arguing that Apollo was fake is a bit like somebody in 1980, say, trying to argue that the Titanic never existed. All that time, the wreck was lying there, and eventually someone was going to discover it. Similarly, all this time, the Apollo hardware is up there on the moon. The LM descent stages. The rovers. The scientific equipment. The TV antennae. The discarded suits. The cameras. Even the bags of Neil Armstrong's faeces. It's there just waiting — and unlike the Titanic it's not going to rust away any time soon. (Not to mention that we know exactly where to look!)

But you and I both know that even when a Chinese or an Indian or a Russian mission takes close-up photos of all the above, the true believers will still cry fake. Because it's like a religion for some people (maybe not you, although you are doing a good job of ignoring all evidence so far!) and facts are irrelevant to religion.

a reply to: choos

If the goal of the project was to meet JFK's deadline then 50-50 are not the kind of odd's that Nixon would like to see.
The "90% chance of returning safely to earth" is irrelevant to what Neil Armstrong perceived as the odds of "landing safely on the first attempt."

Notice that he stipulated "50-50 chance of LANDING SAFELY on the first attempt." Notice again that Neil didn't speculate what he thought on the odds of "lifting off from the moon" and returning safely to earth.

50-50: It means there could be state funerals for the lost astronauts in July 1969; it would mean at least a 9 month delay on Saturn/Apollo missions.... it might result in that the JFK dead-line is missed. HH & RN would not accept those odds, which is why they planned and opted for Plan-B, Beat the Commies!

50-50 means : We really don't know. It's every one's guess.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

His quote does not say they had a 50/50 chance of dying on landing, only a 50/50 chance of successfully landing on the FIRST ATTEMPT.

read the quote from your own source properly..

Should something go wrong they would abort and return to earth safely, 90% chance of returning safely..

They had two lunar missions planned for 1969, if Apollo 11 ended in aborted mission, bugs would be worked out so that Apollo 12 would be more successful. Your gambling Nixon is a chicken.

originally posted by: Rob48

Speeding it up 1.5x doesn't make things fall at the right rate. The square root of 6 is 2.45. To simulate one sixth gravity you have to slow it down 2.45 times.

As seen in the video cestrup posted above, even at 2x speed the footage is clearly not terrestrial. Then you have to speed it up almost 25% more than that!

And then it looks really silly.

The problem is you assume they are in 1/6g, on the moon.

If it was in true lunar gravity, then it should not, and would not, look silly at the corrected speed for Earth (or 1g), which you claim as being 2.45x.

The speed which DOES match Earth's 1g speed is 1.5x (or 2x for Apollo 11 footage).

It should not, and would not, match at 1.5x speed if it was in true lunar gravity.

Either way you approach it, the Apollo footage is not in true 1/6g, so they cannot be on the moon.

originally posted by: Rob48

Not to mention, of course, that the astronauts were reacting and having conversations with the ground in real time, in one-sixth gravity, with pictures broadcast live. How do you speed up live footage in real time, exactly?

No, they SAID it was live. You may choose to believe them, but it is an entirely unfounded claim.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The problem is you assume they are in 1/6g, on the moon.

No, all the evidence matches the claim that they are in 1/6g on the moon. You are assuming they are not and are wrapping yourself in knots to convince yourself that they aren't.

If it was in true lunar gravity, then it should not, and would not, look silly at the corrected speed for Earth (or 1g), which you claim as being 2.45x.

They are moving normally, in 1/6g. Speeding up the footage is not 'correcting' it, it is manipulating it to prove a false premise. If you have to manipulate your evidence to prove a point, you're failing.

The speed which DOES match Earth's 1g speed is 1.5x (or 2x for Apollo 11 footage).

Except it looks silly, therefore the lunar footage is not speeded up. You can't pick and choose the speed to suit your argument. Maths shows you what the adjustment should be, and the adjustment makes it look stupid. The astronauts are not moving in slow motion.

It should not, and would not, match at 1.5x speed if it was in true lunar gravity.

It does not match when the speed is manipulated, because it is originally in true lunar gravity. The astronauts are not moving in slow motion, therefore speeding it up makes it look wrong. it looks wrong because it is wrong.

Either way you approach it, the Apollo footage is not in true 1/6g, so they cannot be on the moon.

No. The only way to approach it is that it is on the moon. If you can't get the speed right so that it is 'correct' for earth, that should tell you that speeding it up is wrong. The astronauts are not moving in slow motion.

No, they SAID it was live. You may choose to believe them, but it is an entirely unfounded claim.

it is not unfounded, it is a claim supported by evidence. Evidence like images of Earth taken from space and from the moon, broadcast on TV that made it on to the next day's newspapers. Some of us are old enough to have watched it live.

Your claim that it was not live TV from the moon is unsupported by any evidence, and is a lie told by people you have chosen to believe.