Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: cestrup
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?

They appear slower because they've slowed the film to 66.66% normal speed (or 50% normal in Apollo 11).

Apollo-ites insist that they don't move slower than normal, of course. They say it may look slower to some people, because it is in 1/6g. Of course, the problem is that it is NOT in true 1/6g. Compare the Vomit Comit's 1/6g movements and you'll see exactly what I mean.

All they have is an unfounded, ridiculous claim about dust, in return. Sad.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

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.

No.

Putting it to 1.5x speed gives it normal, 1g speed. That is correcting the footage.

Putting it to 2.45x speed, which you suggest is normal 1g speed, looks utterly ridiculous. You manipulate it to silly speed, trying to prove a false premise.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
Except it looks silly, therefore the lunar footage is not speeded up. You can't pick and choose the speed to suit your argument.

I just went over this. It looks silly at the speed YOU choose to suit YOUR argument. Which is 2.45x speed. You have it all backwards.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
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.

It certainly matches at 1.5x speed, not at all at 2.45x speed.

The jump by Young at 1.5x speed is a near-perfect match to the Mythbusters jump in 1g. Even choos has admitted we could match it on Earth.

Of course, that's why he couldn't use the two jumps in his argument anymore.

Do you think a jump on the moon would match a jump on Earth using wires? Do you think it's odd an exact 1.5x speed increase makes it match up?

Why do Apollo 11 astronauts move slower on 'the moon' than they move during all the other missions ?

You don't think so? Try this..

Put Apollo 11 'lunar' footage to 2x speed. It appears to be normal speed.

Put any other 'lunar' footage to 2x speed, and what do you see?

The astronauts are moving TOO FAST.

Why would that be?

They are in the same 1/6g, right? Same lunar environment. Same spacesuits. There is no difference at all.

So they should obviously move around the lunar surface the same way, and at the same speed, during ALL of the missions.

But they don't.

There is only one legitimate explanation to account for such an obvious discrepancy.
Do you know what it is?

a reply to: turbonium1

Speeding up any Apollo lunar footage makes it look wrong, no matter what speed you choose. It looks wrong because it is not in slow motion to start with. If your only proof is manipulating evidence you've failed. If you want to prove it, you do the work. Then explain how the dust behaves in a manner consistent with lunar gravity and zero atmosphere, because it does no matter how many times you try and dismiss it.

If you want to look at a legitimate explanation of differences between Apollo 11 EVA footage and other Apollo EVA footage, try investigating what sort of cameras were involved and how they were broadcast to Earth and then re-broadcast. I realise this will involve actual independent research but go on, give it a shot.

While we're waiting for you to get to grips with that, here is some more more Apollo TV that proves how wrong you are.

Apollo 8 broadcast images of Earth on the December 23rd 1968. Here's the TV footage:



Those images made it on to the front page of the newspapers, here's one of them:



Notice the date on the paper? It's the 24th of December 1968, the day after the broadcast, I found it on ebay today. As it appeared on the news on the 23rd and the newspapers on the 24th, they couldn't alter that after the fact, so it has to be correct.

Here is a weather satellite image that proves it shows exactly what it should show:



That weather image was not available to them, because it is a composite of several different orbital passes.

The weather patterns on that satellite image, the location of the terminator, and the features that the crew describe here

history.nasa.gov...

are all absolutely consistent with each other. Gee it's almost as if they were in space looking at it.

I can do this from more missions if you want, but I bet you don't.

originally posted by: turbonium1
No.

Putting it to 1.5x speed gives it normal, 1g speed. That is correcting the footage.

no it does not, wires or ropes are required on ALL objects for it to be close..

Putting it to 2.45x speed, which you suggest is normal 1g speed, looks utterly ridiculous. You manipulate it to silly speed, trying to prove a false premise.

thats the whole point.. it looks silly at 2.45x because that is proof that the footage was NOT slowed down.. cant believe you still dont understand my argument..

the 2.45x factor is only an arbitrary factor that relates objects FALLING on the lunar surface and falling on earths surface.. it is the mathematically correct factor..

I just went over this. It looks silly at the speed YOU choose to suit YOUR argument. Which is 2.45x speed. You have it all backwards.

it is the mathematically correct factor.. ie. any object that is falling on the lunar surface when sped up 2.45x will fall at the same rate as it would in a vacuum on earths surface.. this includes lunar dust..

It certainly matches at 1.5x speed, not at all at 2.45x speed.

drop a rock from about 40cm and record it, compare the rate of fall of the rock with john youngs jump at 2.45x

The jump by Young at 1.5x speed is a near-perfect match to the Mythbusters jump in 1g. Even choos has admitted we could match it on Earth.

incorrect.. the mythbusters jump HIGHER and land EARLIER than john young.. this also means that each and every dust particle MUST BE ATTACHED TO STRINGS

Of course, that's why he couldn't use the two jumps in his argument anymore.

Do you think a jump on the moon would match a jump on Earth using wires? Do you think it's odd an exact 1.5x speed increase makes it match up?

have you even got an answer to why dust is falling at about 1.62m/s^2??? that would mean dust particles actually have strings attached to them according to your theory..

why is it you dont think its odd that NASA allows dust to fall faster than everything else??? and not one person can prove this not even remotely..



you see this video?? the dust reaches a maximum height of about 1.25 metres.. it reaches that height in about 1.24seconds..

this indicates LUNAR GRAVITY..

your theory of 1.5x slowdown means that the dust should have reached a height of 1.25 metres in 0.76 seconds.. that is not the case however.. at 0.76seconds the dust still has NOT reached its apex.. why???

prove your theory.. or just admit that each dust particle is attached to strings..

ill even take screenshots for you:

time 0 or begin at 2mins 33.887 seconds

0.76 seconds laters or about 2min 34.655seconds
and finally

1.25seconds after the start or about 2mins 35.122 seconds

why is it that the dust is visibly RISING after 0.76seconds.. it is defying gravity according to your theory.. or maybe the all the dust particles are attached to strings..

a reply to: turbonium1

Putting it to 2.45x speed, which you suggest is normal 1g speed, looks utterly ridiculous. You manipulate it to silly speed, trying to prove a false premise.

We didn't just pull that 2.45x figure out of thin air!

That is the speed needed for objects to fall at the correct speed for Earth gravity. You can test this yourself using a stopwatch.

As you say, if you speed it up 2.45x then the astronauts' movements look silly. That's the whole point. The astronauts appear to move impossibly fast while they and everything around them fall at Earth gravity speed.

Therefore, the film cannot have been shot in Earth gravity. You're even arguing for reality of the footage yourself now!

This thread has gone rather quiet...

Just in case anyone needs a laugh, I thought I'd share a very early sighting in the wild of everyone's favourite "Aussie genius", Jarrah White.

Way back in 2003, when young Jarrah can't have been long out of short trousers, it seems he was quite the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fan. However, something about those turtle adventures jarred with JW even then:

forums.thetechnodrome.com...

In the pictures, you can see what looks like the base-structure of the Apollo Lunar Lander and a abandoned lunar rover. Sorry, but TMNT or not, this comic is a piece of garbage. There are no Apollo Lunar landers on the surface of the moon, nor will there ever be. Getting a man, or as the comic suggests, a turtle on the moon is impossible, NASA knew that.

Jarrah continues:

The moon has no atmosphere meaning it has no Ozone layar and it's solid core means it has no Van Allen belt; no protection from the sun's solar flares, the moon sucks up the Gamma-rays like spung, turning itself into a barron radioactive wasteland.

And moon rocks? Pah!

Do you have any idea how easy it is to create an artifical rock? Use samples from Luna 9, melt them down, mix them with chemical, they were artifically created in a lab and passed on as lunar findings.

I wonder, is this the point at which Jarrah realised that Apollo was one big fraud? While reading a comic book about four bandana-wearing chelonian crime-fighters?

Sadly, as you will note from the linked thread, Jarrah was later banned from the turtle forum, apparently for expressing rather unsavoury predilections.

None of this really makes his theories any more or less ridiculous, of course, but it does give a little insight into the mind of a moon hoaxer, and, more importantly, gave me a right good laugh. And if you can't laugh at the hoaxers then what can you do?

a reply to: Rob48

This thread has gone rather quiet...

yeah so some of us may have yard work to do. perhaps it is a good time for some other people to come into the conversation whether they be Apollo Defenders or Apollo Reviewers.

originally posted by: Rob48
Just in case anyone needs a laugh, I thought I'd share a very early sighting in the wild of everyone's favourite "Aussie genius", Jarrah White....


...And moon rocks? Pah!

Do you have any idea how easy it is to create an artifical rock? Use samples from Luna 9, melt them down, mix them with chemical, they were artifically created in a lab and passed on as lunar findings.

Yeah. I'm not sure how less than one pound (0.7 lbs) of dust brought back by the Russian return missions could be used to make the 840 lbs of moon rock brought back by Apollo. That would be some magic indeed.


One of my favorite posts from Jarrah White in that forum was this:

Well it's worth noting that months before the Apollo 11 landing they couldn't even land the damn thing on earth.

By reading that, it is clear to me that White has no idea what the LLTVs and LLRVs really were (or he chose to ignore what they really were for). They were NOT testbeds for the lunar lander. They were training vehicles used to train the pilots and test the maneuvers needed for piloting the LMs. These were inherently unsafe because of Earth's gravity.

The LMs themselves were specifically designed to only work in zero-g or the low gravity environment of the Moon, so they could not be tested on earth. Instead, the LMs were test flown during the Apollo 5, 9, and 10 missions.

Why would Jarrah White decide to ignore those successful in-situ tests of the LM itself when he made that post. Why only mention the LLTV and LLRVs (which were NOT test flights of an LM) instead of the actual successful test flights of the LM?

So if Jarrah is such as nimwhit - as some in this thread would have us believe - what's the point of all of this character-attacking? Same with Sibrel. It wouldn't be because of some sort of agenda, would it? Sometimes it's easy to see through the motives and bringing up blogs from a comic webstite in 2003 when Jarrah was probably a child (just a guess, I can't tell how old he is) is kind of harsh. But, when you have astronauts that turn rabid when questioned about a possible hoax and the fact that nobody has been ever to recreate this feat - or even a fraction of it - I can see how these men would bother your psyche of Apollo-worship. I don't have conclusive evidence either way. I haven't been shown conclusive evidence either way (which makes me retarded, I guess - I mean look at the cloud formations in the photo!).

It's just another forum and each side believes they're absolutely right - when we could still all be wrong. Character-attacking is rather petty and a show of hand IMO

originally posted by: cestrup
So if Jarrah is such as nimwhit - as some in this thread would have us believe - what's the point of all of this character-attacking? Same with Sibrel. It wouldn't be because of some sort of agenda, would it?

My agenda in this thread is simple and straightforward: presenting evidence that demonstrates the veracity of Apollo, and pointing out the glaring errors in the "evidence" presented in favour of the hoax. Jarrah White is the current figurehead of the hoax movement and is trying to con a whole new generation of internet users with his lies.

He clearly has no grasp of the scientific concepts he tries to use to dazzle his followers, and simply relies on the fact that most of them are even dumber than he is. He won't enter into reasoned debate on his own YouTube channel; he blocks anybody who questions them. Therefore I think it is absolutely fair to call out his total lack of class and integrity, not to mention scientific knowedge. His taste for reptile pornography is just the icing on the cake: he is certainly quick enough to make personal attacks against those who oppose his twaddle.

I notice Jarrah is still claiming to be "studying for a BSc in astrophysics". I wonder how that is going for him, seeing as he still doesn't understand what sublimation is, and is incapable of picking up elementary mathematical errors by his "spiritual grandpa" Ralph René.

And for you to say "I don't have conclusive evidence either way" on page 239 of a thread crammed full of it is pretty disingenuous.

a reply to: Rob48


All of the presented evidence could be fabricated unless you lack even a basic imagination. The data is basically all coming from one source - the one that many are skeptical of. I do agree with you with the thermodynamics error and I believe you made your point that he's capable of making mistakes, fine. But he's also skeptical and has brought forth good evidnece that always seems to have a canned repsonse that is subjective.
The Apollo flag waving by itself - the ground shook it.
The C-rock - NASA claims it was not an original and there's no way of proving this.
VAB - we could hang out there according to you for hours but nobody outside of Apollo has visited it for even a minute. No other country has even came close to sending someone to the moon but we did in 1969.
The footage looks slowed down - "no it doesn't" and then the strawman 2.45x speed.
The director of NASA quits right before the moon missions, HMM???
The video of them in LEO faking being half way to the moon which is obvious to everyone except your camp.
Fake moon rocks
von Braun in Antarctica when he's supposed to be working on the rocket?
Your side's total ignorance (I hate using this but the "how could they do this then?" questions) on how movie directing and productions could ABSOLUTELY recreate what we're witnessing.
Photos can be manipulated and added because none of us were there in the 1970s analyzing cloud patterns
1/6 gravity - what? Sorry, mythbusters proved they were harnessed in 1g with their jump that was EXACTLY like the one from the Apollo mission. Even down to the movement of the arm. BUT YOU'RE FOCUSED ON ****ING DUST!

I could literally go on and on - everything you present can be fabricated, faked and testimony and data from the entity we're skeptical of is not EVIDENCE. Until someone else goes there or there's a telescope that I can put my eyeball up to focused on the landing sites - WE ARE ALL ALLOWED TO BE SKEPTICAL. Now, here's where you take the stand of being the most intelligent person ever and belittle everything with snide remarks because that's your true agenda. Because you have the authority by your side and they'd never lie about anything - I mean how could they?? THEIR science matches THEIR testimony. That's what we're skeptical of. That everything you present can be fabricated and we believe your side is totally oblivious to this because you can "fact check" it without realizing the circular fallacy.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48
THEIR science matches THEIR testimony. That's what we're skeptical of. That everything you present can be fabricated and we believe your side is totally oblivious to this because you can "fact check" it without realizing the circular fallacy.

But it's not "THEIR science". It's just SCIENCE. Science is science, and it doesn't care what nationality or organisation is doing it. I can do the maths, you can do the maths, Russians can do the maths, Indians and Japanese and North Koreans can do the maths. It all adds up. The American LRO sees the same lunar landscape that the Chinese Chang'e 2 orbiter sees, and the same as the Japanese Kaguya orbiter sees. It all matches. You can't hide stuff on the moon, it's all there for people to see!

And as for calling the factor of 2.45x a "strawman", what the hell? That is just another example of basic science, basic maths. If you want objects in the Apollo footage to appear to be falling at the correct rate for Earth gravity, you have to speed it up by 2.45 times. I did that equation at school when I was about 14 years old!

t = √(2d/g)

If you divide g by a factor of 6 (ONE SIXTH GRAVITY!) then you increase t by a factor of √6.

√6 = 2.45.

Many things about Apollo may be rocket science, but this is GCSE physics! Does NASA control Newton's laws of gravity now or what?

Please, stop embarrassing yourself by confusing ignorance with skepticism. Skepticism is an admirable, healthy trait. Ignorance of basic mathematics and science is not.

a reply to: Rob48



I don't believe craters were faked. So why address that? Yeah, there were craters on apollo footage that weren't discovered until the LRO. This is not evidence that MAN WALKED ON THE MOON. Is this what convinced you? Why didn't they take photos of Apollo? Like good photos? I don't think the LRO photos are conclusive and neither do many skeptics. In fact, they look altered IMO. But why would they ever do that?

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48



I don't believe craters were faked. So why address that? Yeah, there were craters on apollo footage that weren't discovered until the LRO. This is not evidence that MAN WALKED ON THE MOON. Is this what convinced you? Why didn't they take photos of Apollo? Like good photos? I don't think the LRO photos are conclusive and neither do many skeptics. In fact, they look altered IMO. But why would they ever do that?

Wait, you are saying that photographs taken 45 years ago of men walking in craters whose existence was not previously known of, but that exactly match the terrain we can now see with modern probes, is "not evidence that MAN WALKED ON THE MOON"? What is it, exactly?



Please explain how the photograph on the right was taken in 1971, when the details of the landscape were not known in anything like the detail that was revealed by the Japanese orbiter some 36 years later. THAT DATA DID NOT EXIST IN 1971. Just that one image is the "conclusive proof" you say you lack, unless you think that the entire Japanese space agency is colluding with some gigantic hoax dating back half a century!

Edit: and please, before you say "so where is the Apollo hardware in the JAXA image", do a bit of research and answer that question for yourself! Skepticism, skepticism, skepticism...

a reply to: Rob48

Rather easily - Didn't they send Lunar Orbiters to map the surface at decent resolution? Weren't all six mapped? Bam, model the sets after the information you received from the orbiters. I mean, even I can spot the subtle differences between the 3-d image and the Apollo photo.

Could they not accurately make a movie set with these landmarks given the data they had? Or were you in on the meetings with the Orbiters and know everything about what they brought back? Here's where you'll show me what NASA shared with common folk. But, if this were a conspiracy, Robbie - we have to assume that they'd be rather intelligent in pulling it off, no?

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48
Rather easily - Didn't they send Lunar Orbiters to map the surface at decent resolution? Weren't all six mapped? Bam, model the sets after the information you received from the orbiters. I mean, even I can spot the subtle differences between the 3-d image and the Apollo photo.

Define "decent resolution". Sufficient to pick out a suitable landing spot? Yes. Sufficient to produce a global topographic map with accuracy down to a few feet using laser altimetry and stereographic photography? Umm, no.

Why is it that you don't see a problem with speculating that NASA had some top-secret super-advanced probes that had capabilities many times better than the Lunar Orbiters, but you can't entertain the notion that they had spacecraft that could land men on the moon? What's so magic about men?

originally posted by: Rob48


And as for calling the factor of 2.45x a "strawman", what the hell? That is just another example of basic science, basic maths. If you want objects in the Apollo footage to appear to be falling at the correct rate for Earth gravity, you have to speed it up by 2.45 times. I did that equation at school when I was about 14 years old!

t = √(2d/g)

If you divide g by a factor of 6 (ONE SIXTH GRAVITY!) then you increase t by a factor of √6.

√6 = 2.45.

Many things about Apollo may be rocket science, but this is GCSE physics! Does NASA control Newton's laws of gravity now or what?

Please, stop embarrassing yourself by confusing ignorance with skepticism. Skepticism is an admirable, healthy trait. Ignorance of basic mathematics and science is not.

Assuming they're in 1/6 gravity being the fallacy, buddy. Most of us, who believe this was a hoax, believe that this was filmed in 1g, with harnesses and film speed to give the illusion of the moon's gravity.

I thought another member summed it up rather nicely which was not adequately responded to IMO - again which left your side focused on dust and 1/6th gravity

"It certainly matches at 1.5x speed, not at all at 2.45x speed.

The jump by Young at 1.5x speed is a near-perfect match to the Mythbusters jump in 1g. Even choos has admitted we could match it on Earth.

Of course, that's why he couldn't use the two jumps in his argument anymore.

Do you think a jump on the moon would match a jump on Earth using wires? Do you think it's odd an exact 1.5x speed increase makes it match up?

Why do Apollo 11 astronauts move slower on 'the moon' than they move during all the other missions ?

You don't think so? Try this..

Put Apollo 11 'lunar' footage to 2x speed. It appears to be normal speed.

Put any other 'lunar' footage to 2x speed, and what do you see?

The astronauts are moving TOO FAST.

Why would that be?

They are in the same 1/6g, right? Same lunar environment. Same spacesuits. There is no difference at all.

So they should obviously move around the lunar surface the same way, and at the same speed, during ALL of the missions.

But they don't.

There is only one legitimate explanation to account for such an obvious discrepancy.
Do you know what it is? "

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: cestrup

a reply to: Rob48

Rather easily - Didn't they send Lunar Orbiters to map the surface at decent resolution? Weren't all six mapped? Bam, model the sets after the information you received from the orbiters. I mean, even I can spot the subtle differences between the 3-d image and the Apollo photo.

Define "decent resolution". Sufficient to pick out a suitable landing spot? Yes. Sufficient to produce a global topographic map with accuracy down to a few feet using laser altimetry and stereographic photography? Umm, no.



Why is it that you don't see a problem with speculating that NASA had some top-secret super-advanced probes that had capabilities many times better than the Lunar Orbiters, but you can't entertain the notion that they had spacecraft that could land men on the moon? What's so magic about men?

What's so magic about men? Well maybe men should be outside our known solar system or traversing Mars by now. I don't think comparing the feats of machinery to men is quite fair. We build machines to either make our jobs easier or simply, because humans cannot do the task. Horrible analogy

originally posted by: cestrup
I don't have conclusive evidence either way. I haven't been shown conclusive evidence either way (which makes me retarded, I guess - I mean look at the cloud formations in the photo!).

You type that and then go into a tirade. That seems a little strange. Also, you made a comment about astronauts getting rabid when questioned... well, if I risked my life for science and the good of mankind then had a group of people constantly follow me around calling me a liar along with other names, I won't repeat here, eventually I would get a little rabid too. People like that [conspiracy stalkers] are sketchy. It's good to be rapid. Especially when you have children. It's a natural protection instinct. And lastly, would you mind putting up your OWN mathematical equations proving this possible hoax?

originally posted by: cestrup

What's so magic about men? Well maybe men should be outside our known solar system or traversing Mars by now. I don't think comparing the feats of machinery to men is quite fair. We build machines to either make our jobs easier or simply, because humans cannot do the task. Horrible analogy

Precisely. If you stopped and thought for two minutes you would see that you have just answered the question of why men haven't been back to the moon since 1972! Because there is no longer a need. During Apollo there was a political need and so men had to be sent. Today, there isn't. Been there, done that, now we can send rovers and unmanned probes that can stay in situ for years rather than days.

Assuming they're in 1/6 gravity being the fallacy, buddy. Most of us, who believe this was a hoax, believe that this was filmed in 1g, with harnesses and film speed to give the illusion of the moon's gravity.

So assuming 1/6 gravity on a satellite with 1/6 gravity is a fallacy, but assuming magical invisible non-tangling wires and slowed-down live footage isn't? Again, you are confusing skepticism with rabid crackpottery.

I thought another member summed it up rather nicely which was not adequately responded to IMO - again which left your side focused on dust and 1/6th gravity

"It certainly matches at 1.5x speed, not at all at 2.45x speed.

Matches an assumed jump made artificially slow using wires, for which there is no evidence whatsoever! At 2.45x speed, it matches an unassisted jump in Earth gravity.

Do you think a jump on the moon would match a jump on Earth using wires? Do you think it's odd an exact 1.5x speed increase makes it match up?

Not at all odd. The whole point of wires is that you can adjust the speed to exactly whatever the hell you want it to be, whether it's half gravity, one sixth gravity or one tenth gravity. Rig the wires up differently and you could probably fake 2x gravity too! However, that still leaves the problem of the dust, which you are attempting to sweep under the carpet, but it won't go away, because not even NASA can attach individual wires to millions of regolith particles.

Why do Apollo 11 astronauts move slower on 'the moon' than they move during all the other missions ?

You don't think so? Try this..

Put Apollo 11 'lunar' footage to 2x speed. It appears to be normal speed.

No it doesn't. The astronauts appear to be moving too fast, but objects are still falling almost 25% too slowly to be in Earth gravity.

Put any other 'lunar' footage to 2x speed, and what do you see?

The same, but with better camera technology. Please link to some videos to show what you mean. Or just post "OK, I admit it, I know bugger all about science but I love a good spook story" and leave the thread with good grace. Either is fine with me.