Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: cestrup

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 fmaths. 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.

People who believe in jarrahs harness and 1.5x slowdown theory basically show they they don't understand basic physics at all..

You do realize that EVERYTHING must be on a harness in order to comply with this theory, and that includes the dust and that includes bags being thrown all the while rotating in mid air without getting tangled ..

Everything in a vacuum or near vacuum such as the lunar surface falls at the exact same rate. This is fundamental physics you can't change this.

For instance if dust takes 1.24 seconds to reach a height of 1.25m, then using a very basic gravity acceleration equation it will show the gravity to be at around 1.62m/s^2.. This can't be denied, my previous post shows this happening with times stamps.

The only possible way for this to be possible if they used harnesses and slowed the footage 1.5x is if all the dust particles were attached to strings.. Which is plain ludicrous and shows that the hoaxer is being "intellectually dishonest"..

But for some reason hoax believers choose to continue to ignore this, they all suddenly have eye problems and cannot see..

originally posted by: cestrup

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

No, it really doesn't.

The clearest footage of lunar activities from Apollo 11 is from the 16mm DAC, rather than the poor quality TV footage.

Here's a link

Go to about 5:00 in that video and using the Settings icon at bottom right, switch the speed to "2", i.e. double. Not only is Neil Armstrong apparently twitching around at high speed down at the bottom of the ladder, but you can see Buzz's reflection in the window also going at hyper-speed!

originally posted by: Kronzon

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?

no tirade, just what I have problems with. I don't claim what I have is 100% conclusive proof. I'm simply here providing of why I believe it to be a hoax rather than man went to the moon. Why don't you tell me why you believe so much instead of worrying about your perceived motives of me? That would be a start. And welcome to ATS!

Oh, as to the astronauts. Do you have proof of them being stalked? I mean, them being harrassed, yes - I've seen that. But what made you think they were in danger? Do people normally go around in the late 90s with a camera and a microphone and hurt people? They all got really angry and "showed their cards" IMO much like when I was a child and caught in a lie. Make it seem really personal and sell the idea that "you're insulted" and get angry and make threats. These guys should be laughing at the notion if they were confident about what they've seen. Instead, as soon as they knew Sibrel's intentions - they all reacted the same way.

a reply to: choos

Quit focusing on the dust. That's a losing argument. You can't single one piece out in that shoddy footage and that could easily be added on as some special effect of some sort. We are talking about the astronaut, not dust. Why does it appear exactly as the mythbusters jump when sped up? No dust - why???

a reply to: cestrup

And something nobody has replied to which was quite the eye-opener for me was what the poster "Turbonium" (sp?) brought up. Why, if you speed up the footage on Apollo 11 to 2x and then the rest to 2x, do they look different? It makes the other missions look too fidgity (Usain on meth ) but puts Apollo 11 in earthly fashion. I find that rather odd. Looking forward to your answers...

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: cestrup

And something nobody has replied to which was quite the eye-opener for me was what the poster "Turbonium" (sp?) brought up. Why, if you speed up the footage on Apollo 11 to 2x and then the rest to 2x, do they look different? It makes the other missions look too fidgity (Usain on meth

) but puts Apollo 11 in earthly fashion. I find that rather odd. Looking forward to your answers...

I asked you to please show videos explaining what you mean. I linked to the 16mm footage from Apollo 11 above, and it certainly does not look in any way correct when viewed at 2x speed.

Apollo 11 used a slow-scan monochrome TV camera but also the 16mm fixed DAC. Later Apollo missions used much improved colour Westinghouse TV cameras which gave a clearer image, but also carried 16mm cameras. Comparison of like with like (16mm with 16mm) shows no obvious differences that I can see. Could you point them out if they are so "eye-opening"?

And you cannot "ignore the dust". For somebody who claims not to be "100% certain" of a hoax, you are certainly very quick to dismiss any evidence that disproves the hoax theory. "That could easily be added on as some special effect of some sort" is not an argument. Show us how. Give us numbers, measurements and equations.

Also perhaps show us the lighting rig they used to produce totally consistent shadows that shortened perceptibly over the course of the lunar day during the EVA...

a reply to: Rob48


Nobody is asking for the dust - we're talking about the astronauts jump being IDENTICAL to the mythbuster's jump at 1g. That's why I'm being dismissive about the dust. I thought I made that clear. The dust is separate of the astronaut - right???


Here, this is literally one of thousands of sped up clips. This is where it's subjective. It looks rather normal to me and others but you'll claim it looks silly and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Then you'll throw some numbers out there that assume everything was on the moon and wei'll again be at wit's end. Amirite??

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

And WTH is this? How does a man do this? He can only jump 18 inches on a salute but can lift himself up with his big toe? This is insane? He's being pulled up by a wire if you ask me.

And there's even "pings" of light from the wires above the astronauts - as seen in this footage

www.youtube.com...

What the heck could that be??

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48


Nobody is asking for the dust - we're talking about the astronauts jump being IDENTICAL to the mythbuster's jump at 1g. That's why I'm being dismissive about the dust. I thought I made that clear. The dust is separate of the astronaut - right???

I have never seen the episode of Mythbusters in question, only endless rehashings and screenshots on this thread. That is why I have tended to stay out of any detailed discussion of it.

I have been trying to find a side-by-side comparison of the "wire jump" with an Apollo jump on YouTube but haven't managed to so far. Do you have a link?

The information I can find about the Mythbusters setup says:

Next, they brought in a rig with a harness and bungee cords attached to a tracking system--built specifically for the test by Trapeze World--that would simulate the moon's gravity. After strapping in, Adam repeated the three movements while Jamie filmed him at 48 fps.
When they slowed down the footage to the regular 24 fps, they weren't impressed by what they found. While it was close, the slowed down footage wasn't an exact match with NASA's footage

source

If the harness set-up was specifically designed to simulate the moon's gravity when the film speed was halved, then I cannot say I am surprised that the "astronaut's" jump looks like a real Apollo jump. What does that prove, exactly? That if you ignore everything apart from the astronaut on a harness designed to simulate lunar gravity, he will look like he is in lunar gravity? Isn't that rather self-evident? But that doesn't help your argument because that ignores everything else present in the videos, namely the dust, the fact that there isn't a harness, the fact that astronauts filmed long stretches of continuous footage while roaming around the surface and driving rovers, etc etc.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48


Nobody is asking for the dust - we're talking about the astronauts jump being IDENTICAL to the mythbuster's jump at 1g. That's why I'm being dismissive about the dust. I thought I made that clear. The dust is separate of the astronaut - right???


Here, this is literally one of thousands of sped up clips. This is where it's subjective. It looks rather normal to me and others but you'll claim it looks silly and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Then you'll throw some numbers out there that assume everything was on the moon and wei'll again be at wit's end. Amirite??

www.youtube.com...

But it doesn't look normal does it? I don't know how you can say it is when clearly it is not. Armstrong and Aldrin cross paths any times - how come the harnesses don't get tangled up?

And where does the dialogue come into it? The dialogue that was recorded on Earth by pointing a dish at the moon by Larry Baysinger? Why is this only a couple of minutes of clip when the actual EVA was 150 minutes+ long? How did they work in the phone call to Nixon? How is that the photographs of the Earth taken on the lunar surface show the Earth's weather over Australia exactly as it should be? How come Jodrell Bank recorded them?

And you can't separate out the dust, because the dust behaves exactly as it should in a zero atmosphere low gravity environment. Hoaxers might like to pretend it's not there. but it is.

You can't take these little fragments in isolation and say the rest is irrelevant. The rest is crucial to seeing the entire picture.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48


Nobody is asking for the dust - we're talking about the astronauts jump being IDENTICAL to the mythbuster's jump at 1g. That's why I'm being dismissive about the dust. I thought I made that clear. The dust is separate of the astronaut - right???


Here, this is literally one of thousands of sped up clips. This is where it's subjective. It looks rather normal to me and others but you'll claim it looks silly and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Then you'll throw some numbers out there that assume everything was on the moon and wei'll again be at wit's end. Amirite??

www.youtube.com...

But it doesn't look normal does it? I don't know how you can say it is when clearly it is not. Armstrong and Aldrin cross paths any times - how come the harnesses don't get tangled up?

Do you understand how a production works? They make things look perfect and scrap the bad scenes - such as harnesses tangling. I find this type of logic troubling. So because you don't see their harnesses tangling - it's real? You must be imrpressed by a lot of industry tricks.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey


You can't take these little fragments in isolation and say the rest is irrelevant. The rest is crucial to seeing the entire picture.

Actually, no. If one part is fake your side is literally screwed. So we can pick at these fragments all we want. That's the beautiful thing about a conspiracy - it's the little discrepancies that make the difference. See, a bunch of smart minds get together to try and deceive many. So it ABSOLUTELY HAS to look authentic or it's a giant fail. But, it's impossible to totally recreate the real thing and little clues are left everyhwere. That's why we pick at it. That's why, in the light of today's tech, the whole thing looks rather silly. That's why there are so many "science-minded" folk defending Apollo with such vigor and ridicule. Yes, we know that you can literally provide volumes of "evidence". Well, no sh**. That comes with every conspiracy because, like I stated, these people aren't dumb. But they're not perfect either!

originally posted by: cestrup
www.youtube.com...

And WTH is this? How does a man do this? He can only jump 18 inches on a salute but can lift himself up with his big toe? This is insane? He's being pulled up by a wire if you ask me.

Whoever uploaded this video is apparently blind. He has his left hand on the other astronaut's right arm or hand and is pulling himself up with that. Quite clearly.

And there's even "pings" of light from the wires above the astronauts - as seen in this footage

www.youtube.com...

What the heck could that be??

Oh I don't know, maybe it could be the big wire VHF antenna sticking out of the top of the PLSS backpack, glinting in the sun, which anybody who has any idea about the Apollo program would know about?






Sources:
www.hq.nasa.gov...
spaceflight.nasa.gov...

Do you understand how a production works? They make things look perfect and scrap the bad scenes - such as harnesses tangling. I find this type of logic troubling. So because you don't see their harnesses tangling - it's real? You must be imrpressed by a lot of industry tricks[.quote]
In a live production? With ground crew talking to the astronauts while being observed in close-up by the world's media IN THE CONTROL ROOM? Jesus H Christ.

edit on 7-5-2014 by Rob48 because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Rob48

I still don't see how that didn't look totally strange to you. I thought the 200lb back pack weighed them down, even in lunar g? But here, it's like a feather. And him putting his hand on the other fella just lifted him right up. Looks very fishy to most people but you believe everything from Apollo so let's throw subjectivity out the window. It looks totally normal, right???

The pings, as shown by Percy, are sometimes 4+ ft above the astronaut and follow a straight line from the plss. I'm not talking about the antennae.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

I still don't see how that didn't look totally strange to you. I thought the 200lb back pack weighed them down, even in lunar g? But here, it's like a feather. And him putting his hand on the other fella just lifted him right up. Looks very fishy to most people but you believe everything from Apollo so let's throw subjectivity out the window. It looks totally normal, right???

The pings, as shown by Percy, are sometimes 4+ ft above the astronaut and follow a straight line from the plss. I'm not talking about the antennae.

The Apollo PLSS packs weighed about 90 pounds (when full of consumables), which equates to 15 pounds on the Moon.

Source


As for the glints above the astronauts, I have seen a glint high above the astronauts on some occasions in the films, but that glint usually corresponded to a glint directly above the PLSS, which could have been the antenna glinting and a corresponding lens flare higher above it, or other lens flare/internal camera reflection. But so we are on the same page, please provide a link to the videos you are talking about.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: Rob48

I still don't see how that didn't look totally strange to you. I thought the 200lb back pack weighed them down, even in lunar g? But here, it's like a feather.

The 200lb weight is for the suit plus the backpack. A 180lb man with a 200lb suit (Earth weights) would weigh about 65lb on the moon. I don't see that you couldn't pull yourself up with one leg and one hand. Like you say, it looks strange - that's because we are not used to operating in lunar gravity! If he struggled to get up then you would be saying "Why is it such a struggle to get up, he only weighs 65lb?" Once again, anything is taken as evidence of a hoax.

The pings, as shown by Percy, are sometimes 4+ ft above the astronaut and follow a straight line from the plss. I'm not talking about the antennae.

Percy doesn't know what he's pinging on about. 4ft+? I think not. The only occasion when you get any suggestion of a "wire" extension is when the sun is glaring off the antenna and causing lens flare. The large blob just above the backpack is the sun on the antenna. The "ghost" blob above it is lens flare.

How do we know it's lens flare? Because it is projected in a straight line passing directly through the central axis of the lens. Optics 101.

Easily illustrated below:



Are people really so ignorant of photography that they mistake LENS FLARE and ANTENNAE for wires? Do you see why people get so frustrated with these morons? This is not complicated stuff to understand! I seriously despair for the state of education if people cannot apply the slightest bit of critical thinking and logic to the total BS that these hoaxers spout. It is transparently obvious what these videos show and yet people keep falling for it!

As for the footage from Apollo 17 on that video, I don't know where they got that muddy looking version from. Go to www.hq.nasa.gov... and www.hq.nasa.gov...
for the originals and you can see as plain as day that these are nothing but flares off the antennae.





Not only that but you can see that one of the "flashes" in the YouTube video has been added on after the fact!



How odd!

originally posted by: cestrup

originally posted by: Kronzon

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?

no tirade, just what I have problems with. I don't claim what I have is 100% conclusive proof. I'm simply here providing of why I believe it to be a hoax rather than man went to the moon. Why don't you tell me why you believe so much instead of worrying about your perceived motives of me? That would be a start. And welcome to ATS!

Oh, as to the astronauts. Do you have proof of them being stalked? I mean, them being harrassed, yes - I've seen that. But what made you think they were in danger? Do people normally go around in the late 90s with a camera and a microphone and hurt people? They all got really angry and "showed their cards" IMO much like when I was a child and caught in a lie. Make it seem really personal and sell the idea that "you're insulted" and get angry and make threats. These guys should be laughing at the notion if they were confident about what they've seen. Instead, as soon as they knew Sibrel's intentions - they all reacted the same way.

And let me add to that. I have seen that lot's of Apollo believers enjoyed the hitting of Bart Sibrel in his face. Disgusting behavier if you ask me.

originally posted by: cestrup

originally posted by: Kronzon

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?

no tirade, just what I have problems with. I don't claim what I have is 100% conclusive proof. I'm simply here providing of why I believe it to be a hoax rather than man went to the moon. Why don't you tell me why you believe so much instead of worrying about your perceived motives of me? That would be a start. And welcome to ATS!

Oh, as to the astronauts. Do you have proof of them being stalked? I mean, them being harrassed, yes - I've seen that. But what made you think they were in danger? Do people normally go around in the late 90s with a camera and a microphone and hurt people? They all got really angry and "showed their cards" IMO much like when I was a child and caught in a lie. Make it seem really personal and sell the idea that "you're insulted" and get angry and make threats. These guys should be laughing at the notion if they were confident about what they've seen. Instead, as soon as they knew Sibrel's intentions - they all reacted the same way.

Thanks for the welcome! Glad you and everyone else is here to make this interesting. That said, I have NO perceived motives of you... none. I'm not sure what you mean by that. Story Musgrave had a stalker who killed herself. I can link if necessary. Look, the crazy stalker happens anytime someone gets famous enough. Crazies are out there. And no, I'm not saying you are one. Point is, I don't know you. That being said, I don't know what you are and aren't capable of. If you follow me around from press conference to press conference, charity to charity hurling insults at me I'm going to become hostile at some point. I'm human. It would get to anyone. Plus it's the same accusations from the same people. Talk about a broken record. Sheesh that would be annoying.

Dust you write. Dust is very interesting. If it can be used as evidence why deny the possibility? CGI was not an easy thing to accomplish back thin...unless they were using alien technology ..... ( I kid I kid). And I'm tired of people quoting mythbusters. Those guys are very cool. I love that show. But let's not forget, they're not really scientist. Yes Jamie has an engineering degree, buts it's honorary. It was a gift. And yes, that's still an accomplishment, but it doesn't make him a scientist. They're SFX guys from the Matrix. Oh yeah, and the debunking of their debunkings, those are funny. Please note, I am not hating on mythbusters. I love it. I'm just sayin. Also their Apollo tests were inconclusive. Please post equations and video. If you have by the time I post this, my apologies.

originally posted by: cestrup
a reply to: choos

Quit focusing on the dust. That's a losing argument. You can't single one piece out in that shoddy footage and that could easily be added on as some special effect of some sort. We are talking about the astronaut, not dust. Why does it appear exactly as the mythbusters jump when sped up? No dust - why???

I've already explained why, in order for the astronaut to fall at 1.62m/s^2 when footage is slowed 1.5x the astronaut must be filmed at roughly 4.3m/s^2. This cannot be achieved if strings are not attached ie. the dust..

Now stop the denials, stop the lying.

Watch the YouTube video, you can ignore what the YouTuber argues be honest with yourself and answer one simple question.

In your opinion, does the maximum height the dust reaches greater than or less than the height of the astronaut??

You seem to be convinced of the hoax so you should have no issue answering such a simple question since you know that it will be in your favor eventually.

P.s. If you saw two balls dropped from different heights which one would you say should hit the ground first?

a reply to: cestrup

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.

You would think so, wouldn't you, from the maturity of those posts, but by all accounts Jarrah was born in 1980! I can't verify that at the moment but several websites mention his date of birth.

If correct, that means he was 23 years old when he was spilling his badly spelt theories and disturbed fan-fiction onto a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles discussion board. I don't know what you were doing with your life at the age of 23 but I certainly hope it wasn't that!

The "young Aussie genius" is, it turns out, only three years younger than me, and he still hasn't managed to complete his much-touted astrophysics BSc, owing to the unfortunate handicap of being thicker than two short planks when it comes to the scientific method.