Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Come on Ove, you're in charge of building the studio set.

You have the studio, in a 360 degree panorama image right here, take a good look, full fullscreen

www.panoramas.dk...

where are the 100 foot high hills and where are all of your craters ?

you dont get it do you???

show me in that panorama where you can see little west crater (about 200 ft east from the LM), the crater that neil walked upto and took a few pics of such as this

spacemodels.nuxit.net...

Ok, you found one big crater 200 ft from the LM, now where are the 100 foot high hills Armstrong spoke of ?

no im asking you to find this "big" crater (little west crater) from the panorama you posted.. they are both from the apollo 11 landing site.. find little west crater for me in the panorama you posted and ill explain again where the invisible 100ft hill is.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

Ok, I've listened to your youtube video very carefully there are two things, I noticed

A couple of posts ago one of you Apollo belivers said, that the LM had to be operated by an astronaut to land on the moon, in this video we hear that the LM has a autopilot system (which could have been remote controlled)

the auto pilot required specific settings to be input manually to function properly.. likewise the star tracking had to be done manually..

I don't think so, I think you could pre-program it to land without a crew anywhere on the moon, I think you even could remote control it to land anywhere on the moon. In other words, pictuers of spacecrafts on the moon, doesn't prove Armstrong was there.

if they pre-programmed it to land without the crew.. it may have landed in a very steeped slope and large rocky area.. ie. the landing could have failed..

why??

because prior to apollo 11 those large rocks and steep slopes were not known about.

Well, than they would just have to look at the monitor

the monitor would have about a 2 second delay..

which would give them minimum 2 seconds to react to it.. when they realise this it would take them several minutes to program in new settings for the auto pilot to follow and re-upload those settings to the LM which will take i dont know how long but atleast another 2 seconds.. and by then the LM would have landed.. and crashed

you get this right?

Or they just used the joystick

Wikipedia: "In the 1960s the use of joysticks became widespread in radio-controlled model aircraft systems such as the Kwik Fly produced by Phill Kraft (1964)."

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

And then do what about it? You can't alter the autopilot settings from Houston!

Why not ? it's just a computer !

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

And is that supposed to fool people into thinking it is the lunar surface?

Are you suggesting that they used the flight simulator terrain model to shoot the surface photos? Look at how big it is!

This is what the lunar surface looks like.

(Click for larger image)

See all those individually labelled boulders? They are all identifiable on the LRO images. Can you find them on the LO image?

Your picture could have been taken by an rover or an unmanned spacecraft or it could haven been taken in a studio on Earth. The picture in it self is no proof, get it !

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

Ok, I've listened to your youtube video very carefully there are two things, I noticed

A couple of posts ago one of you Apollo belivers said, that the LM had to be operated by an astronaut to land on the moon, in this video we hear that the LM has a autopilot system (which could have been remote controlled)

the auto pilot required specific settings to be input manually to function properly.. likewise the star tracking had to be done manually..

I don't think so, I think you could pre-program it to land without a crew anywhere on the moon, I think you even could remote control it to land anywhere on the moon. In other words, pictuers of spacecrafts on the moon, doesn't prove Armstrong was there.

if they pre-programmed it to land without the crew.. it may have landed in a very steeped slope and large rocky area.. ie. the landing could have failed..

why??

because prior to apollo 11 those large rocks and steep slopes were not known about.

Well, than they would just have to look at the monitor

the monitor would have about a 2 second delay..

which would give them minimum 2 seconds to react to it.. when they realise this it would take them several minutes to program in new settings for the auto pilot to follow and re-upload those settings to the LM which will take i dont know how long but atleast another 2 seconds.. and by then the LM would have landed.. and crashed

you get this right?

Or they just used the joystick

Wikipedia: "In the 1960s the use of joysticks became widespread in radio-controlled model aircraft systems such as the Kwik Fly produced by Phill Kraft (1964)."

the monitor has a 2 second delay.. control inputs would have a 2 second delay.. monitor will show the reaction to the input with a 2 second delay minimum..

about 6 seconds minimum for one action and to confirm the action.. rinse and repeat..

would you like to land a craft with about a 4-6 second delay live on world wide tv?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

And is that supposed to fool people into thinking it is the lunar surface?

Are you suggesting that they used the flight simulator terrain model to shoot the surface photos? Look at how big it is!

This is what the lunar surface looks like.

(Click for larger image)

See all those individually labelled boulders? They are all identifiable on the LRO images. Can you find them on the LO image?

Your picture could have been taken by an rover or an unmanned spacecraft or it could haven been taken in a studio on Earth. The picture in it self is no proof, get it !

A rover or an unmanned spacecraft that just so happens to cast a shadow shaped exactly like a person?

And a photo that shows the same 3D landscape as dozens of other photos which include a human in the photo? With the same identifiable features photographed from different angles?

And as for the second part, you are the one who still doesn't get it: it cannot have been taken on Earth. I just spent half a dozen posts explaining why not.

Once again you prove that you do not read any replies to your posts, you just skip along to the next line of your argument. Are you following a script?

Why do you hate knowledge?

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38
No I never said spacecrafts can't land on the moon, of course they can, china landed one some months ago. I said it would be a one way trip, like the one they are planing to mars. Armstrong talks like it is another (suicidal) crew onboard. This scenario has previously been suggested by other Apollo analyst's

so you believe that a suicidal crew landed the LM on the moon and armstrong/aldrin took credit for it?

why do you think its impossible to lift off from the moon?? i missed it the first time..

Well everyone knows Armstrong didn't want to be credited for it, he always spoke about "the others". I don't know what really happened, back then ? I just don't belive Armstrong walked on the Moon.

Well even if it's 1/6 gravity, you would still need a rocket, to get this amount of cargo into space.

a reply to: Ove38

Yes, you need a rocket. What was the LM ascent stage?

I asked you this at least three times and you ignored it every time.

What is the delta-v needed to go from the lunar surface to CSM rendezvous orbit?

Then perhaps you can start explaining why this is impossible.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38

Ok, I've listened to your youtube video very carefully there are two things, I noticed

A couple of posts ago one of you Apollo belivers said, that the LM had to be operated by an astronaut to land on the moon, in this video we hear that the LM has a autopilot system (which could have been remote controlled)

the auto pilot required specific settings to be input manually to function properly.. likewise the star tracking had to be done manually..

I don't think so, I think you could pre-program it to land without a crew anywhere on the moon, I think you even could remote control it to land anywhere on the moon. In other words, pictuers of spacecrafts on the moon, doesn't prove Armstrong was there.

if they pre-programmed it to land without the crew.. it may have landed in a very steeped slope and large rocky area.. ie. the landing could have failed..

why??

because prior to apollo 11 those large rocks and steep slopes were not known about.

Well, than they would just have to look at the monitor

the monitor would have about a 2 second delay..

which would give them minimum 2 seconds to react to it.. when they realise this it would take them several minutes to program in new settings for the auto pilot to follow and re-upload those settings to the LM which will take i dont know how long but atleast another 2 seconds.. and by then the LM would have landed.. and crashed

you get this right?

Or they just used the joystick

Wikipedia: "In the 1960s the use of joysticks became widespread in radio-controlled model aircraft systems such as the Kwik Fly produced by Phill Kraft (1964)."

the monitor has a 2 second delay.. control inputs would have a 2 second delay.. monitor will show the reaction to the input with a 2 second delay minimum..

about 6 seconds minimum for one action and to confirm the action.. rinse and repeat..

would you like to land a craft with about a 4-6 second delay live on world wide tv?

I don't think it was as live as you think

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: Ove38
No I never said spacecrafts can't land on the moon, of course they can, china landed one some months ago. I said it would be a one way trip, like the one they are planing to mars. Armstrong talks like it is another (suicidal) crew onboard. This scenario has previously been suggested by other Apollo analyst's

so you believe that a suicidal crew landed the LM on the moon and armstrong/aldrin took credit for it?

why do you think its impossible to lift off from the moon?? i missed it the first time..

Well everyone knows Armstrong didn't want to be credited for it, he always spoke about "the others". I don't know what really happened, back then ? I just don't belive Armstrong walked on the Moon.

Well even if it's 1/6 gravity, you would still need a rocket, to get this amount of cargo into space.

the ascent stage weighed about 4500kg on earth.. the ascent stage engine produced 3,500 lbf (16,000 N) of thrust..

so on the moon the ascent stage would be about 750kg producing about 16000N of thrust which is about 0.05kg/newton of thrust..

in comparison

the saturn V weighed about 3,000,000kg and its 5 rocketdyne f-1 engines produced a total of about 34,020,000N of thrust, which is about 0.09kg/newton..

thrust-to-weight ratio of the LM ascent stage on the lunar surface is nearly double that of the saturn V at lift off..

how is this impossible again?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Yes, you need a rocket. What was the LM ascent stage?

I asked you this at least three times and you ignored it every time.

What is the delta-v needed to go from the lunar surface to CSM rendezvous orbit?

Then perhaps you can start explaining why this is impossible.

A Google search for this question gives 0 results, so this is the first time.

the ascent stage was no rocket

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Come on Ove, you're in charge of building the studio set.

The LM is meant to be landing in this area. This is the best picture we have.

Where are you going to put your little craters and boulders? Quick! We need those photos pronto! And remember it has to be accurate enough to fool people comparing images from ALL FUTURE MISSIONS to the moon, manned and unmanned.

I found one set, it's called Cinder Lake Crater Field, a copy of
Apollo 11 Landing Site. Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)
didn't think there were any did you ?

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Yes, you need a rocket. What was the LM ascent stage?

I asked you this at least three times and you ignored it every time.

What is the delta-v needed to go from the lunar surface to CSM rendezvous orbit?

Then perhaps you can start explaining why this is impossible.

A Google search for this question gives 0 results, so this is the first time.

Just stop lying.

1:

What was the delta V required to return the LM to rendezvous orbit?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

2:

What is the delta V required to achieve rendezvous orbital insertion for the fully laden LM?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

3:

You still haven't answered my questions.

What was the delta V needed to put the LM into rendezvous orbit?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

THREE lots of proof that you don't read a thing anyone else posts.

the ascent stage was no rocket

Another lie.

If you like Wikipedia links, wrap your reading gear round this one:

en.m.wikipedia.org...

"The Ascent Propulsion System (APS) or LMAE (Lunar Module Ascent Engine) is a fixed thrust hypergolic rocket engine developed by Bell Aerosystems for use in the Apollo Lunar Module Ascent Stage.

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Come on Ove, you're in charge of building the studio set.

The LM is meant to be landing in this area. This is the best picture we have.

Where are you going to put your little craters and boulders? Quick! We need those photos pronto! And remember it has to be accurate enough to fool people comparing images from ALL FUTURE MISSIONS to the moon, manned and unmanned.

I found one set, it's called Cinder Lake Crater Field, a copy of
Apollo 11 Landing Site. Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)
didn't think there were any did you ?

Now I know you are having a laugh. Look at those images. What do you notice? Look at the other picture of Cinder Lake you posted a page or two back. You know, the one you Photoshopped the trees out of? What does the terrain look like?

"Didn't think there were any did you?" What is that supposed to mean? Do you really think anyone who has studied Apollo is unaware of Cinder Lake? I mean, it was only built 47 YEARS AGO! What other new and exciting discoveries do you have for us, Ove?

Now answer the question you have been asked FOUR times already.

a reply to: Rob48
Now I know you are having a laugh.

I not laughing ,, i'm scared,,,the hoax is a very dangerous rabbit hole to crawl into..the propagandists are relentless

a reply to: Misinformation

The "moving LM" is just a silly argument that holds no water. The point-of-view of the camera is obviously changing, thus the angle from which foreground items are viewed will change. Additionally, the point of view to background items (such as hills several kilometers away) would not change that much -- i.e., the background changes would not be as noticeable as the foreground changes.

Foe example, there is a mountain (large hills, actually) that are a few km away that I can see from the front door of my house. If I look from my front door, my neighbor's house is below the mountain. However, if I move 25 or 50 meters to one side, the relationship between the foreground and background changes -- even if the background looks almost exactly the same.

That's because the foreground is closer, and moving 25 or 50 meters to one side makes a big difference relative to the foreground when I consider the foreground may only be 25 meters away. However, the difference in the viewpoint of a mountain a few kilometers away would not change very much if I moved sideways 50 meters.

This is pretty basic "perspective" stuff, and I'm surprised you don't understand it.

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People
a reply to: Misinformation

The "moving LM" is just a silly argument that holds no water. The point-of-view of the camera is obviously changing, thus the angle from which foreground items are viewed will change. Additionally, the point of view to background items (such as hills several kilometers away) would not change that much -- i.e., the background changes would not be as noticeable as the foreground changes.

Exactly. It is actually proof that this is a genuine photo taken on the moon with distant mountains and not a studio set with a painted backdrop.

Do you see, "Misinformation"? You are living up to your name once again.

PS: That other video. Two shadows? Really? Come on, use your brain. The clue is in plain sight in the video?

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People
If I look from my front door, my neighbor's house is below the mountain.

you think you can deceive us ,,,there is fallacy below your mountian ,,these are hoax lands & we will be vindicated

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Come on Ove, you're in charge of building the studio set.

The LM is meant to be landing in this area. This is the best picture we have.

Where are you going to put your little craters and boulders? Quick! We need those photos pronto! And remember it has to be accurate enough to fool people comparing images from ALL FUTURE MISSIONS to the moon, manned and unmanned.

I found one set, it's called Cinder Lake Crater Field, a copy of
Apollo 11 Landing Site. Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)
didn't think there were any did you ?

Now I know you are having a laugh. Look at those images. What do you notice? ....

The fact that they made a copy of Apollo 11 Landing Site in 1967, thats what I notice. Do you think this was the only fake moon landscape they made ?

As for your rocket engine, we would need to see this !

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: Ove38

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

Come on Ove, you're in charge of building the studio set.

The LM is meant to be landing in this area. This is the best picture we have.

Where are you going to put your little craters and boulders? Quick! We need those photos pronto! And remember it has to be accurate enough to fool people comparing images from ALL FUTURE MISSIONS to the moon, manned and unmanned.

I found one set, it's called Cinder Lake Crater Field, a copy of
Apollo 11 Landing Site. Mare Tranquillitatis (Sea of Tranquility)
didn't think there were any did you ?

Now I know you are having a laugh. Look at those images. What do you notice? ....

The fact that they made a copy of Apollo 11 Landing Site in 1967, thats what I notice. Do you think this was the only fake moon landscape they made ?

And what images did they use to create it? Think!!

As for your rocket engine, we would need to see this !

OK, please tell me: which rocket engine is this? What was it used for? Where?

How does this compare to the Lunar Module?

And for the FIFTH time, what was the delta-v required to get the LM from the moon to rendezvous orbit?