Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

a reply to: dragonridr

Want you to not I've hiw sand swirls off the tires. This is caused by the armosphere as the grains of sand spin.

no, its caused by the propagandists as they spin their fallacies in order too inflate factors so that the sporadic exertions of their straw man arguments arent readily exposed....

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: dragonridr

Right at the beginning, as the buggy slows before it accelerates much faster than the rover could imagine, it looks just like the rover. Imo. I did stumble upon this video when looking. More back drop fun!

That looks rather suspicious to an apollo reviewer. I realize you'll just say that's the parallax and difference between up close and far away, but that looks hokey as ##

are you able to tell us which station traverse and which EVA from Apollo 16 that footage is from??

from what i understand most of the Apollo station traverses are several minutes long..

if we assume the lunar rover is travelling at 1m/s and if the footage is 2 mins long that studio will need to be atleast 120m long.. and if we find out that that footage happens to be 20 mins long that studio now becomes about 1.2km..

ofcourse if you are of the opinion that it is slowed footage it would mean they are travelling faster than 1m/s which will mean that the studio will be even larger..

the lunar rover can travel at 8mph or roughly 3.6m/s..

a reply to: choos

In that footage, the rover could be giving the illusion of going straight because you never see the wheels. So, sense of direction, if that were an enormous concave screen back drop, would be thrown off. Come on, that rock!??!! Tell me that wasn't suspicious!

a reply to: onebigmonkey

You said that foreign space programs have confirmed Apollo 14, 15 and 16. What about 11 and 12?

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: dragonridr

Lol, for one, that thing only bursts sand high when it's going much, much faster than the rover. When it's cruising at the beginning, you've done nothing but help my case. Thanks!

when its cruising in the beginning why doesnt the sand go as high as in the lunar rover footage?? in the Apollo 16 footage you can see the dust trails rising above the rover quite clearly

why dont i see the sand hold its form like in these screenshots??

a reply to: bobbypurify

it wouldnt be suspicious if you knew how far it could be..

if you could let me know which station traverse and which EVA it was from, then you can confirm whether its suspicious or not..

and if they are just driving around in big circles, would they or would they not drive over their own tracks??

a reply to: choos

Poor comparison. I'm sure it did but the camera angle and lack of a horizon to compare it against make that hard to determine.

a reply to: choos

you can clearly hear the wind blowing atleast 20 mph in that video,,, no soup for you..- next

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

Poor comparison. I'm sure it did but the camera angle and lack of a horizon to compare it against make that hard to determine.

are you talking about the dust holding its form or how high the dust goes??

during cruising, the sand in the video barely goes higher than the wheels, they need to go much much faster than the rover just to get the sand higher than the buggy..

but the rover is capable of kicking up the lunar dust up above the rover at a much much much lower speed..

if you are talking about the sand holding its form, why is it so hard to find an example on earth that can do this?? NASA was able to do it so easily so many times..

surely if it was done on earth, millions of other people should have been able to replicate it by now, people try to make rooster tails for fun all the time, its been more than 40 years..

a reply to: Misinformation

Good point. Poor comparison, Mr Choos

a reply to: Misinformation

so what you are suggesting is that the difference between the lunar rover and the buggies on the sand dunes is an atmosphere??

a reply to: choos

so what you are suggesting is that the difference between the lunar rover and the buggies on the sand dunes is an atmosphere??

lol, nice try ,, but your spin anit going to work on me,, you know that

a reply to: bobbypurify

if its a poor comparison then maybe you can find an example to compare better to the Apollo 16 rover footage??

i would like to see dust/sand hold its form for a reasonable amount of time, i would also like to see the dust/sand be kicked up high at a low cruising speeds also..

a reply to: choos
maybe you can find an example to compare better to the Apollo 16 rover footage

why bother , there is already a general overwhelming consensus validating the moon hoax theory

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

What about them?

To my knowledge they have not. India's probe did not cover the 11 & 12 with enough detail. China is not forthcoming with its data.

The LRO has confirmed details that are only seen in Apollo images.

a reply to: bobbypurify

Because if they got lighter particles in there by mistake then they would tend to be suspended in air and cause billowing clouds. You do not get billowing clouds of dust ever - not even in the long unbroken sequences of kanding footage.

Either they did a lot of particle grading or they were on the moon.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

What about them?

To my knowledge they have not. India's probe did not cover the 11 & 12 with enough detail. China is not forthcoming with its data.

The LRO has confirmed details that are only seen in Apollo images.

That is convenient for NASA, isn't it?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Apollo Reviewers should examine the narrative provided by Richard Nafzger who was in charge of the SSTV equipment installation in Australia just days and weeks before Apollo 11. Nafzger explained that the SSTV equipment was shipped to the location, set inside a building controlled by the Australian government, Nafzger was locked out of the building for the weekend, when he returned on Monday the SSTV equipment was switched on and it promptly burned up.

The blown up SSTV equipment had to be replaced and it was replaced almost immediately by the manufacturer.... because the Apollo 11 was a "Nixon TV Spectacular" and the show must go on! And Richard Nafzger even accepted an American TV award for it.

So nobody is interested in how Richard Nafzger's SSTV equipment exploded?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
Apollo Reviewers should examine the narrative provided by Richard Nafzger who was in charge of the SSTV equipment installation in Australia just days and weeks before Apollo 11. Nafzger explained that the SSTV equipment was shipped to the location, set inside a building controlled by the Australian government, Nafzger was locked out of the building for the weekend, when he returned on Monday the SSTV equipment was switched on and it promptly burned up.

The blown up SSTV equipment had to be replaced and it was replaced almost immediately by the manufacturer.... because the Apollo 11 was a "Nixon TV Spectacular" and the show must go on! And Richard Nafzger even accepted an American TV award for it.

So nobody is interested in how Richard Nafzger's SSTV equipment exploded?

Nope happened all the time with vacuum tubes. Heck TVs were known to catch fire alot of hit and huge light bulbs inside. What you think is strange was common at the time so bad broadcasts had extra cameras for news broadcasts in case one blew. But to you everything Is a conspiracy including the fact the break room ran out of coffee the day aft er the launce.

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos

so what you are suggesting is that the difference between the lunar rover and the buggies on the sand dunes is an atmosphere??

lol, nice try

,, but your spin anit going to work on me,, you know that

Is that because it would require a degree of understanding of the subject!