Disclosure of the Moon Landing Hoax: Part 2

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
a reply to: AgentSmith

Hi,

I have never before seen a video from inside the Space Shuttle during launch, and I would have to look up the accelerational g-forces at that time - but in your second video (the one with the shuttle-launch) I was stumpified by seeing the copilot moving his hand freely and seemingly effortless across the instruments at about 3:48.

Do you know about the "Porsche Test"?
You sit down in the front passenger seat, then a banknote is stuck into the opening of the glove box, which is then shut.
If you can reach the banknote under full acceleration, you can keep it.

Okay, the copilot didn't have to reach FORWARD, but the fine movement of his hand are incredible

It's not the acceleration of the car that's the problem it the SEAT BELT as soon as the car accelerates the seat belt will hold you back the mechanism works with inertia.

Next time you are in your car put your seat belt on and quickly pull it it locks so to win the money you jump in hold the seat belt strap a few inches from you when they accelerate lean forward and take the money!!!

Watch the video here look how the belt is holding her back in the seat!



Yet another example of SIMPLE science fooling people!

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

that sort of ruins the assertion that Apollo was hoaxed solely because Nixon was a crook of a President (i.e., "Nixon was crooked; ergo we never went to the Moon")

I'm unware of any existing moon hoax theorists who concludes thats solely the rationale,, its just a propagandists conjectural
construct for exclusive consumption...

Misinfo has stated it correctly to you Soylent. The misunderstanding is based in the fact that you are discussing other posters in the thread which the Mods have explicitly cautioned us not to do. I am not a Mod and I am not acting like a Mod toward you.. I am simply informing you that there have been at least two or three messages from moderators in this thread about discussing other posters.

Each president had his own Apollo narrative. The landings belong to the Nixon administration. It is only right and correct that a Disclosure Thread about Apollo would include conspiracy minded but factual events, such as the SSTV equipment explosion in Sydney three weeks before Apollo11, the radio fire in Tidbinbilla, or the CIA involvement in the DFMR scandal,

even the esoteric implications of Stanley Kubrick can and should be discussed in this thread.

Yeah.. nevermind.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

as you bring up the equipment room fire AGAIN .

come on - HOW did this facilitate an alledged hoax ????????????????????

its a simple question - that you seem determined to avoid


the facts are :

US spec equipment was fitted in accordance with US practices - and austrailian engineers altered it to conform to australian practices . there was a fire - the dead equipment was scrapped and replacements fitted - which worked and relayed the TV signals

thats a pretty accurate sumation of the facts

so : HOW DID THIS FACILITATE AN ALLEDGED HOAX ???????????????????

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

So it seems the hoax would have needed to originate with Lyndon Johnson. If that were the case, do you have evidence linking Johnson to such a deceitful undertaking?

Johnson, of course, had his own set of different motivations with Apollo... his plans did not include being the President for the moon landings. The long running team of Johnson/Webb quit. JFK's football pass flies right over Johnson's head and is caught by Nixon/Paine in December of 1968.

Johnson may have given guidance to Nixon regarding Apollo. I am not aware of how much they talked about it during the transition period from November 68 to Jan 69.

One thing is for sure, Nixon wanted to quit Apollo. The record shows that. Why risk further missions when JFK's goal was complete? Nixon would be blamed for carelessly ordering astronauts to die in space after reaching JFK's goal.

originally posted by: Ove38
The Vostok 1 capsule was empty upon landing, no man inside.

Yes, as was planned with the mission; what is your point?

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: Ove38
The Vostok 1 capsule was empty upon landing, no man inside.

Yes, as was planned with the mission; what is your point?

planned ? planned hoax, yes !

The Soviets lied about the landing, claiming that Yuri Gagarin had touched down inside the capsule, he was never in it, it was just voice recordings transmitted to Earth, like the ones from Zond 5 that went around the moon in 1968, three months before USA did the same

a reply to: Ove38

sigh - the soviets lied about gagarin landing the capsule - for one specific reason - the international rules on altitude records say the pilot has to land with the craft [ the fact that he bailed out in the terminal phase of re-entry - would if revealed invalidate the official record for human altitude ]

its funny how you accept the soviet revalation that he didnt land it - but reject the soviet claim that he took off and orbited the earth - confirmation bias much ????

and ah - back to zond 5 - citation required for any soviet claims that it was a manned flight

originally posted by: Ove38
he was never in it, it was just voice recordings transmitted to Earth,

And of course this claim of yours is backed up by what exactly?

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: Ove38
he was never in it, it was just voice recordings transmitted to Earth,

And of course this claim of yours is backed up by what exactly?

a reply to: Ove38

A YouTube video. Of course.

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Ove38

A YouTube video. Of course.

Your comment is at the level of,

A Book. Of course.

A Newspaper. Of course.

A Tv program. Of course.

What about the facts in the video, book, newspaper or tv program ?

a reply to: Ove38
Yes a lot of words, but again; where is the evidence for those words; by what is the story backed up?

She claims the crew was forbidden to speak to Gagarin while the hatch was closed for the second time; however it is not backed up by anything; this transcript clearly shows multiple people talking to Gagarin all the time: (pdf-warning)
www.firstorbit.org...

originally posted by: MissVocalcord
a reply to: Ove38
Yes a lot of words, but again; where is the evidence for those words; by what is the story backed up?

She claims the crew was forbidden to speak to Gagarin while the hatch was closed for the second time; however it is not backed up by anything; this transcript clearly shows multiple people talking to Gagarin all the time: (pdf-warning)
www.firstorbit.org...

Thats just even more words

originally posted by: Ove38
Thats just even more words

However words from another source contradicting the ones in your youtube video for which you still have failed to give any evidence.

a reply to: Ove38

What about the facts in the video, book, newspaper or tv program ?

Yes, what about the facts in the videos of the Moon landings, the books about the Moon landings, the newspaper accounts of the Moon landings or the TV programs about the Moon landings? Or is something a "fact" only if it agrees with your imagination?

originally posted by: MissVocalcord

originally posted by: Ove38
Thats just even more words

However words from another source contradicting the ones in your youtube video for which you still have failed to give any evidence.

There is more than enough evidence in the documentary I gave you. Sorry but it was a USSR hoax

a reply to: Ove38

in which case - please summaries these " facts "

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Ove38

What about the facts in the video, book, newspaper or tv program ?

Yes, what about the facts in the videos of the Moon landings, the books about the Moon landings, the newspaper accounts of the Moon landings or the TV programs about the Moon landings? Or is something a "fact" only if it agrees with your imagination?

Well, these two NASA guys confirms my "imagination"

Oh I forgot it's a youtube video, so what they say doesn't count for you Apollo believers, they are probably a part of some conspiracy against
the Apollo believers

a reply to: Ove38

Interesting. So the original science is missing. Now they can just make up their own as to how this happened so it aligns with advances in science from 1969. Now, they just have to retouch the vids and pics (mid 90s early 2000s) and WHHHAAAA LAAA!

New, updated footage/science just like the digitally remastered Star Wars.

The story is becoming more clear by the day. I'll have to watch that entire documentary as I've only seen clips of it. Apparently, he came to prove the Apollo missions but came to the conclusion they didn't happen. Hahahha