Apollo Moon Landings a Hoax? Then Read This

reply to post by ShiningBeneath

His elbow was the fulcrum.
Pretty much a one arm pushup, which under 1/6 gravity would be no big deal even with the PLSS on his back. His total weight would have been about 60 pounds, most of which was supported by his knees. And he had some help from a friend.

It also looks like on arm left the surface right before it looks like his comrade had a hold of his other hand helping him up, thats what it looked like to me after many high rez replays. It wouldn't convert to QuickTime for me, or I would segment an illustrated clip. RealPlayer is getting stubborn these days, I'm not going to buy any of their software, and the Youtube Flash compression is horrible.

reply to post by Phage


If the hand-to-hand thing is true, then I'd wager it's of much more importance to his ability to climb than that right arm of his as you mentioned earlier, as the right arm alone just seems far too awkward as any kind of 'push-up' action would require some form of extension.

reply to post by Phage


Phage, you disappoint me. The 2nd video in Athin's list, freeze it at 23 seconds. That is NOT the antenna reflecting, we can all see the antenna, no need to point that out as they flash often enough in most NASA films. Its a silvery shiny thing. I would guess that the antenna on the backpack does not extend 1 metre (3 feet) or more into the air. Unfortunately Youtube seems good at pulling all the so-called Hoax vids where credible evidence is presented using NASA videos and images. When they pull them so fast we can barely post them, its pointless.

[snip]

Ionizing radiation does not have a frequency? This little picture:
would seem to disagree with you. If it moves/vibrates, it has frequency, period. Sound, light, radiation of whichever form you would care to mention even though it happens not to be mentioned in some graphs, is probably due more to our inability to construct devices that can measure things that 'high'. And me being useless at Physics and still am. Off-topic, look how close mobile phones and microwave cookers are. Boiled testes anyone? I am not an expert though and of that I am the first to admit. Back on topic...

[snip]

The whole NASA thing seems so strangely linked to some American people's psyche judging from many of the OS'ers replies here that its just scary, but there is a fine line between pride and nationalism and... I'll let you fill in the dots. (No I won't. Google youtube for "14 signs of fascism" for corroboration. It comes from work done by someone who has studied and earned a title, not some basement dweller like myself who presumably only watches youtube vids all day. ) Back on topic again...

I'd be the first to admit that none of us really "know". But then again, 'They' are good at keeping it nice and covered. It must be sad that people now dare to question (the sheer audacity!) whereas before they just swallowed it if it was on the TV. Internet helps us exchange and truly question ideas and that is a relatively new thing, at least on the scale it is now possible.

"I saw it on TV", "My dad worked for NASA", so it must be true? No disrespect to the OP or his father either (NASA doesn't hire dummies, we all know that) but its hardly proof, except that he was a clever man and worked for NASA in one of the biggest lies ever told. The people on the ground had no idea.

And yes Bart Sibrel was a dick for approaching Buzz Aldrin (?) in the way he did, but who else can such people get access to and ask them a question or two? The answer is probably classified information and I really couldn't give a rats ass as I've seen enough to know there is something very fishy about it all.

NASA stinks, period. The company NASA that is, not the well-meaning people who work for it, just to be clear.

Feel free to ignore my post and/or let others bury it in a hail of pointless posts with NO EVIDENCE apart from the same old grainy images showing a dot and a slight shadow. We can see rover tracks, but not the rover or the various bits of spacecraft or junk left behind? Suuure!

I was walking on the moon one day, in the studio light of ...May...June..er...well, who cares. Mua...ha...ha!

reply to post by ShiningBeneath

He lifted his upper body with his right arm, he was helped the rest of the way up.
I really don't see the problem.

reply to post by patternfinder

New hi-resolution photos NASA released this week from 12 miles above Moon.If you look close you can see Moon bugy,human footprints(trails),and liftoff platform left on Moon.Never been this clear.
nasaengineer.com...

reply to post by Frira


Although i appreciate your personal story and respect you and your father, i admire him for working for one of the most toughest organisations to work for, especially now days, and also they hide so much yet have the public think we know all thats happening even though they have there secret craft and black projects.but i must say, no, the landing was not faked, but it was covered up with a hollywood film so to speak, there is a video out there somewhere about the appolo landing that shows a directors picture on a polaroid on the floor in moonlanding footage,plus nasa had a giant scale model of the moon, dead giveaway, but due to alien activity it was covered up due to the NASA craft being buzzed by ufos and also the discovery of becons in space, if you follow stories on dark night and other monoliths you can find some good stories about the truth, but no disrespect to your father and you, it wasnt faked, it was covered up, JFK wanted the US and the soviets to go into space together and the government insiders didnt like this from what i have read, plus there was the ufo issue, so, they killed JFK.americas innocence and especially the governments died when they killed JFK.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

Maybe this will cast some light on the artifacts seen in the second video.


I think you lost track of discussion about radiation. Please show me where I said electromagnetic radiation does not have a frequency. In fact, I think you'll find that I said that electromagnetic radiation of UV frequencies and higher is ionizing radiation.

Now please show me in that electromagnetic spectrum where the high energy particles I was talking about are.

Now please show me evidence that the Van Allen belts (which was the subject being discussed) have higher levels of electromagnetic radiation than anywhere else in space.

reply to post by Frira


Soo..what's your dad's name?

Not that I care because I never really understood why they would fake the moon landing in the first place!Oh,because "they wanted to be the first ones there" but I mean,who cares though honestly?

I get suspicious though when people after all these years are still trying to make people believe that it was or wasn't a hoax!

Originally posted by wbf850
reply to post by patternfinder

 

New hi-resolution photos NASA released this week from 12 miles above Moon.If you look close you can see Moon bugy,human footprints(trails),and liftoff platform left on Moon.Never been this clear.
nasaengineer.com...

and never will be clearer either....i've already seen the pics...

reply to post by Frira


there is a such thing as compartmentalization of information.. who better to make believe something actually happened than the people working on the projects? providing them with false info furthers there agenda.. making memories for families to look back on and convince the doubters that it was real...

^just an observation.^

by the way after long hours of reading various material for the past couple years im still undecided if we have landed on the moon or not...

reply to post by killaseason


That was in the 30's and 40's, and if what you say is true how did Russia get 'The Bomb'? Really compartmentalized info there huh?

You can't hide science, because you can't control thousands of free people, and it took just one to give Russia the bomb. That kind of conspiracy thinking is oxymoronic and contradictory at best!

Originally posted by patternfinder

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by Frira

 

I am with you 100% on that. I remember the moon landings being on TV. I also remember IBM 360 computers and tray of punch cards. Unfortunately youngsters have absolutely no concept of what things were like then.

The IBM I worked on took up a complete floor of the building it was in, and yes it was programmed with punch cards. Try cracking that code when you have dropped the tray!! Graphics? - nope!

reply to post by patternfinder

 

Tell me. Were you even alive then?

edit on 5/9/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)

does it matter whether i was alive then? i'm alive now and i see no dust on the feet of the lunar landing along with no crater beneath it..in fact, it doesn't even look like anything was disturbed.....but, the astronots had mud all over their boots and were leaving foot prints which tells me that the substrate was loose enough to have blown all over the place even with a much smaller psi than the rocket was using to land with.....I will add that I have had plenty of experience in my life with which to gauge reality by.....and just because you remember some aspects of the mission fondly doesn't make it so......there are alot of government conspiracies that have happened where the general laymen that were involved had no clue as to what was really going on behind the scenes, then one day they are surprised as we are when the news gets leaked out and is all over the news......

"there are alot of government conspiracies that have happened where the general laymen that were involved had no clue as to what was really going on behind the scenes, then one day they are surprised as we are when the news gets leaked out and is all over the news"

Name one.

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

I think you lost track of discussion about radiation. Please show me where I said electromagnetic radiation does not have a frequency. In fact, I think you'll find that I said that electromagnetic radiation of UV frequencies and higher is ionizing radiation.

Now please show me in that electromagnetic spectrum where the high energy particles I was talking about are.

Now please show me evidence that the Van Allen belts (which was the subject being discussed) have higher levels of electromagnetic radiation than anywhere else in space.

edit on 9/6/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)

I'll answer you tomorrow (its almost 5am here) but answer first what you saw at 23 seconds of the video I mentioned that Athin posted.

PS Its circled in red, just in case you can't quite see it. Ice crystals, jpeg compression or...some other usual answer will not do though.

Originally posted by blah yada
While I believe that moon landings took place, I don't believe all if any of the footage was real , especially the first landing.

Think of it. They sent up national heroes,to the moon, the first time man had set foot on another planet so to speak.And they pulled it off, on live TV in 1969.Luckily, everything went just fine.But what a risk to take, our heroes could have died horribly before our very eyes.Aside from being a human diaster it would have been a political armageddon

Now think of the time,1969. Think Cold War and Space Race. Propaganda was everything, be it predicated on truth or falsehood. What good was it landing on the moon without strong visual proof to show the world?

I believe they embellished their accomplishments with falsified footage to garner public enthusiasm and political kudos.Pictures paint a thousand words and moving pictures paint an entire library. Without them the whole impact of the event would have been greatly lessened.I find it hard to believe they filmed a perfect virgin moonlanding on live TV when we can barely make a cellphone call today without a hitch.

OK, I'm about to give up on this thread. When I commented earlier about high-def photos I already knew about the LROC stuff. I didn't want to accept it as sufficient proof simply because I knew that it would not be satisfactory to the doubters.

But the comments above just really steam me. We KNEW that we could lose our heroes in horrible fashion. We LOST some of our heroes in horrible fashion. It was crushing. It was like losing *family* for God's sake. We had grown up from childhood with these guys--AND their wives and kids. Anyway, the point is that, as a nation, we recovered from the tragedy, and we restored our spirit, and we got up and slogged on. You'll never experience this country coming together like they did during Apollo 13. We were--again, as a nation--an absolute basket-case. We just couldn't believe that the worst could happen again; we WOULDN'T believe it. We, this nation--and god only knows how many people in how many countries around the world--were pulling for a miracle. And we got it.

There WAS NO FAKED FOOTAGE. Goddammit, if there were some way I could take you people and carry you to the moon and rub your faces in their footsteps--HARD!--believe me, I'd do it! And you wouldn't deserve it....

reply to post by Ex_CT2

One of the most cogent arguments the doubters make is why it was that the news broadcasting agencies could only film an image off a NASA monitor, rather than the image as broadcast from the moon. I have no answer for this...
Well, I have the answer! The video images coming back from the moon were "slow scan" analog signals. In the late 1960s, TV cameras were large and bulky except for the cameras made for those flights. Color versions were not available for the early flights. The radio equipment on the Apollo was as low power as possible, with really big receiving antennas on the ground. That was done to save weight. When the TV camera was on the moon, it sent its analog signal to the orbiting command module, which received that signal and retransmitted it on a different frequency via the high-gain antenna on the command module. It could be rotated to point at the earth, and it did track the earth. If the command module wasn't overhead, the TV equipment couldn't normally be used. The number of analog conversions in the chain of retransmission processes took their toll on image quality. There were no converters to go between the slow-scan signals and commercial TV broadcast. The monitors had phosphers compounded for a long afterglow.
Bear in mind that the signal quality was pretty bad and was received by ground stations around the globe, not just in Huston or Kennedy. We were amazed when they were finally able to show live TV coverage of the recover operations on the carriers. Those pictures, originating on earth from large high-powered equipment on the ships, were only slightly better than the ones coming all the way from the moon.
The computer on the LEM had an 8K memory. The one on the Apollo capsule was about the same size, and was reprogrammed manually using a hex keypad for each phase of the mission. You youngsters just don't seem to know how far electronics has come in those intervening years.

I am a friend of a friend of a man who walked on the moon. It happened just like they said it did.

"there are alot of government conspiracies that have happened where the general laymen that were involved had no clue as to what was really going on behind the scenes, then one day they are surprised as we are when the news gets leaked out and is all over the news"

Name one.

gulf of tonkin, that's one.....

Originally posted by Trelane
reply to post by Ex_CT2

 

Hi,
There are high definition images of the landing areas, resolution is like 60cm or something close to that they are at:
www.lroc.asu.edu...
The problem is the images are between 5 and 36gb to download. I've downloaded a few of the big onces but am completly unable to open them even with the correct software, guess my computer isnt good enough!

I believe IrfanView will open them. You can find it at download.cnet.com. I think someone recently told me that they had opened them with a Corel (WordPerfect) application--Corel Presenter, I think.

In any event, you should easily find something at download.cnet.com that will open them.

reply to post by Ex_CT2


I forgot this link: en.wikipedia.org...

This might be mistaken as evidence that the moon images were, in fact, slow-scan signals. (They were.)