Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

turbonium1

onebigmonkey
Please can anyone claiming they used wires to hoist astronauts identify:

1) the harnesses
2) the wires
3) the guys operating the pulleys that moved the wires and harness
4) How they edited this out of the continuous footage of lunar EVA's, especially the live broadcasts.

As a helpful aid, here are photographs of an astronaut in the harness they used to actually help them train:

edit on 20-10-2013 by onebigmonkey because: plural

They edited the wires, etc. first, and simply said it was live footage being shown to us.

You've assumed it was live footage, so editing out wires, etc. would be impossible. We'd find evidence of any such wires, etc. in the footage, but we don't.

You assume we landed men on the moon. You assume these men filmed it, too. Assume the footage was also beamed back to Earth. Assume that we watched it all unfold in real time, on our TV sets.

No go.

The whole wire thing was discussed and shown to be wrong now if you would like to provide some proof to your allegations then we can talk about that as well but saying you dont think it could happened doesnt mean it didnt. Because im sure theres alot you dont think possible and of that i have no doubt.

reply to post by Soylent Green Is People

First of all, the camera wasn't Edgar Mitchell's to sell.

When Mitchell "stole" NASA's camera by bringing it back to Earth... it represents a security protocol violation for NASA's ongoing program to cover up Nixon's Apollo. If I were faking Apollo, the first thing I would be doing is to control all access to evidence. In the same manner, the JFK evidence and the RFK evidence and the MLK evidence has been controlled evidence. In the same manner, moon rocks and Apollo negatives are controlled evidence.

The Hasselblad cameras (including the unique reseau pattern plates and the unique biogon lenses) were junked on the "lunar" surface so that no scientists or photographers could EVER examine the cameras as evidence.

The fact that NASA/ASU has a contract to remove the cross-hairs from Apollo images is a second strike against NASA.

As far as I am concerned, that is two strikes against the credibility of NASA Apollo images. It looks like you are about to strike out on Apollo images.

Of course you know that Richard Underwood was the first person to see every space image from Gemini to the Shuttle.
Of course you know that Farouk El-Baz was the one who identified Richard Underwood as a CIA asset.
Of course you know that Farouk El-Baz was hired at Bellcomm by Richard Nixon's younger brother, Ed.
Of course you know that Ed Nixon had two degrees in geology but couldn't find a job in geology!
Of course you know that Farouk El-Baz was the guy who sifted through all the Lunar Orbiter images because NASA had left the images all stacked up on a desk, unsorted.

Maybe you didn't realize it it yet Zaphod but you just struck out! Your defense of NASA's ownership of Ed Mitchell's camera is certainly faulty.

NASA did not even know Mitchell had the camera until he put it up for auction. 3 strikes against Apollo images.
3 red flags.

SayonaraJupiter

choos, you haven't figured out my strategy? I don't need to prove anything to you 100%. All I need to do is chip away at the mythology of Apollo until the columns collapse and the temple of Apollo worship will fall apart under it's own weight.

Speaking of weight, your Apollo boys dumped the Hasselblad cameras on the surface of the "moon" because they were too heavy to bring back to Earth. That's the official story. How heavy were the cameras, choos? Not so heavy that Ed Mitchell couldn't sneak one back to earth, am I right? And NASA went spastic when they found out Mitchell was trying to sell that camera. What has NASA got to hide with the cameras, choos?

These Hasselblad cameras are the same cameras which had reseau pattern plates in them. These the same 'fiducials' that even now Arizona State University is busy photoshopping. It's another pillar of Apollo that has been kicked over and crushed into tiny bits. Yet, you will defend photoshopping Apollo images, because you are an Apollo Defender. You require 100% proof well there is your proof, image manipulations by NASA/ASU.

im pretty sure everyone is aware of your strategy.. its basically spreading propaganda..

notice how you say chip away at so and so, isnt that card stacking??
and everyone is aware of your transfer techniques already since you cant refute evidence you have to transfer the subject to something that wont physically stop man from reaching the moon.. such as complaining that they left cameras on the moon, isnt this transfer??
so basically you want to spread propaganda, lies and misrepresentation in order to get gullible people to believe your thinking, isnt this band wagonning?

seriously if you really want to convince someone, instead of these speculative irrelevant points why dont you give something solid?? its like you dont have anything solid ie, oh nixon watched a movie that is suspicious, im going to redflag it...

thats not going to prove that man could not get to the moon, you say they didnt have the technology to reach the moon so why dont you prove to us that that is the case. prove to us that it was impossible for man to reach the moon and maybe you might start to convince people.

SayonaraJupiter

When Mitchell "stole" NASA's camera by bringing it back to Earth... it represents a security protocol violation for NASA's ongoing program to cover up Nixon's Apollo. If I were faking Apollo, the first thing I would be doing is to control all access to evidence. In the same manner, the JFK evidence and the RFK evidence and the MLK evidence has been controlled evidence. In the same manner, moon rocks and Apollo negatives are controlled evidence.

so how was he able to even attempt to sell it in the first place??

this is NASA we are talking about.. the organisation which has kept the supposed moon landing hoax of thousands of people secret for 40+ years..

this is the orginisation which was able to engineer a hurricane for tv broadcasting

this is the organisation which was able to use filming technology which didnt exist in the 70's

so what is NASA?? competent to the point of silencing everything for 40+ years or incompetent they would somehow miss an astronaut attempting to privately sell a camera?

turbonium1

They edited the wires, etc. first, and simply said it was live footage being shown to us.

You've assumed it was live footage, so editing out wires, etc. would be impossible. We'd find evidence of any such wires, etc. in the footage, but we don't.

You assume we landed men on the moon. You assume these men filmed it, too. Assume the footage was also beamed back to Earth. Assume that we watched it all unfold in real time, on our TV sets.

No go.

you are making things up..

how were they able to edit out the wires?? what is this film editing technique that you people seem to know that no one in the 60's knew about??

and pre filming would run into the case of predicting a hurricane.. which would mean they would need a time machine..

SayonaraJupiter
The image that OBMonkey uses for his "proof" of Apollo, AS12-50-7362, comes from Magazine Q and there are some problems already with Magazine Q because some of the images from Magazine Q are not available on the server. And just look at all those fouled up windows. It makes taking good pictures a little more difficult when there is only 1 clean window to shoot from.

edit on 10/25/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

Getting pretty desperate now I think. You're trying to discuss anything other than the photograph I posted. That photograph of Earth is not possible from Earth orbit, it is only possible from cislunar space. The time and date it was taken is very easy to work out from the position of the terminator and the weather patterns visible on the surface. Why don't you address that?

The 'unavailable' images you seem to think are important are described in the photography index as:

"Underexposed frames of no use, probably of Earth"

The 'probably of Earth' statement is presumable based on the fact that all the photos either side of these underexposed frames are of Earth. While the astronauts had extensive training and often specific instructions on camera settings for certain types of shot, It was quite common during the missions for whoever was taking photographs to try a range of exposure and f-stop settings.

As these frames are unavailable, you can't say what is in them. The easiest thing to have done there if there was something to hide was pretend they never existed. There are several such examples throughout the missions

As for the fouled windows (clearly documented in the mission transcripts and something else that enables us to put times for photographs of Earth) yes, it made life difficult for photographing Earth, particularly as the Passive Thermal Control 'barbecue roll' meant that Earth was only visible every so often.

Your point?

You're like a bad Call of Duty player at the moment - spraying your machine gun fire everywhere except the target and this looks just another desperate attempt to avoid discussing something you can't explain.

The photographs of Earth taken bu Apollo astronauts show images of Earth that can only have been taken when and where they have always been claimed: on the way to, back from, or on the surface of the moon. The reason this is the case is because of the configuration of Earth's land masses and terminator line in the images, and of the weather systems visible.

Try discussing that.

SayonaraJupiter


Speaking of weight, your Apollo boys dumped the Hasselblad cameras on the surface of the "moon" because they were too heavy to bring back to Earth. That's the official story. How heavy were the cameras, choos? Not so heavy that Ed Mitchell couldn't sneak one back to earth, am I right? And NASA went spastic when they found out Mitchell was trying to sell that camera. What has NASA got to hide with the cameras, choos?

Not true. The cameras were not ditched because they were too heavy. They were left behind because they represented unnecessary mass in the ascent module. Mass means fuel needed to lift it. They had no need of them, they were dumped to save fuel. Those cameras were also not astronaut's personal property, and NASA were quite right to be annoyed with Mitchell for a) keeping one and b) selling it. This does not prove that the photographs it took were fake. The answer to your question, which if you knew how to use Google wouldn't have taken you long to find out, is 2 kg without the film magazine.

These Hasselblad cameras are the same cameras which had reseau pattern plates in them. These the same 'fiducials' that even now Arizona State University is busy photoshopping. It's another pillar of Apollo that has been kicked over and crushed into tiny bits. Yet, you will defend photoshopping Apollo images, because you are an Apollo Defender. You require 100% proof well there is your proof, image manipulations by NASA/ASU.

And yet all the photographs are still available with the reseau crosses both digitally and in hard copy. So what?

turbonium1

onebigmonkey
Please can anyone claiming they used wires to hoist astronauts identify:

1) the harnesses
2) the wires
3) the guys operating the pulleys that moved the wires and harness
4) How they edited this out of the continuous footage of lunar EVA's, especially the live broadcasts.

As a helpful aid, here are photographs of an astronaut in the harness they used to actually help them train:

edit on 20-10-2013 by onebigmonkey because: plural

They edited the wires, etc. first, and simply said it was live footage being shown to us.

You've assumed it was live footage, so editing out wires, etc. would be impossible. We'd find evidence of any such wires, etc. in the footage, but we don't.

You assume we landed men on the moon. You assume these men filmed it, too. Assume the footage was also beamed back to Earth. Assume that we watched it all unfold in real time, on our TV sets.

No go.

And you're assuming we didn't but not actually providing any kind of proof of that premise. I am providing bucketfuls of proof.

So, it was impossible to edit, the wires in live TV. You claim it wasn't live TV. Prove that.

When NASA broadcast Apollo 17 live from the surface of the moon they filmed Earth for example during the 2nd EVA while they were at Station 2 the camera pans away and finds Earth. It zooms in and we get a clear shot of the clouds on the surface:



This was specifically referenced in the audio:

"..17, if you want to take a minute, you might want to look up in the sky and notice that our camera is taking a beautiful picture of mother Earth...isn't that a beautiful picture of the Pacific there? Ed finally found it

Ed is Ed Fendell, the remote camera operator.

The time of that comment exactly matches when the broadcast was made, and what is visible on Earth is exactly what should be visible at that time, right down to the yellow arrow that points out Tropical Storm Violet again exactly where she should be. It's difficult to see on that image, but much more obvious on a photograph taken from the same place shortly before, AS17-137-20910



Where are the wires? Where are the guys operating the wires? Where is the studio and how are they getting a colour image of Earth live on TV? Who took the astronauts there? Who built the set and all the other equipment?

choos

are you able to explain why then that the mythbusters attempt falls at a faster rate than john young??

Thought I explained this already, but to clarify it further...

He "falls" at a faster rate than Young, in this example.

So you believe he must always fall faster than Young? You think he cannot fall at the same rate as Young? You don't think he could fall slower than Young, either?

It is easy - using wires/pulleys. A person can be sent downward to the ground a bit slower, to perfectly match up with Young's descent. Or sent down a lot slower than Young.

A system of wires/pulleys would allow for you to control it.

Makes sense, right?

onebigmonkey

The 'unavailable' images you seem to think are important are described in the photography index as:

"Underexposed frames of no use, probably of Earth"

The 'probably of Earth' statement is presumable based on the fact that all the photos either side of these underexposed frames are of Earth. While the astronauts had extensive training and often specific instructions on camera settings for certain types of shot, It was quite common during the missions for whoever was taking photographs to try a range of exposure and f-stop settings.

As these frames are unavailable, you can't say what is in them. The easiest thing to have done there if there was something to hide was pretend they never existed. There are several such examples throughout the missions

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography Earth (often a great source of very high quality scans - better than those at the Apollo Image Atlas and ALSJ) has copies of the photos in question:

eg eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

and they do indeed show a very under-exposed Earth.

e2a: Looking closer at these it's very difficult to say whether they are of the Earth or the moon! I'll be looking at them in more detail today.

turbonium1

choos

are you able to explain why then that the mythbusters attempt falls at a faster rate than john young??

Thought I explained this already, but to clarify it further...

He "falls" at a faster rate than Young, in this example.

So you believe he must always fall faster than Young? You think he cannot fall at the same rate as Young? You don't think he could fall slower than Young, either?

It is easy - using wires/pulleys. A person can be sent downward to the ground a bit slower, to perfectly match up with Young's descent. Or sent down a lot slower than Young.

A system of wires/pulleys would allow for you to control it.

Makes sense, right?

No it just shows you have no clue how the pulleys work so let me tell you If i have a hundred pounds i want to take off an actor i run a pulley up over and down to them one end you attach the astronaut the other 100 lbs of weight.This hundred pounds of weight has to be suspended in the air at least as high as you want the subject to jump. So now my question if they matched the weight difference between the moon and earth remeber i explained this earlier. but will go through it quickly in order to match the jump on earth being the moon has less gravity. Myth busters used a pulley rig which they use in movies being stunt men and all. so lets say he weighed 200 lbs his weight on the moon would be 33.2lbs. Heres some simple math we then deduct 33.2 from 200 and we get 166.4 lbs. So to simulate gravity they now have to put 166.4 lbs on the other end of the pulley. Well they got it right when he jumps it exactly matches the apollo video. But Now comes in the problem the rate of fall will be different even though the lunar astronaut and are earth astronaut both weigh 33.2 lbs on earth gravity is greater making it fall back to the ground quicker. Now the funniest part is this is an assignment used in physics when teachers try to explain gravity. They make students do the calculations showing how the difference in speed shows reduced gravity. Unfortunately looks like you have never taken physics or calculus so you dont understand the math but if you like i can post it for you.

So in order to perform the feat you want they would have to change out the weights in mid air in the middle of his jump at exactly the right moment. Since they couldnt do that the person on earth falls at a rate of 9.81 m/s2 as shown in the video. while on the moon they fall at 1.62 m/s². This is why the lunar astronaut takes longer to hit the ground. So in other words your lack of math leads you to believe the impossible.

OK, so I've had a chance to look at the 'missing' photographs on Apollo 12's magazine 50, and hey guess what, they add another nail to the Apollo denier's hoax coffin.

By close examination of the weather patterns in satellite images we know that the photographs of Earth either side of these underexposed views were taken on the 16th at 03:30 and 07:00 GMT respectively, showing as they do views of the Pacific with some pretty unique weather systems on show.

If we read through the transcript at about that time, we find this from Conrad:

037:58:19 Conrad: Houston, if you haven't got anything to do down there, how about telling us where - what longitude line the terminator of the Moon is on.

then Bean says:

037:59:40 Bean: Roger. We're getting close enough to the Moon now so that, even with the - the monocular, the Moon looks a lot like these photographs that you see taken from many of the observatories that are around the center. We were looking at it through the sextant a minute ago, and it really looks spectacular. It's starting to take on less of a silver color and more of a gray color when you look at it up close.

So they are obviously able to see the moon from the angle they are at.

then from Capcom we get:

038:06:24 Carr: That terminator longitude is between 7 and 8 degrees east. Over.

38:06:24 MET equates to roughly 06:28 GMT on the 16th.

OK, so we have a reading from the ground as to where the terminator should be on the moon.

Now let's take the best of those missing images (7380A)



and rotate and crop, adjust the brightness levels to reveal some more detail and compare it with what Stellarium says the Moon should have looked like:



The white arrow points to the same area (Mare Tranquilitatis), and the terminator is exactly where it should be.

Hang on - the moon is the wrong shape surely?

Yes, it is, if you're viewing it from Earth. If, however, you are in cislunar space observing it from a completely different angle as it heads towards you for a rendez-vous on the 18th, it is exactly right.

If you've just had your camera set to take internal photographs and also photographs of a much brighter Earth, then your photographs of the moon will be underexposed.

choos

how were they able to edit out the wires?? what is this film editing technique that you people seem to know that no one in the 60's knew about??

and pre filming would run into the case of predicting a hurricane.. which would mean they would need a time machine..

It's supposed to be on the moon, so who cares about hurricanes? Is this off-topic, or?

As for editing techniques in the 60's, they were doing such editing years before Apollo came along. I posted a 50's sci-fi flick awhile back, in which they edited out wires. I can look for it, if you'd like.

Better yet, look at Kubrick's "2001", it shows that we had the required techniques / special effects...before Apollo 11.

But you seem to think editing wires wasn't possible in the Apollo-era, right? If so, tell me when it became do-able?

reply to post by onebigmonkey

The photographs of Earth taken bu Apollo astronauts show images of Earth that can only have been taken when and where they have always been claimed: on the way to, back from, or on the surface of the moon. The reason this is the case is because of the configuration of Earth's land masses and terminator line in the images, and of the weather systems visible.

Try discussing that.

I'm not convinced that AS12-50-7362 (served from a .gov server) should be compared to the lo-res newspaper scans that you are presenting as comparison objects.

Why is AS12-50-7362 better than AS12-50-7361 for your argument? Does your argument hinge on those blurry newspaper scans? This is why I am not convinced.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

rotate and crop, adjust the brightness levels to reveal some more detail and compare it with what Stellarium says the Moon should have looked like:

That's all CGI madness. Tom Hanks would be proud of that CGI.

turbonium1

Thought I explained this already, but to clarify it further...

He "falls" at a faster rate than Young, in this example.

So you believe he must always fall faster than Young? You think he cannot fall at the same rate as Young? You don't think he could fall slower than Young, either?

It is easy - using wires/pulleys. A person can be sent downward to the ground a bit slower, to perfectly match up with Young's descent. Or sent down a lot slower than Young.

A system of wires/pulleys would allow for you to control it.

Makes sense, right?

ive told you this already..

everything falls at the same speed regardless of mass in a vacuum.. you can have a feather fall exactly the same speed as a brick on earth in a vacuum..

these ropes are only changing the persons WEIGHT the ropes do not change MASS.

reply when you can get this simple concept around your head.

turbonium1

It's supposed to be on the moon, so who cares about hurricanes? Is this off-topic, or?

As for editing techniques in the 60's, they were doing such editing years before Apollo came along. I posted a 50's sci-fi flick awhile back, in which they edited out wires. I can look for it, if you'd like.

Better yet, look at Kubrick's "2001", it shows that we had the required techniques / special effects...before Apollo 11.

But you seem to think editing wires wasn't possible in the Apollo-era, right? If so, tell me when it became do-able?

the hurricane is reasonably important since they cant predict weather patterns several weeks months or years in advance especially in the 60-70.. hell they can hardly predict weather 100% accurately today. also it was filmed on live tv for apollo 11 in cislunar space so its quite a hurdle for you.

and the wires you use in the 50's is different to the wires they would need for apollo.. centre of mass is very important to maintain for realism for lunar walks, jumps and falls..

but id like to see this footage cause i missed it..

also dynamic visor reflections find me a solution for that..

also this:

especially the 1:20 mark, the tossing of the bag.

SayonaraJupiter
I'm not convinced that AS12-50-7362 (served from a .gov server) should be compared to the lo-res newspaper scans that you are presenting as comparison objects.

Why is AS12-50-7362 better than AS12-50-7361 for your argument? Does your argument hinge on those blurry newspaper scans? This is why I am not convinced.

You just don't want to be convinced, and I'm sorry but "I don't believe it" or "I don't understand it" doesn't actually prove anything.

The reason I used 7362 as opposed to 7361 is that (although they patently show exactly the same weather systems and terminator line and therefore were taken at the same time) it shows the whole Earth. The weather patterns and terminator allow precise dating.

You missed the point of this image. The point of this image was that it shows Earth in a configuration that is only possible from cislunar space, just like the images of the moon that you claimed weren't available (7380A-D, also 7390). Any of the photographs of Earth taken in cislunar space from any mission show the same effect: the view of Earth is not what you would expect if you were looking from a satellite or from the moon, because neither of those things are where the Apollo spacecraft is.

The point of showing you newspaper photographs taken from the live TV broadcasts is to prove that the photographs were contemporaneous and not somehow concocted later. I didn't show a newspaper photograph of this image, it was a different one.

What I did with 7380A was not cgi. It is using software to enhance the details and you need to learn the difference between that and faking something. All I did was rotate it and change the brightness levels. Feel free to repeat the exercise. Nothing has been added (apart from a white arrow). Try it yourself, you will get the same result.

Apollo 13. by the way, used a view of Earth taken by Apollo 16.

dragonridr

turbonium1

choos

are you able to explain why then that the mythbusters attempt falls at a faster rate than john young??

Thought I explained this already, but to clarify it further...

He "falls" at a faster rate than Young, in this example.

So you believe he must always fall faster than Young? You think he cannot fall at the same rate as Young? You don't think he could fall slower than Young, either?

It is easy - using wires/pulleys. A person can be sent downward to the ground a bit slower, to perfectly match up with Young's descent. Or sent down a lot slower than Young.

A system of wires/pulleys would allow for you to control it.

Makes sense, right?

No it just shows you have no clue how the pulleys work so let me tell you If i have a hundred pounds i want to take off an actor i run a pulley up over and down to them one end you attach the astronaut the other 100 lbs of weight.This hundred pounds of weight has to be suspended in the air at least as high as you want the subject to jump. So now my question if they matched the weight difference between the moon and earth remeber i explained this earlier. but will go through it quickly in order to match the jump on earth being the moon has less gravity. Myth busters used a pulley rig which they use in movies being stunt men and all. so lets say he weighed 200 lbs his weight on the moon would be 33.2lbs. Heres some simple math we then deduct 33.2 from 200 and we get 166.4 lbs. So to simulate gravity they now have to put 166.4 lbs on the other end of the pulley. Well they got it right when he jumps it exactly matches the apollo video. But Now comes in the problem the rate of fall will be different even though the lunar astronaut and are earth astronaut both weigh 33.2 lbs on earth gravity is greater making it fall back to the ground quicker. Now the funniest part is this is an assignment used in physics when teachers try to explain gravity. They make students do the calculations showing how the difference in speed shows reduced gravity. Unfortunately looks like you have never taken physics or calculus so you dont understand the math but if you like i can post it for you.

So in order to perform the feat you want they would have to change out the weights in mid air in the middle of his jump at exactly the right moment. Since they couldnt do that the person on earth falls at a rate of 9.81 m/s2 as shown in the video. while on the moon they fall at 1.62 m/s². This is why the lunar astronaut takes longer to hit the ground. So in other words your lack of math leads you to believe the impossible.

If weights lifted the person, what about his descent? You would have to take out weights in mid-air, at exactly the right moment, I suppose?

Why do you think weights are/were such an absolute requirement to lift up/suspend/descend a person, anyway?

Motorized crank/pulley systems, for example. No weights needed, nothing to change out in mid-air. Btw, we had motorized crank/pulley systems back then...

We had hydraulic systems, pneumatic systems, among others.

Weights can be used, at least as part of a system. But it's not even close to how you describe it. Nothing so primitive.

The main point you need to understand is - we had the technologies needed to simulate a jump in lunar gravity. Kubrick's movie proved it could be done, very much.

choos


everything falls at the same speed regardless of mass in a vacuum.. you can have a feather fall exactly the same speed as a brick on earth in a vacuum..

these ropes are only changing the persons WEIGHT the ropes do not change MASS.

You didn't address the issue, once again.

That is - about the jump of Young, and whether or not it can be fully simulated.

Mass is not relevant. Nor is a feather.

Look - your side claims Young's jump was different than the Mythbusters jump - to wit, Young lands a split-second after the Mythbusters guy lands. All that's fine by me.

But you then claim - it proves Young was on the moon. His descent was slower than the Mythbusters descent, which is due to Young being in lesser gravity than Earth. Total nonsense.

You also suggest the Mythbusters jump was a deliberate attempt to simulate Young's jump, and that they failed in their attempt. That is pure crap, top to bottom. The jump was never meant to simulate Young's jump.

No matter, you just change to another argument, and ignore the old one, hoping nobody takes notice.

But, I did notice.