Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

turbonium1

You didn't address the issue, once again.

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

thats because you are not understanding the problem.. it can be simulated but not like this, not at 66% playback and the ropes have made the astronaut too light because the mythbusters jump too high.

NASA has a way of simulating lunar gravity and its nothing like this. they only used ropes.

Mass is not relevant. Nor is a feather.

mass is not relevant??? are you sure on that?? considering gravity acts on mass are you sure mass is not relevant? what a ridiculous claim..

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.

mythbusters jump was done at 66% which is what jarrah claims to be the accurate slowdown speed in order to accurately recreate lunar gravity, but you cant just slow it down because that is an illusion.. this attempt by mythbusters and jarrah shows that the mythbusters jumped higher and stayed in the air shorter than john young..

this shows that the initial velocity of the mythbusters jump was higher than john youngs jump and that the change in initial velocity occured at a faster rate causing him to land first. what does this mean?? it means that the mythbusters jump represents a higher gravity force.

gravity will affect the height and the rate at which they fall and from the video its seen that 66% does not reflect that.

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.

because you dont understand physics.. earth will accelerate objects to the ground at a faster rate than the moon is able to.. this cannot be denied.. if you are denying this then you are defying physics.

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.

jarrahs attempt was to recreate the jump.. the 66% slow is his own number.. yet the mythbusters at 66% still falls faster than john young.. now why is that?

the slow down is the main thing, not the ropes, the ropes ONLY AFFECT THE WEIGHT NOT THE MASS you must understand this, gravity acts on mass alone.

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

But, I did notice.

what old argument?? you mean your argument that GCR's will make someone sick or even kill them within a week??

There is another key difference between Mythbuster's recreation of Young's jump salute (which is clearly what it is): bended knees.

One on take off:



the other on landing:



That's the importance of gravity acting on mass for you.

There's another key difference between mythbusters and Young, as I've illustrated below:



In the circle is a large amount of lunar soil lifted up as Young jumps. There is no billow of dust you'd get if it was an atmosphere, and unless every single particle is suspended by its own little wire, you have to ask how they get so high?

Maybe, just maybe, it's because a smaller gravitational constant is acting on their mass, and that's because it's on the moon.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


First off, keep up with who you're replying to.

Secondly the cameras themselves prove nothing. Neither does removing the marks. There are too many pictures put there both digital and print that still have them.

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

First off, keep up with who you're replying to.

Secondly the cameras themselves prove nothing. Neither does removing the marks. There are too many pictures put there both digital and print that still have them.

Cameras are evidence, the glass plates with the fiducials are evidence. In the JFK conspiracy all the evidence has been under CIA control. Same as with Apollo. If you believe that pictures can prove Apollo than you should submit your fully intact cameras for independent examination, which you cannot do, because your boys dumped them on the "moon".

Case closed.

SayonaraJupiter

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

First off, keep up with who you're replying to.

Secondly the cameras themselves prove nothing. Neither does removing the marks. There are too many pictures put there both digital and print that still have them.

Cameras are evidence, the glass plates with the fiducials are evidence. In the JFK conspiracy all the evidence has been under CIA control. Same as with Apollo. If you believe that pictures can prove Apollo than you should submit your fully intact cameras for independent examination, which you cannot do, because your boys dumped them on the "moon".

Case closed.

They also dumped the the personal life support system (PLSS) backpacks they used for breathing while they were on the Moon. I suppose that is somehow evidence that they didn't go -- because unless they can show us the exact specific PLSS each astronaut used, it can't be proven that the astronauts could have breathed.

There...Is that how your logic works?

By the way, they also left behind bags of their feces and urine. I suppose (using your logic) if they can't prove that the astronauts pooped and peed the amount expected over the length of the mission, then they can't prove they went to the moon.

SayonaraJupiter

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

First off, keep up with who you're replying to.

Secondly the cameras themselves prove nothing. Neither does removing the marks. There are too many pictures put there both digital and print that still have them.

Cameras are evidence, the glass plates with the fiducials are evidence. In the JFK conspiracy all the evidence has been under CIA control. Same as with Apollo. If you believe that pictures can prove Apollo than you should submit your fully intact cameras for independent examination, which you cannot do, because your boys dumped them on the "moon".

Case closed.

See here you go again redirection is again a poor debate tactic. The cameras are a red Hearing first not all the cameras are on the moon and Hasselblad has full specs for the cameras. But the camera themselves are immaterial its the film thats important.So you imply some conspiracy by bringing up irrelevant facts because you know there is no need for the cameras to be examined and no one would suggest that except for you.So you use that as a form of misdirection trying to make people think its relevant.Sad your proof is down to nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Soylent Green Is People

SayonaraJupiter

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

First off, keep up with who you're replying to.

Secondly the cameras themselves prove nothing. Neither does removing the marks. There are too many pictures put there both digital and print that still have them.

Cameras are evidence, the glass plates with the fiducials are evidence. In the JFK conspiracy all the evidence has been under CIA control. Same as with Apollo. If you believe that pictures can prove Apollo than you should submit your fully intact cameras for independent examination, which you cannot do, because your boys dumped them on the "moon".

Case closed.

They also dumped the the personal life support system (PLSS) Transfer! backpacks they used for breathing while they were on the Moon. I suppose that is somehow evidence that they didn't go -- because unless they can show us the exact specific PLSS each astronaut used, it can't be proven that the astronauts could have breathed.

There...Is that how your logic works?

By the way, they also left behind bags of their feces and urine. Transfer! I suppose (using your logic) if they can't prove that the astronauts pooped and peed the amount expected over the length of the mission, then they can't prove they went to the moon.

You did 2 transfers there buddy. I was clearly talking about the dirty cameras that are evidence of a photographic cover up, while you transferred twice to PLSS and human waste production.

The Apollo Hasselblad cameras are crucial evidence to the investigation. The argument being used is the "cameras as evidence" argument - since NASA is not in possession of the instruments which recorded the images made from negatives the images are less credible.

Dumping the cameras on the "moon" is a premeditated action to dispose of critical evidence... another dirty trick by the dirty dozen.

For illustration only

What hidden things are in AS12-50-7362? Cloud shaped pyramids of the Marshalls and triangle shaped openings in the sky over Fiji. Is that weather experimentation?

SayonaraJupiter

Soylent Green Is People

SayonaraJupiter

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

First off, keep up with who you're replying to.

Secondly the cameras themselves prove nothing. Neither does removing the marks. There are too many pictures put there both digital and print that still have them.

Cameras are evidence, the glass plates with the fiducials are evidence. In the JFK conspiracy all the evidence has been under CIA control. Same as with Apollo. If you believe that pictures can prove Apollo than you should submit your fully intact cameras for independent examination, which you cannot do, because your boys dumped them on the "moon".

Case closed.

They also dumped the the personal life support system (PLSS) Transfer! backpacks they used for breathing while they were on the Moon. I suppose that is somehow evidence that they didn't go -- because unless they can show us the exact specific PLSS each astronaut used, it can't be proven that the astronauts could have breathed.

There...Is that how your logic works?

By the way, they also left behind bags of their feces and urine. Transfer! I suppose (using your logic) if they can't prove that the astronauts pooped and peed the amount expected over the length of the mission, then they can't prove they went to the moon.

You did 2 transfers there buddy. I was clearly talking about the dirty cameras that are evidence of a photographic cover up, while you transferred twice to PLSS and human waste production.

The Apollo Hasselblad cameras are crucial evidence to the investigation. The argument being used is the "cameras as evidence" argument - since NASA is not in possession of the instruments which recorded the images made from negatives the images are less credible.

Dumping the cameras on the "moon" is a premeditated action to dispose of critical evidence... another dirty trick by the dirty dozen.

It really makes you look foolish when someone is pointing out what your doing and you accuse them of transferring. You create the mess when someone points out the silliness of your statements you then try to cloud the isur further. This one is called a straw man argument. Well at least its been a few pages since you used this one so at least its different.

SayonaraJupiter
For illustration only

What hidden things are in AS12-50-7362? Cloud shaped pyramids of the Marshalls and triangle shaped openings in the sky over Fiji. Is that weather experimentation?

Oh moving on to weather manipulation gave up on the Apollo hoax idea? Or are we just going to throw all the conspiracies like the new world order ancient aliens and for good measure 9/11 and JFK assassination? In total seriousness at this point im going to recommend you get out of your house and try living in the real world its not as scary as you think it is.And if it is well id recommend taking the medication they give you and eventually they will let you out when your all better.

SayonaraJupiter

Cameras are evidence, the glass plates with the fiducials are evidence. In the JFK conspiracy all the evidence has been under CIA control. Same as with Apollo. If you believe that pictures can prove Apollo than you should submit your fully intact cameras for independent examination, which you cannot do, because your boys dumped them on the "moon".

Case closed.

what kind of evidence can you get from cameras??? all the evidence you can get from a camera is the film they contain. im no expert on cameras so can you enlighten me?

SayonaraJupiter
For illustration only

What hidden things are in AS12-50-7362? Cloud shaped pyramids of the Marshalls and triangle shaped openings in the sky over Fiji. Is that weather experimentation?

Finally you admit that the weather patterns visible in the Apollo images are genuine. If you're going to claim that this Apollo image is evidence of weather manipulation, you have conceded it is evidence. Next you need to take on board that the view of Earth is only possibly in cislunar space because of the shape of the daylight portion.

I'm not going to do the next bit for you. The ESSA weather satellite data for covering Apollo 12 are in this document: docs.lib.noaa.gov... (be warned, it's a very big file).

The page you need to look at covers November 14th, the reason for this being that they start their satellite day around the Greenwich Meridian, and it is midnight on the 15th by the time they cover the Pacific east of Australia. The terminator position gives a time of 3am on the 15th for the photograph.

Can you find the same weather systems on the satellite images as you can in the Apollo photograph, yes or no?

The triangular opening over Fiji, by the way, is two different layers of clouds, which you can tell quite easily if you look carefully. I suspect you haven't one this. Likewise the 'triangular cloud' over the Marshall Islands is firstly not one cloud, but many small ones, and some of these appear to be at a higher altitude than others (light grey compared with white).

Have a look at the clouds over near Australia as well. You can see the shadows they cast on the ocean below them at exactly the right angle. Take a look at the terminator area where higher altitude clouds are lit compared with lower altitude ones that are in shadow. Stunning. Not faked.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

Finally you admit that the weather patterns visible in the Apollo images are genuine.

Not quite, it's only an illustration of one image (AS12-50-7362) and it's not my sweeping endorsement of "Apollo images are genuine".

More Missing Modules

The LM Snoopy's descent stage was left in orbit, but eventually crashed onto the lunar surface because of the Moon's non-uniform gravitational field; its location was not tracked. Source Wiki

Snoopy's ascent stage location is currently unknown, and amateur astronomers are searching for it.

That makes 4 missing modules so far in this thread.
Apollo 11 Eagle, lunar ascent module.
Apollo 16 Orion, lunar ascent module.
Apollo 10 Snoopy, decent stage.
Apollo 10 Snoopy, ascent stage.

Stakes are high. Put your chips down.

SayonaraJupiter

More Missing Modules

The LM Snoopy's descent stage was left in orbit, but eventually crashed onto the lunar surface because of the Moon's non-uniform gravitational field; its location was not tracked. Source Wiki

Snoopy's ascent stage location is currently unknown, and amateur astronomers are searching for it.

That makes 4 missing modules so far in this thread.
Apollo 11 Eagle, lunar ascent module.
Apollo 16 Orion, lunar ascent module.
Apollo 10 Snoopy, decent stage.
Apollo 10 Snoopy, ascent stage.

Stakes are high. Put your chips down.

Oh your still at it i thought we were improving here we have a non sequitur and a red herring all in one thats talent.See you imply that not knowing were these are is important even though they never intended to track the modules. And the only person who thinks this is important is you so you can create a red herring.Meaning a totally irrelevant point your using to distract and try to make people jump through hoops. Very sad is this all you have some made up covers with no substance. But you know im going to help you because i really believe that one day you will understand how to argue your point.Here this video should help you hit the first two on the video but i figure if you watch it maybe we can avoid this in the future.

Here is AS16-122-19555

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Here is a zoomed and sharpened crop of the small object in the distance:



Looks pretty small and insignificant doesn't it? You find it then....

reply to post by onebigmonkey


You do know no one is going to touch this because they dont realize you can tell where the picture was taken from. But i will say nice move but theyll simply ignore it like many other facts par for the course.

onebigmonkey
Here is AS16-122-19555

eol.jsc.nasa.gov...

Here is a zoomed and sharpened crop of the small object in the distance:

Looks pretty small and insignificant doesn't it? You find it then....

Nice picture from 1972. Big deal. Your image was taken at some point after the Undocking date of April 24, 1972, 20:54:12 UTC.

Is that the same time that NASA stopped tracking it?

What else was happening when Apollo 16 was flying to the "moon"?

SayonaraJupiter

Nice picture from 1972. Big deal. Your image was taken at some point after the Undocking date of April 24, 1972, 20:54:12 UTC.

Is that the same time that NASA stopped tracking it?

What else was happening when Apollo 16 was flying to the "moon"?

who knows but richard nixon watching movies definitely without doubt proves that NASA cannot land man on the moon.

Look how carefully those wires/cables from the apollo missions were covered.

To provide continuity between scenes, anchoring the wires like this would be the perfect solution in the studio.

After all, if the wires moved even a little bit, it would be obvious between different frames.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/538ad004c93c.jpg[/atsimg]