Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

So the arm had some kind of super advanced power supply powering it? Power supplies, even for small robots were huge in the 60s.

Not to mention in November, 1971, a company called Intel publicly introduced the world's first single chip microprocessor. And the first robotic arm controlled by computer was 1974. So this arm in the apollo would have to have been controlled from the ground maybe by Nixon.

PS never mind that nasty 2 second delay it takes radio waves to reach the moon im sure NASA had the power to violate the laws of physics but oddly couldnt get to the moon.

SayonaraJupiter

Yeah, speaking of face cards, I'm waiting for you to show those face cards in the Apollo 12 magazines. How can you have a royal flush when I already showed all 4 aces?

from the very start my royal flush was being shown..
how did they hide the mobot?? all engineers and technicians who built the command module are very familiar with everything inside..
yet somehow the hundreds of engineers and technicians never once noticed the mobot sitting inside the command module, not during construction of the command module and not during securing it to the saturn V and not during assembly of the saturn V

i cant help it if you cant see the royal flush but you cant beat a royal flush with 4 aces.

Referencing back to that report which I am too busy to link again... do you remember the references? There were 5 of 9 references that were published before Apollo 8 so that means over 50% of that October 1969 report was written years earlier.

but in the report, published in 1969, it stated clear as day the first planned launch was to be in 1973.. do you deny this??

regardless of the older references when they published this report in 1969 they felt no desire to change the planned first launch date.. or are you trying to discredit your own evidence that you presented? how can anyone trust anything you say?

pg 8-2
(6) Launch is assumed to occur in the last quarter of calendar year 1973.
www.lpi.usra.edu...

And I also said that it's not required to fit the entire 2000lb mobot into the capsule, just the arm, fitted with a Hasselblad mount, fitted with a remote controls for camera adjustments, fitted with remote controls for snapping pictures.

It's really simple: The Apollo 12 capsule in cislunar space was not crewed with human astronauts!

what changes the film in the camera? what moves the camera around?

are you saying something the size of shakey that ONLY MOVED TWO DRIVING WHEELS was hidden from hundreds of engineers and technicians?
and if something the size of shakey was needed to control two driving wheels how much larger will it be to control atleast two arms with 6 degrees of freedom?

sorry but your bluff of 4 aces is called.. and you have failed to deliver.. i cant help it if i have been playing with a royal flush face up the entire time and you decided to bluff with a mere 4 aces..

p.s. the original mobot weighed 4500lbs not 2000lbs.. stop trying to spread false information.

reply to post by DJW001


So I was quite enjoying this thread, reading all the different views held by people. Then along came a very angry man, with a point to prove. All the evidence of this angry man points to you my friend. Check back through this thread for the evidence and data that you crave so badly, and you might see it.

Take a bloody chill pill mate and get off your f,,ing soapbox.

reply to post by choos


choos, my buddy, the existence of the mobot in 1959 is not in question. The existence of the Surveyor is not in question. The existence of Hughes Aircraft is not in question. The existence of NASA planning reports for remotely controlled lunar rover mission with television eyes from October 1969 is not in question.

Please note in this article that the man who is speaking works at Hughes Aircraft in the Nuclear Electronics Division, Dr. John W. Clark, the head of that division envisioned, in 1959, "gathering samples on the moon while scientists controlling it relaxed in the relative comfort of a rocket ship."

And that is exactly the scenario which is happening with Apollo 12.



As you pointed out choos, NASA killed the mission proposal, it was dropped by 1973. Here we have confirmation that NASA is controlling access to the moon by refusing to fly these cheaper remote controlled missions. Robot missions are always cheaper, aren't they. yes they are.

You have seriously underestimated that report.

Choos, you claimed to have a royal flush. Well, that makes you to be in that very special company of famous poker players who also claimed to be dealt with a royal flush. That person is someone that you should be fairly familiar with by now because you have been underestimating his poker game from the start of the thread.

So let me introduce you to Nixon's "Royal Flush".

Just type in to google NIXON ROYAL FLUSH

Some excerpts were aired on The History Channel in 1994 as part of a documentary called The Real Richard Nixon, but most of the tapes have been seen only by the group that produced them.

Poker and Politics Nixon touches on the major events of his presidency during the interviews, but also tells stories about growing up in California, meeting his wife-to-be for the first time and his favorite pastimes, especially poker.

He said his “most vivid experience” as a poker player was drawing a royal flush—ace, king, queen, jack and 10 of diamonds — in a single hand of five-card stud.

“Many of the things you do in poker are very useful in politics,” Nixon said. “I knew when to get out of a pot. I didn’t stick around when I didn’t have the cards. I didn’t bluff very often.” Source abcnews.go.com...

Choos, you also keep complaining that the mobot is too big, too heavy to fit inside the command module. You still haven't shown me any face cards from the Apollo 12 catalog of 14 magazines of 70mm Hasselblad photography. They had 7 Hasselblads on that mission and you can't find a single Hasselblad image of
Conrad, Bean or Gordon in that entire catalogue.


You have to admit that the Apollo 12 Hasselblad 70mm imagery is kind of a no win situation for Apollo Defenders. No face cards, no faces in the Hasselblads and no chance of winning this hand.

dragonridr

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

So the arm had some kind of super advanced power supply powering it? Power supplies, even for small robots were huge in the 60s.

Not to mention in November, 1971, a company called Intel publicly introduced the world's first single chip microprocessor. And the first robotic arm controlled by computer was 1974. So this arm in the apollo would have to have been controlled from the ground maybe by Nixon.

PS never mind that nasty 2 second delay it takes radio waves to reach the moon im sure NASA had the power to violate the laws of physics but oddly couldnt get to the moon.

Zaphod58 asked about the power supply. google Apollo 12 snap.

Dragon, please are you going to place a bet or just sit on the sidelines? Can you find any face cards in the Apollo 12 Hasselblad catalogue that consists of 14 magazines of 70mm images?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


The SNAP, at peak provided 70 watts of power. Early robots required much larger amounts of power than it could provide.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


You have so little clue on the facts its almost funny the magazine roll you keep refering to was not even taken with a hasselblad camera it was taken on by a maurer model 308 16mm which was a modified mcdonald 16mm camera.They used this camera for cartography work which is why the crew isnt in the film by the way.But again you didnt know that oh oh your 4 aces just turned into 6 high. But as you keep showing over and over facts mean nothing to you when you can just make them up as you go huh? Oh and you might be interested to know the time life cover you used was on the future of robotics. As i said earlier the first computer controlled arms were not made until 74 . So wow your theory just flushed itself down the proverbial toilet didnt it?

Zaphod58
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

The SNAP, at peak provided 70 watts of power. Early robots required much larger amounts of power than it could provide.

BS. A stand alone mobot arm, with a 360-degree camera rig, mounted inside the unmanned Apollo 12 command module would not require any more that 70 watts.

Well, Zaphod, I already showed my 4 aces and choos has shown his royal flush. What the heck are going to show, 3 JOKERS?

reply to post by dragonridr

You have so little clue on the facts its almost funny the magazine roll..

You have so little of Conrad, Bean and Gordon in any of the 14 magazines that you are at a loss to explain. Perhaps the most simple explanation is that they were not in the module when the module was in cislunar space. No face cards, dude.

Why keep playing with NASA's stacked deck of cards? It's clear you have no face cards in any of the 14 magazines. And that makes the mobot theory look like 4 aces, doesn't it?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


BS. A stand alone mobot arm, with a 360-degree camera rig, mounted inside the unmanned Apollo 12 command module would not require any more that 70 watts.

Och your not doing well again its those pesky details you know nothing about the command module had a fuel cell only provided between 27 and 30 volts. This is why most of the command module ran at 9 volts.Once again when you guess and make up facts reality shows us otherwise. You should be embarrassed i feel embarrassed for you i dont think ive seen any one on ATS just proved wrong at every turn. Definitely not enough to run hydraulic servos. Not to mention at the time there would have had to be an astronaut there to control your arm making your theory incredibly stupid. Since i keep pointing out to you the first computer controlled arm was built in 1974. Before that all ran by remote and only one had circuit boards and it took up an entire 10 x 10 room. Remember the circuit board did away with vacuum tubes so took the computers from the size of a train down to about a car. Even your phone had more computing power then all of NASA had on hand at the time. This is why they still used slide rules for orbital calculations.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Really? You know this for fact? You know exactly how much power early robots required? Because it was a lot. They were huge, and bulky and used a lot more power than they do today.

SayonaraJupiter

choos

SayonaraJupiter

I'm all in. I've got 4 aces. Let's see your cards.
Do you have a straight flush?

edit on 11/21/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: to add

straight flush???? i have a royal flush..

and ive had the cards face up the entire time.. you just refuse to acknowledge it..

Yeah, speaking of face cards, I'm waiting for you to show those face cards in the Apollo 12 magazines. How can you have a royal flush when I already showed all 4 aces?

how did they hide the mobot inside the command module during construction of both the command module and the saturn V??????????????????????????? cloaking device??

and by your own "evidence" of the mobot, how did they publish in 1969 after apollo 11, a plan for first launch in 1973 when they were supposed to launch prior to each apollo mission????????????????? time machine??

Referencing back to that report which I am too busy to link again... do you remember the references? There were 5 of 9 references that were published before Apollo 8 so that means over 50% of that October 1969 report was written years earlier.

And I also said that it's not required to fit the entire 2000lb mobot into the capsule, just the arm, fitted with a Hasselblad mount, fitted with a remote controls for camera adjustments, fitted with remote controls for snapping pictures.

It's really simple: The Apollo 12 capsule in cislunar space was not crewed with human astronauts!

And do you remember that those references were desk studies and that one of them was just a "How to do projects" reference guide, and that none of them contained any existing technology?

Here's more for Apollo 12 that shows you're a busted flush. This news broadcast for US troops in Vietnam

www.youtube.com...

(you'll like it, it has Nixon in it) shows the crew in the capsule. How super is that? The crew that you claim weren't there, together with views of Earth that match those in the magazine and featured on the evening news. If you look at the docking sequence carefully enough, you'll see movement in the LM. I guess that's the robot waving - the robot that knew how to switch between still and TV cameras.

SayonaraJupiter

google Apollo 12 snap.

ok i shall from wikipedia:



ummm... kind of big dont you think?

also how does the hydraulics work?? you know the hydraulics to move the camera arms and the hydraulics to move the arms that changes the film?

also is it fixed to the command module?? or is it free floating?

SayonaraJupiter

choos, my buddy, the existence of the mobot in 1959 is not in question. The existence of the Surveyor is not in question. The existence of Hughes Aircraft is not in question. The existence of NASA planning reports for remotely controlled lunar rover mission with television eyes from October 1969 is not in question.

Please note in this article that the man who is speaking works at Hughes Aircraft in the Nuclear Electronics Division, Dr. John W. Clark, the head of that division envisioned, in 1959, "gathering samples on the moon while scientists controlling it relaxed in the relative comfort of a rocket ship."

And that is exactly the scenario which is happening with Apollo 12.

As you pointed out choos, NASA killed the mission proposal, it was dropped by 1973. Here we have confirmation that NASA is controlling access to the moon by refusing to fly these cheaper remote controlled missions. Robot missions are always cheaper, aren't they. yes they are.

You have seriously underestimated that report.

the power source which provides electricity only, whether or not its powerful enough, is already quite large.. thats only the electrical power source.. next you need another power source to drive the hydraulics to move the camera arms.. and then you need move arms to change the film in the camera..

this "mobot" is getting quite large to hide dont you think?

cheaper doesnt mean free.. if it was free it would have been done, but they didnt have the extra finances to cover these extra missions.. or are you able to conveniently forget about every other project that NASA was financing?

Choos, you claimed to have a royal flush. Well, that makes you to be in that very special company of famous poker players who also claimed to be dealt with a royal flush. That person is someone that you should be fairly familiar with by now because you have been underestimating his poker game from the start of the thread.

Choos, you also keep complaining that the mobot is too big, too heavy to fit inside the command module. You still haven't shown me any face cards from the Apollo 12 catalog of 14 magazines of 70mm Hasselblad photography. They had 7 Hasselblads on that mission and you can't find a single Hasselblad image of
Conrad, Bean or Gordon in that entire catalogue.

You have to admit that the Apollo 12 Hasselblad 70mm imagery is kind of a no win situation for Apollo Defenders. No face cards, no faces in the Hasselblads and no chance of winning this hand.

i dont know what nixon playing poker has to do with not being able to reach the moon.. are you trying to say that a royal flush is absolutely impossible in a single hand of 5 card stud?

im not ONLY saying the mobot is too big and too heavy.. i am ALSO saying that it is impossible to hide something this size from all the engineers technicians who built the CM and who assembled the saturn V.. not to mention all the photographers..

but apparently to you this doesnt matter, howard hughes had a cloaking device to hide it..

you have to kind of admit, hiding the mobot inside the command module without anyone realising is a no win situations for you..

also i have seen many pictures of scenery people have taken just do any image search on google.. heres an example.. i search nixon's royal flush and found this random image:


there are no people in it.. that must mean a mobot took the picture right?!?!?!?!?!
this is your 4 aces bluff???? good luck with that.

Remember guys and gals, NASA is the dealer in Apollo Poker. They have always dealt the cards and they have always stacked the decks. Each hand is specific. And when certain people are stepping into a card game they have to wait until the next hand is dealt. capiche?

Let's review the hand we are playing so that people can all see what we've got.

OBMonkey bet some chips on AS12-50-7362. He made a spectacular claim about the image.
SayonaraJupiter raised the bet by asking who took the picture. That's my ACE#1.

What happened next?

I raised the bet because there are no human faces in any of the 14 magazines of Apollo 12's 70mm Hasselblad photography. I asked the Apollo Defense Team to stipulate tha facts. They could not do it. That's my ACE#2.

What happened next?

I raised the bet again because I was pretty confident in my pair of Aces.

What happened next?

Pure chaos.

SayonaraJupiter

OBMonkey bet some chips on AS12-50-7362. He made a spectacular claim about the image.
SayonaraJupiter raised the bet by asking who took the picture. That's my ACE#1.

ridiculous claim.. irrelevant and proves nothing..

who took the photo of richard nixon in your avatar??

I raised the bet because there are no human faces in any of the 14 magazines of Apollo 12's 70mm Hasselblad photography. I asked the Apollo Defense Team to stipulate tha facts. They could not do it. That's my ACE#2.

again completely useless.. oh there are no human faces in some photos that must means no humans were present..

getting desperate now??? straws getting shorter???

SayonaraJupiter
Pure chaos.

The one part of this thread I can agree with!

choos
in order to accurately portray lunar gravity on earth, you need to slow it down 2.45times.. not 66%/67% not 50%, there is not mathematical support for 66%/67% nor 50%.

jarrahs 66/67% does not explain this video of a bag free falling and freely rotating at lunar gravity.. because if you calculate the gravity force using only 66/67% to find the gravity for on the freely falling bag it will come out with a gravity for of under 9.81..

for example
on the lunar surface something falls 5m how long will it take?
s=ut+.5at^2
5=0+0.5*1.62*t^2
t=2.485 seconds in real time

how about on earth from 5m?
5=0+0.5*9.81*t^2
t=1.0096 seconds to fall the same distance on earth..

what factor is that? about 2.46 due to rounding..

lets use jarrahs and your 66/67%
so on earth it should take the freefalling object 1.502 times faster than the original lunar video
lets work out the gravity on "earth" for that..

first lets find out what is 1.502 times faster than 2.485 seconds
its 1.654 seconds

5=0+0.5*a*1.654^2
a=3.655m/s^2

thats not earths gravity... so in order to use jarrahs 66/67% slowdown speed they needed to film not on earth.

You say...

"..in order to accurately portray lunar gravity on earth, you need to slow it down 2.45times.. "

So why don't you show us how accurate the Mythbusters jump is when it's 2.45 times slower? Then, you can educate me on how much better it is than at Jarrah's 67% speed!! I can't wait to see it...

But you won't do it, right?

Why did he even throw the bag away? To be the first man to leave litter on the moon? Looked like a good idea at the time?

I'm joking, but it's very odd to me..

Have you ever seen this done....before?

I have. I've seen several variations of it, in fact.

Any idea, yet?

It is a standard illusion. A magician's trick.

A paper that seems to swoop all over the place, and no strings are seen..not even when you're close!!

The 'Apollo spinning bag' is just another variation of the same basic trick. An illusion.

Many versions of this trick might be available online...if you want to see exactly what I mean.

reply to post by turbonium1

It is a standard illusion. A magician's trick.

A paper that seems to swoop all over the place, and no strings are seen..not even when you're close!!

The 'Apollo spinning bag' is just another variation of the same basic trick. An illusion.

Many versions of this trick might be available online...if you want to see exactly what I mean.

Good; so you should have no problem posting one here, then.

smugmushroom
reply to post by DJW001

 

So I was quite enjoying this thread, reading all the different views held by people. Then along came a very angry man, with a point to prove. All the evidence of this angry man points to you my friend. Check back through this thread for the evidence and data that you crave so badly, and you might see it.

Take a bloody chill pill mate and get off your f,,ing soapbox.

Rather than direct a personal insult at one of the participants, why don't you actually contribute to this thread? Perhaps you can comment on the argument that an inability to name the person who took a photograph renders the subject a hoax. If the Apollo 12 photograph is a hoax because the photographer's name is not known, doesn't that render Richard Nixon a hoax because we do not know the name of the photographer who took his picture? Could you comment that, or would you just prefer to hurl insults from the peanut gallery?