Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by onebigmonkey


Ahem. You switched from Apollo 12 to Apollo 15 because clearly the Apollo 12 hand was not a winner. Too bad for you. Tough luck, mate.

I'll just take all of my 7362 chips over to another poker table and Thank you very much for playing Apollo Poker!

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

Ahem. You switched from Apollo 12 to Apollo 15 because clearly the Apollo 12 hand was not a winner. Too bad for you. Tough luck, mate.

I'll just take all of my 7362 chips over to another poker table and Thank you very much for playing Apollo Poker!

Actually from where i sit you just lost the entire debate lets recap. First you were saying Nasa didnt have the technology to get to the moon. However were forced to acknowledge they did but then claimed it just wasnt astronauts. Then your wild theory of androids or robots landed making foot prints and taking pictures. So once again it was shown to be impossible because the technology didnt exist. Then you decide to make an issue of who took the picture as if this was somehow relevant. Then when shown the pictures couldnt be taken by a robot now you move on to saying apollo 12 was robots or androids but apollo 15 was not. Wow so NASA sent real astronauts on apollo 11 and 15 but 12 was robots that makes no sense thanks for playing and please return your chips to the dealer.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


im still calling your bluff though.. prove to me first that it was possible to hide a mobot inside the command module without any engineer or technician noticing..

because right now, the only logical way of hiding the mobot inside the command from all the engineers and technicians, who knew the command module very well, was to use some cloaking device from the future..

are you seriously going to make such a bluff?

I'm getting request time outs when trying to post here.

SayonaraJupiter
I'm getting request time outs when trying to post here.

must be howard hughes and richard nixon trying to stop you..

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

Ahem. You switched from Apollo 12 to Apollo 15 because clearly the Apollo 12 hand was not a winner. Too bad for you. Tough luck, mate.

I'll just take all of my 7362 chips over to another poker table and Thank you very much for playing Apollo Poker!

Please don't call me a liar. I don't actually think I have to explain my motives to you, but I have already. Just in case you missed it, here it is again.

You were denying the presence of humans on Apollo missions and insisting photographs were taken by robots. You were also failing to come up with a sensible explanation supported by proof as to how an arm could be seen in an Apollo 12 image.

I found an image of Apollo 15 with a hand in it - I even gave you the name of the astronaut. The image could not have been taken from Earth - it could only be taken from lunar orbit, and a human clearly took it. Images from the same magazine show astronauts on the lunar surface and images of Earth that could only have been taken on specific dates thanks to the weather patterns visible on them.

If you believe any of that is wrong, please provide evidence to support your alternative explanation. Going to the cashier without any cards, chips, or proof that you were even in the casino and saying "but I won" will not get you any money.

SayonaraJupiter

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

1. Who took that photograph of Richard Nixon in your avatar?

If you don't have an answer to that question then you can sit back down.

Whenever the Defenders get into a bad spot they bring out the ad hominem attacks, the card stacking, the glittering generalities, give each other stars, and congratulating themselves, relishing in their own ignorance of the 7362/Magazine Q dilemma.

Quite a few glittering generalities of your own there.WHo are you accusing of ad hominem attacks? Since when was it some sort of breach of forum policy to award S&F to people with whom you agree? You have lots of your own - I guess this means that you are in a bit of a tight spot.

I'm truly sorry that your team does not know the name of the Apollo 12 astronaut who snapped the 7362 image from the pristine, clean command module window. I was hoping that one of the big-brained Apollo Defenders in this thread would have some records to show who it was. Obviously, defenders don't have those records or they would have posted the records and this question would have been answered.

It was one of three people either through one of the 3 clean CSM windows, or one of the LM windows. Prove it wasn't. You've already conceded that the photo was taken in cislunar space on 15/11/69 at about 03:00 from the CSM because that's where think your stupid robot is. It's not such a big stretch to imagine that the all powerful Nixon-Hughes alliance could have got people there instead of a much more expensive and much more complicated robot is it?

In light of the fact that Apollo Defenders have been stumped on this question it automatically means that the Apollo Defense Team don't have ANY records showing who took ANY of the Apollo 12 images in Magazine Q.

No. What has happened is that you have decided on a question that you know can't be answered and using that as a benchmark of proof, instead of providing any kind of proof of your own. I have proven to you when and where the photogrpah was taken. So far you have been unable to prove that a robot took the photograph, so I guess that means a robot didn't take it.

Try selling that to a jury of your peers, DJW, the assumptions you have made about 7362 and Magazine Q do NOT add up to a conclusion that Conrad, Bean and Gordon were in cislunar space.

You have failed so far to prove that they weren't. You're acting as if this was the only visual evidence available when you know full well it isn't. There are many other magazines that show astronauts on the moon walking around among craters that will not be imaged again until the LRO started to orbit - no-one knew they were there. There are video images, TV broadcasts, and the hardware of Surveyor 3, not to mention the rock samples the images of Earth, the transcripts and reports and so on and so on and so on. What have you got to support your hypothesis?

In fact,

You use of that word is questionable

according to the way the defenders have squirmed on this question it can only mean one thing : that I am on the right track with my line of questioning.

It is not a line of questioning, it is empty rhetoric. You're like senator McCarthy continuing to bluster at the microphone long after he has been made a fool of.

All you need is some proof. Just give me some proof.

choos

btw i asked for a FREELY ROTATING object.. that handkercheif, that flying rose, never once rotated and maintained its "upright" orientation..

if you paid attention to the videos of objects being thrown on the lunar surface you will find that most of them rotate more than 360 degrees about an axis, they are not thrown without rotating at all, all the videos you posted to prove your illusion theory shows the floating objects are not rotating..

did you know why i said the keywords were free rotating and expansion?? i guess not because you clearly ignored it and posted those videos.

You want to see an object 'freely rotating'?...

www.youtube.com...

Now you have it.


I don't know what specific method(s) was used (or could've been used). My point is - it WAS possible.

reply to post by turbonium1


So what you're saying is that everything on the Apollo "set" was embedded in gigantic panes of glass? In any case, that pen only has one degree of freedom in its rotation. Try again.

reply to post by turbonium1


its not possible using ropes/strings, that scene from 2001 was done by sticking a pen to a rotating glass as pointed out by djw.. and the dust.. perhaps you conveniently ignored the dust??

did they have dynamically moving dust on giant glass panes to film this scene??



but back to the bag, notice in the bag throwing that it expands when thrown away due to centrifugal force and then collapses when it hits the ground?? that bag is not stuck on some giant piece of glass.. and neither are ropes involved..

still think its filmed at 67%?

reply to post by onebigmonkey

I found an image of Apollo 15 with a hand in it - I even gave you the name of the astronaut.

There you go again with the Apollo switcher-oo tactics.

Are you sure you wanna go on talking about Dave Scott's hand? Perhaps you don't know that Dave Scott 's hand has been involved in some other Apollo 15 switcher-oo's. Maybe you don't know about Sample Bag 196, or, how he complained about his hands and fingernails hurting during the Apollo 15 mission.

We could also get into the Apollo 15 trans-earth TV press conference from cislunar space in which there aren't any floating objects in the video except for Dave Scott's bobbing up and down.



I am referring to the same TV press conference that NASA historians conveniently left out of the official Apollo 15 timelines published by NASA as SP-4029.


I guess your Dave Scott "hand" looks pretty weak now. Dave Scott's hands look completely normal, don't they?

choos

SayonaraJupiter
I'm getting request time outs when trying to post here.

must be howard hughes and richard nixon trying to stop you..

Choos, HH and RN will take good care of you. Just sit back and watch the movie. This movie has everything you ever wanted in a movie. It has astronauts, Corvettes, poker games, gangsters and godfathers.

At some point choos you are going to realize that the Apollo phenomenon is the bastard child of Howard Hughes & Richard Nixon's love affair with the movies. Wernher von Braun and Walt Disney merely helped that imagination finally come to the climax of the Nixon presidency, Apollo 11 and television, forever linked together, they said For All Mankind, but really, it wasn't.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


oh ofcourse..

there you have it ladies and gentlemen..

the proof sayonarajupiter is presenting to prove that NASA absolutely could not physically land man on the moon is that Nixon likes to watch movies..

SayonaraJupiter

We could also get into the Apollo 15 trans-earth TV press conference from cislunar space in which there aren't any floating objects in the video except for Dave Scott's bobbing up and down.

quite contradictory of you..

anyway so now that you have acknowledged david scott is a floating object can you move on??

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

I found an image of Apollo 15 with a hand in it - I even gave you the name of the astronaut.

There you go again with the Apollo switcher-oo tactics.

Are you sure you wanna go on talking about Dave Scott's hand? Perhaps you don't know that Dave Scott 's hand has been involved in some other Apollo 15 switcher-oo's. Maybe you don't know about Sample Bag 196, or, how he complained about his hands and fingernails hurting during the Apollo 15 mission.

We could also get into the Apollo 15 trans-earth TV press conference from cislunar space in which there aren't any floating objects in the video except for Dave Scott's bobbing up and down.

I am referring to the same TV press conference that NASA historians conveniently left out of the official Apollo 15 timelines published by NASA as SP-4029.

I guess your Dave Scott "hand" looks pretty weak now. Dave Scott's hands look completely normal, don't they?

Your funny Nasa didnt right the book. The author forgot to include it in fact he forgot alot of things in his book. NASA agreed to publish it they didnt have any input on writing it. However it is in the apollo 15 flight journal not published by NASA but released by NASA. The reason the author missed it was it was not a scheduled broadcast it was set up by public relations officer because the news crews were getting bored. Therefore was not in the mission plan but set up at the last minute. So the only thing you proved is they could quickly alter there schedule which they couldnt do if it was faked. It amazes me how you keep screwing up your own theories. Your going to make the apollo hoaxers mad at you for tearing apart there evidence.

choos

also the 2.45x is not meant to represent lunar footage.. it is merely mathematically correct, i didnt make up the maths, the reason it wont look real or match up (ive said this before) is because slowing down footage is merely an ILLUSION.

slowing footage down on earth they are still being affected by EARTH'S GRAVITY not lunar gravity.. you cannot use slow motion to replicate lunar footage.. 2.45x is just merely the accurate mathematically correct factor.

if you dont believe me.. 2.45x faster than 1.24 seconds is = 0.506 seconds

g=2h/t^2
g=2.5/0.506^2
g=9.76m/s^2

much closer than 3.66 dont you think??

The first problem is typical Apollo-ite mindset. A bag was thrown away by an astronaut. It is impossible to have meddled with something like throwing a plastic bag...right?

Worst of all, the measurements...

A grainy video. No reference points. Nothing to validate measurements. Nice.

And. you believe the measurements are so accurate that your entire case depends on them!

Sure. Please tell me all about it...

turbonium1

The first problem is typical Apollo-ite mindset. A bag was thrown away by an astronaut. It is impossible to have meddled with something like throwing a plastic bag...right?

Worst of all, the measurements...

A grainy video. No reference points. Nothing to validate measurements. Nice.

And. you believe the measurements are so accurate that your entire case depends on them!

Sure. Please tell me all about it...

arguing from ignorance again??? just because you cant refute it you have to resort to trying to discredit the calculations...

look the guy tells you how he came to the measurements, and the methods are very valid or do you simply dont understand it??

since you have resorted to attempting to discredit maths ill take it you admit you are wrong?

yet another hoax believer's sad attempt to grasp at straws.

p.s. and yes it is impossible to meddle with a bag that rotates and expands naturally in mid air.. unless you want to believe it was CGI?

p.p.s to further demonstrate how wrong you are about trying to discredit the calculations this video tells you where you can verify his measurements:



already been posted but i dont think you watched it since you are now complaining you cant verify the measurements, since in the video he encourages you to verify it yourself, you can count the pixels yourself, you can count the frames yourself to verify the height at the airtime.. he has stated all of it so that you can verify the measurements yourself.. yet here you are saying its too blurry and you cant verify the measurements..

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


There you go again, using fake images of the non-existent "President Nixon." Unless you can prove 100% beyond doubt that Richard Nixon actually existed and, remember, by your own standards, this involves naming the photographer who took every single alleged photograph of him, you cannot use anything involving so called "Nixon" as evidence.

In 1969, the population of the United States was 250 million. This means that the odds were 250 million to 1 that there was a President Nixon. On the other hand, in the same year, nine people went to the Moon. This means that it is ten times more likely that people went to the Moon than there was a President Nixon. So stop squirming and start proving something.

DJW001
reply to post by turbonium1

 

So what you're saying is that everything on the Apollo "set" was embedded in gigantic panes of glass? In any case, that pen only has one degree of freedom in its rotation. Try again.

I'm still trying to figure out what your argument is here.

Are you saying this is an impossible feat, or something??

I've heard loony-tunes before, but this really takes the cake...

This is not an impossible feat. It can be done as a special effect in a movie, or can be done as an illusion, performed by David Copperfield et al.

You may ask me - if this feat is so do-able, then why has no magician ever done it? And why has it never been done for a special effect in movies?

Any idea?

There's a very good reason you don't see it done as an illusion, or see it as a special effect in the movies....

We see bags rotating in mid-air on windy days .

You should be able to figure it out from here...

turbonium1

DJW001
reply to post by turbonium1

 

So what you're saying is that everything on the Apollo "set" was embedded in gigantic panes of glass? In any case, that pen only has one degree of freedom in its rotation. Try again.

I'm still trying to figure out what your argument is here.

The "floating pen" in 2001 was embedded in a sheet of glass. (That is why it only has one degree of freedom.)

Are you saying this is an impossible feat, or something??

Yes, you're catching on. Given the size of the space defined by the astronauts' motions the sheets of glass would be improbably large and the astronauts would need to pass through these panes of glass somehow, so, yes, it would be impossible, wouldn't it?

I've heard loony-tunes before, but this really takes the cake...

Don't be so hard on yourself. You're theory isn't completely looney tunes, just ill conceived.

This is not an impossible feat. It can be done as a special effect in a movie, or can be done as an illusion, performed by David Copperfield et al.

No, it can't. Prove me wrong by posting a video of a lightweight, high wind resistance object that arcs like a stone when thrown.

You may ask me - if this feat is so do-able, then why has no magician ever done it? And why has it never been done for a special effect in movies?

You tell me.

Any idea?

Yes, because it's impossible.

There's a very good reason you don't see it done as an illusion, or see it as a special effect in the movies....

Because it can't be done.

We see bags rotating in mid-air on windy days .

And why do they rotate in the air on windy days? Wind resistance. The bag in the video can only follow a ballistic trajectory like that if there is no air.

You should be able to figure it out from here...

You need to start over. Give it some thought this time.