Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

TheLieWeLive
It makes me wonder why the moon model had to be so exact in detail? So no one could discern the real moon from a fake one in pictures? Even the lighting was matched? Also was there two different moon models? One picture in the link shows a man measuring the craters and another model seems to be behind him in the distance. I wonder if that one represent the dark side of the moon?

It's pretty obvious why it had to be so exact.. it's a trainer, it's meant to be as close to exact as possible to simulate the experience for a successful landing.

SayonaraJupiter

Can the ubermonkey Jay Utah use math to prove that Pete Conrad was in cis-lunar space during the Apollo 12 mission? It's a lot of hocus pocus if you ask me. Jay relies on NASA source material, he picks and chooses his source material, and fact remains that the telemetry tapes are gone forever. Who you gonna call now?

Abuse is always helpful when you have no other argument. Jay relies on NASA source material? You mean stuff from .gov sites? If the telemetry tapes are missing then they are both arguing from an even base, and we can choose between some anonymous Russian no-one has ever heard of before or since in a self published work measuring plumes from a TV screen and a respected actual rocket scientist who knows what he's talking about. I'll call someone who's qualified to discuss it.

Mythbusters? Phil Plait?

Phil Plait is easy enough to contact. I have done. He also knows what he's talking about.

Can you prove that Pete Conrad was in cis-lunar space? No, you can't. Stop your posturing and prove that!

What is your prime piece of evidence? Pete's personal testimony? Or do you have hard proof?

Already done. See the TV broadcasts and 16mm video that you conveniently keep ignoring.

See the images of Earth demonstrably taken from space by 16mm, TV and still cameras, by people pt your imaginary robots. See pictures of the lunar far side and the terminator that is in the right place for the mission timeline. See the rocks brought back by the crew, the photographs and video from the lunar surface showing details only now visible in the LRO images. Personal testimony from Conrad isn't going to happen, he's dead. I have personal testimony from Alan Bean.

And once you're done obsessing with Apollo 12 (which you're only doing because I proved to you that a photo from the mission was taken in cislunar space at the specific time it was claimed to be taken) you can go back to trying to disprove that the photographs of Jupiter I presented are false. There's an entire website of mine you keep ignoring that prove we went to the moon and all you have is an obsession with a dribbling idiot and a drunk.

reply to post by ppk55


After you watch this you will slap yourself in the face.

reply to post by onebigmonkey

Abuse is always helpful when you have no other argument.

Well, your team has dished a lot of that. The Apollo Defenders have exceeded their quota on abuse. So what, I called Jay Utah an ubermonkey, so what is it, crybaby time over at clavius?

And once you're done obsessing with Apollo 12 (which you're only doing because I proved to you that a photo from the mission was taken in cislunar space at the specific time it was claimed to be taken)

Apollo 12 is a great mission to look at because it shows continuity errors and I think you already know the reason why.... they used unmanned probes to get those images that YOU believe are authentic.

For example, there is the fact that Pete Conrad had 7 Hasselblad cameras on board under his command, and we all know that Pete was a joker, yet he didn't snap ONE SINGLE IMAGE of Dick Gordon or Alan Bean face for the entire mission.

Pete and Dick were pretty close as you know from Gemini. It seems like a #ty thing for Pete to do... he must have ordered Gordon and Bean to not take any pictures of the crew en route to the "moon", or coming back.

See the rocks brought back by the crew,

Check out Pete's Rocks...

combatmaster
reply to post by ppk55

 

After you watch this you will slap yourself in the face.

That guy with the funny hat is an Apollogist. He is simply arguing for his own belief system. He cannot prove anything. He was not a witness to Neil Armstrong's moon walking. Buzz Aldrin is the only eyewitness to that event.

That guy with the funny hat doesn't seem to realize that Apollo leads back to Wernher von Braun and Howard Hughes. The guy with the funny hat is what I would define as a "low-level Apollo Defender". All hat, no horse.

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by onebigmonkey

 

Abuse is always helpful when you have no other argument.

Well, your team has dished a lot of that. The Apollo Defenders have exceeded their quota on abuse. So what, I called Jay Utah an ubermonkey, so what is it, crybaby time over at clavius?

And once you're done obsessing with Apollo 12 (which you're only doing because I proved to you that a photo from the mission was taken in cislunar space at the specific time it was claimed to be taken)

Apollo 12 is a great mission to look at because it shows continuity errors and I think you already know the reason why.... they used unmanned probes to get those images that YOU believe are authentic.

For example, there is the fact that Pete Conrad had 7 Hasselblad cameras on board under his command, and we all know that Pete was a joker, yet he didn't snap ONE SINGLE IMAGE of Dick Gordon or Alan Bean face for the entire mission.

Pete and Dick were pretty close as you know from Gemini. It seems like a #ty thing for Pete to do... he must have ordered Gordon and Bean to not take any pictures of the crew en route to the "moon", or coming back.

See the rocks brought back by the crew,

Check out Pete's Rocks...

edit on 12/19/2013 by SayonaraJupiter because: (no reason given)

Do you ever get tired of being wrong or is that part of the plan just make stuff up hoping no one notices. Lets start with a correction here is the camera equipment apollo 12 had one 70-millimeter Hasselblad EL camera, two Hasselblad data cameras and guess what the Hasselblad EL was set to take pictures in the rig on the window and guess what had a telephoto lens. Remeber he forgets to stow it away smacks him in the head like you like to point out. So its not set up to take pictures in the cabin. And the other two were stowed away in the LM and couldnt get to them until they landed on the moon. When they landed they got out the cameras from an outside storage compartment used them and left them on the moon. So now why do you think they didnt take pictures with the 3 Hasselblads they had Well two were never in the cabin and the third was set up to take pictures of the earth like the one you so hate because it proves they went to the moon! Now the other Hasselblads that you claim were carried was part of Lunar Multispectral S-158 Experiment and were mounted together and again was put into mounting bracket to take pictures of the lunar surface in 4 diffrent wavelengths. Again not able to be used for crew photos. So they were unable to use these cameras to take pictures of themselves yet you think its strange they didnt!

So once again you show you have no clue about what your talking about but expect people to take you seriously.

reply to post by dragonridr


So you admit that Apollo 12 went to the "moon" with 3 Hasselblad 70 mm cameras, one for each astronaut, yet none of these astronauts thought to take a picture of the other... for the entire trip.

Why wouldn't Conrad take one snapshot of his two buddies in cis-lunar space? Maybe Conrad was never in cis-lunar space. And the same goes for each of his crew members.

Not only that, but Alan Bean fried the color TV camera.

Not only that, but Dick Gordon was the CMP and he didn't know what to do after the lightning strike.




Not only that, but the Apollo 12 cover EVA poses problems for the continuity of the official timelines.

SayonaraJupiter
Not only that, but Alan Bean fried the color TV camera.

Oh dear, our beloved Mr Bean. He did stuff up a lot didn't he.
Here he doesn't even know if they passed through the Van Allen radiation belts or not.
You'd think an astronaut might know this stuff huh?

SayonaraJupiter
reply to post by dragonridr

Again wrong you really cant read english can you? I explained that 2 cameras were designated for lunar EVAS . Meaning your not going to see the astronauts in anything but space suits because going on the lunar surface without one will kill you! And the third had a telephoto lens meaning taking pictures anywhere but out the window just leads to a very blurry picture. So once again they couldnt use them to take pictures of there smiling faces. As far as a standup eva occurring no discrepancy at all i knew about that see in the top of the command module is an opening that can be used for figuring out exactly where you landed. They open it and it gives them a great view but they cant climb down from there it is merely to get bearings. And actually is mentioned when you listen to the astronauts. But how does this prove they were not there because to do a stand up EVA they have to be on the moon. So once again your just making an argument which makes zero sense or in other words your trolling again.

ppk55

Oh dear, our beloved Mr Bean. He did stuff up a lot didn't he.
Here he doesn't even know if they passed through the Van Allen radiation belts or not.
You'd think an astronaut might know this stuff huh?

if they could feel the radiation effects of the VA belts they wouldnt have survived..

but ofcourse you probably believe that the VA belt completely encompasses the entire planet with no thin areas or holes to pass through at all, and that travelling anywhere near the VA belt is like being inside a nuclear reactor right? i mean to you its completely impossible for the VA belt to have any passable areas..

and even if there were passable area in the VA belt NASA is too stupid to traverse through those, NASA must go through the densest areas ofcourse, i mean why bother traversing the thinnest areas of the VA belt when they can go right through the thickest?

SayonaraJupiter

That guy with the funny hat is an Apollogist. He is simply arguing for his own belief system. He cannot prove anything. He was not a witness to Neil Armstrong's moon walking. Buzz Aldrin is the only eyewitness to that event.

That guy with the funny hat doesn't seem to realize that Apollo leads back to Wernher von Braun and Howard Hughes. The guy with the funny hat is what I would define as a "low-level Apollo Defender". All hat, no horse.

prove him wrong perhaps?? or you just going to use your "authority" to say he is wrong and everyone must accept what you say???

oh wait.. i forgot you believe they had a time machine to get the equipment to fake the moon landings.. its not just slow motion but video editing software also, you know, to edit the dynamic visor reflections in all lunar surface footage.

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter


Ok..... that may be.... but have you listened to his explanation?

It cannot be ignored. He basically proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon landing could NOT have been faked using 1960's tech!

Why are you still arguing?

combatmaster
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

It cannot be ignored. He basically proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the moon landing could NOT have been faked using 1960's tech!

Why are you still arguing?

Some guy with a hat made a youtube video does not 'prove' a dang thing.

Science requires independent verification. No humans or monkeys have been outside low earth orbit using 1970's tech, 1980's tech, 1990's tech or 2000's tech. Four full decades of low-earth-orbit missions.

Howard Hughes and Richard Nixon are responsible for Apollo. The guy with the hat does not have independent data to compare with Apollo, he is simply taking the NASA data and apollogizing for it.

ppk55

SayonaraJupiter
Not only that, but Alan Bean fried the color TV camera.

Oh dear, our beloved Mr Bean. He did stuff up a lot didn't he.
Here he doesn't even know if they passed through the Van Allen radiation belts or not.
You'd think an astronaut might know this stuff huh?

Somehow, Alan Bean LMP, knows exactly where the 'SCE to AUX' button is...Dick Gordon CMP and Pete Conrad CDR should have known what 'SCE to Aux' meant however they struggled to understand what button they should push to clear the alarms... as if they were not well trained on the spacecraft.



And PPK, do you have any thoughts on the lack of candid's on Apollo 12? Does it seem odd to you that Conrad would go to the 'moon' and back and not take a single picture of Dick Gordon's greasy pompadour hair-do?

"I'm not sure we went far enough out to encounter the Van Allen Radiation Belt.. maybe we did." - Alan Bean, Apollo 12

Apollo Defenders need to read up on how to do a real science investigation. Youtube videos are not scientific. However, I do understand, that some things in a youtube video provide very useful (and powerful) testimonial evidence. For example, a youtube video of an C-SPAN interview with an astronaut, oral histories, in general, I accept as very useful.

There is no question that the Alan Bean quote is authentic.

So when I quote Alan Bean's youtube video statement to Bart Sibrel about the VAB it is way more powerful than counting pixels on a youtube video, because as everyone knows, youtube videos are retranslations of source material that has undergone numerous video transformations.

These are military men. They all have experience using radios in aerospace environment. Carr should have known that Conrad might easily misunderstand SCE to Aux, FCE, NCE or whatever.

Carr should have said "Sam Charlie Echo to Aux" instead of repeating "SCE, SCE"

When the comm link is noisy, and the mission is critical, you do not repeat "SCE, SCE" you switch to phonetics.

That's why airplane pilots talk in phonetics and communications people talk in phonetics... so that they do not have to repeat the same thing over and over again, which is a waste of critical seconds...

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

There is no question that the Alan Bean quote is authentic.

It is both authentic and accurate. Skylab 3, his most recent mission, stayed well below the ERBs. His description of the flashes caused by cosmic radiation, that is, gamma rays that originate elsewhere than the ERBs, is correct.

So when I quote Alan Bean's youtube video statement to Bart Sibrel about the VAB it is way more powerful than counting pixels on a youtube video, because as everyone knows, youtube videos are retranslations of source material that has undergone numerous video transformations.

Then you believe what he says is true? That he passed through the ERBs with no ill effects on Apollo 12? I agree, it is certainly more useful than the bogus measurements made by Pokrovsky. I'm glad you're not buying that rubbish anymore. Now... when are you going to provide solid evidence that this "Richard Nixon" of yours actually existed?

SayonaraJupiter

"I'm not sure we went far enough out to encounter the Van Allen Radiation Belt.. maybe we did." - Alan Bean, Apollo 12

Apollo Defenders need to read up on how to do a real science investigation.

Amd you need to learn how to distinguish manipulated BS from factual reporting and scientific evidence.

The quote is genuine. What is not genuine is Sibrel's editing of the interview from which it came. Sibrel is a convicted violent criminal. I know who I trust more to tell the truth.

SayonaraJupiter
These are military men. They all have experience using radios in aerospace environment. Carr should have known that Conrad might easily misunderstand SCE to Aux, FCE, NCE or whatever.

Carr should have said "Sam Charlie Echo to Aux" instead of repeating "SCE, SCE"

When the comm link is noisy, and the mission is critical, you do not repeat "SCE, SCE" you switch to phonetics.

That's why airplane pilots talk in phonetics and communications people talk in phonetics... so that they do not have to repeat the same thing over and over again, which is a waste of critical seconds...

coulda woulda shoulda.

You are not an expert witness in this matter. Your opinion on what should have happened does not negate what actually did happen in the first few moments of the launch of Apollo 12.