Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

reply to post by turbonium1

choos


you are confused.. expands does not equal inflate.. how many times must i tell you this.. an atmosphere will inflate the bag and in the video the bag DOES NOT INFLATE

no wind or no draught will still cause the bag to inflate.. the bag does not inflate.. if there were any atmosphere the bag would have inflated alot more than what you see.

Why would it have to inflate a lot more?

I can throw a bag in air, and get the very same result. A bag with the same degree of expansion as the Apollo bag.

There's no support for your claim

Please show us. Perform a demonstration if you are so convinced that a light bag and act on earth in an atmosphere the same way it is seen on the video. No more magician videos. Please demonstrate this for all of us to see.

Soylent Green Is People


Centrifugal force (the centrifugal effect) is NOT dependent on the gravitational pull of a body (such as the Earth or Moon), and centrifugal force DOES exist without a body produicng a gravitational pull.

For example, centrifugal force could be the effect used to create artificial gravity on deep space missions by spinning the spacecraft. The centrifugal effect would cause objects inside the spaceship to be forced outward (much like an amusement park "tilt-a-whirl" ride), generating artificial gravity. However, this can be done in deep space in the absence of a nearby gravity-producing body.

You don't get it.

A centrifugal force can exist within a spacecraft, yes.

As you said - an artifical gravity can be created by spinning the spacecraft.

So centrifugal force requires gravity. As I told you.

I didn't say it was only possible from the gravity of planets, now did I? No, I did not.

I said centrifugal force requires a gravity environment.

My point is made.

Gibborium

reply to post by turbonium1

choos


you are confused.. expands does not equal inflate.. how many times must i tell you this.. an atmosphere will inflate the bag and in the video the bag DOES NOT INFLATE

no wind or no draught will still cause the bag to inflate.. the bag does not inflate.. if there were any atmosphere the bag would have inflated alot more than what you see.

Why would it have to inflate a lot more?

I can throw a bag in air, and get the very same result. A bag with the same degree of expansion as the Apollo bag.

There's no support for your claim

Please show us. Perform a demonstration if you are so convinced that a light bag and act on earth in an atmosphere the same way it is seen on the video. No more magician videos. Please demonstrate this for all of us to see.




I lack a camera, as I said before. If you do, then please show me why I'm wrong..

reply to post by turbonium1


I think you are a bit confused concerning the difference between gravity, mass and inertia. So let's define their meaning first:

Definition of gravity
1. The force of attraction that moves or tends to move bodies towards the center of a celestial body, such as the earth or moon
2. The property of being heavy or having weight See also specific gravity, center of gravity
3. Another name for gravitation

Wiki

In everyday talk, we say things fall because the Earth's gravity pulls on them. We talk as if our weight was a "given". Actually, weight changes when the pull of gravity changes. The Moon is much smaller and the pull of gravity on the Moon is about 1/6th that of Earth. So any object on the Moon weighs 1/6th of its weight on Earth. What does not change is the amount of matter in an object. That is called its mass. On Earth, mass and weight are the same, for practical purposes. The trip to the Moon shows they are not really the same.

From this we learn two things.
1. The weight of an object is variable; its mass is constant.
2. the pull of gravity varies according to the mass of an object. The Earth pulls more strongly than the Moon. A person also exerts a gravitational pull, but it is so tiny it is ignored for all practical purposes.

The Earth has mass. Every particle of matter has mass. So the Earth pulls on every object and person and they pull on the Earth. Gravity pulls on the mass and gives it weight.

Definition of Mass
Mass - it's a bit more complicated to explain in simple terms, the most basic is Mass = the density of the matter from which the object is composed.

Gravity is created by mass. The bigger and denser the mass the more pull (gravity) it develops. This pull (force) creates a reaction to other objects within its gravitational influence which have a mass of their own. Which virtually means any substance, including light.

Definition of Inertia
The resistance of any physical object to any change in its motion (including a change in direction). In other words, it is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant linear velocity, or to keep still.

reply to post by turbonium1

 

You don't get it.

A centrifugal force can exist within a spacecraft, yes.

As you said - an artifical gravity can be created by spinning the spacecraft.

So centrifugal force requires gravity. As I told you.

I didn't say it was only possible from the gravity of planets, now did I? No, I did not.

I said centrifugal force requires a gravity environment.

My point is made.

Highlights by Me for clarity

Artificial gravity is created by inertia, not by mass. They are completely different. The Earth's mass creates gravity where a spinning artificial gravity is created by inertia. Simple

Even though the bag in the video is reactionary to the gravity of the Moon, it is not gravity which causes the bag to expand. That is caused by inertia. However, the gravity of the Moon does cause the bag to "fall back" to the surface of the Moon in a projectile trajectory.

And, in the video, the bag's trajectory indicates a lack of atmosphere, and a gravitational field intensity of only 1.63 m/s2 as compared to the gravitational field intensity on the surface of the earth of 9.8 m/s2.

A point on the clip -

Who is operating the camera? Someone on Earth, right?

The camera pans slightly to the right during this clip. Did you notice it?


The pan is done just before the astronaut throws the bag away.

So that must be why the pan is done, yes?

No other reason for them to pan, is there?

But you said the bag was just thrown away at random. It was not some sort of event they had planned in advance...right?

If it was not a planned event, then....why did they pan the camera, at that particular moment?

No reason? Or they had a hunch something would happen. Or it was just dumb luck..

It's either incredible luck (once again), or it all makes perfect sense as a hoax.

The first option is pure fantasy, btw ..

Gibborium
reply to post by turbonium1

 

I think you are a bit confused concerning the difference between gravity, mass and inertia. So let's define their meaning first:

Definition of gravity
1. The force of attraction that moves or tends to move bodies towards the center of a celestial body, such as the earth or moon
2. The property of being heavy or having weight See also specific gravity, center of gravity
3. Another name for gravitation

Wiki

In everyday talk, we say things fall because the Earth's gravity pulls on them. We talk as if our weight was a "given". Actually, weight changes when the pull of gravity changes. The Moon is much smaller and the pull of gravity on the Moon is about 1/6th that of Earth. So any object on the Moon weighs 1/6th of its weight on Earth. What does not change is the amount of matter in an object. That is called its mass. On Earth, mass and weight are the same, for practical purposes. The trip to the Moon shows they are not really the same.

From this we learn two things.
1. The weight of an object is variable; its mass is constant.
2. the pull of gravity varies according to the mass of an object. The Earth pulls more strongly than the Moon. A person also exerts a gravitational pull, but it is so tiny it is ignored for all practical purposes.

The Earth has mass. Every particle of matter has mass. So the Earth pulls on every object and person and they pull on the Earth. Gravity pulls on the mass and gives it weight.

Definition of Mass
Mass - it's a bit more complicated to explain in simple terms, the most basic is Mass = the density of the matter from which the object is composed.

Gravity is created by mass. The bigger and denser the mass the more pull (gravity) it develops. This pull (force) creates a reaction to other objects within its gravitational influence which have a mass of their own. Which virtually means any substance, including light.

Definition of Inertia
The resistance of any physical object to any change in its motion (including a change in direction). In other words, it is the tendency of objects to keep moving in a straight line at constant linear velocity, or to keep still.

reply to post by turbonium1

 

You don't get it.

A centrifugal force can exist within a spacecraft, yes.

As you said - an artifical gravity can be created by spinning the spacecraft.

So centrifugal force requires gravity. As I told you.

I didn't say it was only possible from the gravity of planets, now did I? No, I did not.

I said centrifugal force requires a gravity environment.

My point is made.

Highlights by Me for clarity

Artificial gravity is created by inertia, not by mass. They are completely different. The Earth's mass creates gravity where a spinning artificial gravity is created by inertia. Simple

Even though the bag in the video is reactionary to the gravity of the Moon, it is not gravity which causes the bag to expand. That is caused by inertia. However, the gravity of the Moon does cause the bag to "fall back" to the surface of the Moon in a projectile trajectory.

And, in the video, the bag's trajectory indicates a lack of atmosphere, and a gravitational field intensity of only 1.63 m/s2 as compared to the gravitational field intensity on the surface of the earth of 9.8 m/s2.

Do you see a good reason for why he'd take a 'stick' and fling away a plastic bag into mid-air? Because it was 'in his way'?
Sure, no problem buying that one!!

He throws this bag up with a stick, so we would assume it's NOT for any reason. It is a random act.

But then we see the camera pans a little to the right, at the perfect moment - just before the bag is thrown up.

A camera that just pans a bit for no reason, but it points to an astronaut just before he throws a bag into mid-air, for no reason .

No way.

turbonium1

Why would it have to inflate a lot more?

I can throw a bag in air, and get the very same result. A bag with the same degree of expansion as the Apollo bag.

There's no support for your claim

because the bag will act similar to a parachute..

do you know what a vacuum is by any chance?? im not talking about them hoover/dyson vacuum cleaners.. im talking about spacial vacuum, an area of nothing..

but really you believe centrifugal force doesnt exist without gravity.. is this the "physics" that we are arguing against??

turbonium1

Do you see a good reason for why he'd take a 'stick' and fling away a plastic bag into mid-air? Because it was 'in his way'?
Sure, no problem buying that one!!

He throws this bag up with a stick, so we would assume it's NOT for any reason. It is a random act.

But then we see the camera pans a little to the right, at the perfect moment - just before the bag is thrown up.

A camera that just pans a bit for no reason, but it points to an astronaut just before he throws a bag into mid-air, for no reason .

No way.

are we watching the same clip????



there is no pan at all.. you are lying and making things up again..

im guessing its to distract people from knowing your "physics" ("There is little centrifugal force to be generated on the lunar surface to begin with. The moon has much less gravitational force. and centrifugal force doesn't exist without gravity." - turbonium1) and real world physics is completely different??

turbonium1

Do you see a good reason for why he'd take a 'stick' and fling away a plastic bag into mid-air? Because it was 'in his way'?

Because it's there? To see what happens when you toss a bag in a vacuum in lunar gravity? It would be helpful to have the mission audio here. A repost of the clip and some context for those of us who have lost the will to live, er, I mean forgotten which page the clip is on.

He throws this bag up with a stick, so we would assume it's NOT for any reason. It is a random act.

See above - without listening to the audio or reading the accompanying transcript all you are doing is implying motive without actually knowing it.

But then we see the camera pans a little to the right, at the perfect moment - just before the bag is thrown up.

Again, mission audio would help. For all I know the astronaut announces his intention.

A camera that just pans a bit for no reason, but it points to an astronaut just before he throws a bag into mid-air, for no reason .

No way.

That's your interpretation based on? Erm..nothing but your personal prejudices.

You may not have a camera, but that does not preclude you from getting a plastic bag and a stick and repeating the experiment and then reporting the results.

In an atmosphere, i predict that the initial momentum of a stick moving a plastic bag will cause the sides to go together and it will follow an arc trajectory. The bag's momentum will then be overcome by the resistance provided by air and it will no longer follow that trajectory. It will then fall directly to the ground, with variations on that theme dependent on any air currents. For good measure you can put a load of dust on the ground and see what happens to that when a plastic bag displaces air as it moves.

Repeat the experiment as many times as you like and report back if you can get the bag to behave in exactly the same way as the one in the Apollo video. I'll believe you.

Another thing -

The bag is not being lifted into mid-air by his stick - for the most part.

He is propping up the bag with a stick, near to object(s) on the ground.

He lifts the bag up with his stick. Then, it lofts away, high above, into mid-air.

It is an illusion, to make it appear to us that they are, indeed, on the moon.

The bag - it is slow at first, while it's rising by the stick. But to suddenly blast off into Warp Speed? Nonsense. It slows down after that, until it lands.

This is why the bag lifts so high. No strings, perhaps it was a swift blast of air.

It fits what we see. The bag is slow, suddenly blasts into lightspeed for a moment, then it slows back down again, until it lands.


And no lunar gravity, that's for sure!

choos

because the bag will act similar to a parachute..

How ironic - you say it acts similar to a bag which has strings attached!!

Why do you think parachutes have strings, anyway?

turbonium1
Another thing -

The bag is not being lifted into mid-air by his stick - for the most part.

He is propping up the bag with a stick, near to object(s) on the ground.

He lifts the bag up with his stick. Then, it lofts away, high above, into mid-air.

It is an illusion, to make it appear to us that they are, indeed, on the moon.

The bag - it is slow at first, while it's rising by the stick. But to suddenly blast off into Warp Speed? Nonsense. It slows down after that, until it lands.

This is why the bag lifts so high. No strings, perhaps it was a swift blast of air.

It fits what we see. The bag is slow, suddenly blasts into lightspeed for a moment, then it slows back down again, until it lands.


And no lunar gravity, that's for sure!

A swift blast of air that disturbs no dust? A blast of air from what? Where? Your explanation for what would be required in order for a bag to behave in the way you think it is behaving is getting ever more complex.

choos

turbonium1

Do you see a good reason for why he'd take a 'stick' and fling away a plastic bag into mid-air? Because it was 'in his way'?
Sure, no problem buying that one!!

He throws this bag up with a stick, so we would assume it's NOT for any reason. It is a random act.

But then we see the camera pans a little to the right, at the perfect moment - just before the bag is thrown up.

A camera that just pans a bit for no reason, but it points to an astronaut just before he throws a bag into mid-air, for no reason .

No way.

are we watching the same clip????

there is no pan at all.. you are lying and making things up again..

The pan occurs when the first bag is thrown, as you'll see in this clip...



I thought the pan was done during the other throw, but they do pan it, which is the point being made here.

So how can they pan it from Earth, as it actually happens on the moon?? It can't. That pan is impossible because of the delay.

Now that I've seen the clip properly I can put it in some sort of context.

The bag is the cover for the heat flow experiment.

The bag flick occurs just after John Young has trashed the heat flow experiment by yanking out the cables.

The flick is actually his 3rd attempt to get the bag out of the way.

Here's a link to the full clip:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

So now we do have a reason for the bag to be flicked: annoyance.

I'm not sure which video Turbonium is watching either. The bag is quite obviously not being affected by any atmosphere at all, and I have never seen a bag behave like that on Earth.

Here's another version: www.youtube.com...

The only panning I can see over the whole EVA is between the two astronauts, and as Young moves over to the right of screen after he rips the cable.

To follow that point -

The camera is showing a scene with both astronauts in it.

The camera doesn't move, at this point.

A bit later, the astronaut on the right throws a bag into mid-air.

The camera pans to the right during his throw. And the camera even zooms in on it.

A bag is thrown, and 1-2 seconds later (and very generous on time) the camera pans to it.

The pan and zoom are done for an event which was not yet known to those on Earth!!! That is quite a remarkable feat, now isn't it???

turbonium1
I thought the pan was done during the other throw, but they do pan it, which is the point being made here.

So how can they pan it from Earth, as it actually happens on the moon?? It can't. That pan is impossible because of the delay.

The first throw is of the dust cover for the geophone experiment. He's throwing it to get rid of it.

The pan is coincidental.

Still waiting for the results of your experiments.

onebigmonkey

turbonium1
Another thing -

The bag is not being lifted into mid-air by his stick - for the most part.

He is propping up the bag with a stick, near to object(s) on the ground.

He lifts the bag up with his stick. Then, it lofts away, high above, into mid-air.

It is an illusion, to make it appear to us that they are, indeed, on the moon.

The bag - it is slow at first, while it's rising by the stick. But to suddenly blast off into Warp Speed? Nonsense. It slows down after that, until it lands.

This is why the bag lifts so high. No strings, perhaps it was a swift blast of air.

It fits what we see. The bag is slow, suddenly blasts into lightspeed for a moment, then it slows back down again, until it lands.


And no lunar gravity, that's for sure!

A swift blast of air that disturbs no dust? A blast of air from what? Where? Your explanation for what would be required in order for a bag to behave in the way you think it is behaving is getting ever more complex.

edit on 27-12-2013 by onebigmonkey because: link provided above!

Just an air compressor would be needed for this.

Shoots out a directed air blast. No dust issue, as you claimed.

It can be placed anywhere, so hiding it is simple as well.


Not so complex, now is it?

onebigmonkey

turbonium1
I thought the pan was done during the other throw, but they do pan it, which is the point being made here.

So how can they pan it from Earth, as it actually happens on the moon?? It can't. That pan is impossible because of the delay.

The first throw is of the dust cover for the geophone experiment. He's throwing it to get rid of it.

The pan is coincidental.

It would be a coincidence of absolutely massive proportions, if it were true.

Did you forget to mention the zoom, for some reason?

It's also a coincidence, right?

reply to post by turbonium1


There is a delay of 1.3 seconds for communications between the Earth and the Moon. This would mean that the remote camera operator had to move the camera 1.3 seconds before the event to happen in order for the timing to match.

Of course, in your scenario, the operator could be right there on the Moon with the astronauts, so no delay would occur. But this is not likely because there was only enough room for three astronauts in the CSM and only two went down to the Moon's surface.

All the evidence shown in those video clips substantiates that it was taken in a vacuum, with a gravitational field intensity of only 1.63 m/s^2. That place is the Moon. No amount of "could of" or "should of" and "what ifs" will change that. You can second guess and move the goal posts all you want, but that will not change the outcome.

onebigmonkey
Now that I've seen the clip properly I can put it in some sort of context.

The bag is the cover for the heat flow experiment.

The bag flick occurs just after John Young has trashed the heat flow experiment by yanking out the cables.

The flick is actually his 3rd attempt to get the bag out of the way.

Here's a link to the full clip:

www.hq.nasa.gov...

So now we do have a reason for the bag to be flicked: annoyance.

I'm not sure which video Turbonium is watching either. The bag is quite obviously not being affected by any atmosphere at all, and I have never seen a bag behave like that on Earth.

Here's another version: www.youtube.com...

The only panning I can see over the whole EVA is between the two astronauts, and as Young moves over to the right of screen after he rips the cable.

Your last clip has more examples of it..

At 0:56, an astronaut goes out of view to the right. The camera pans off a bit to the right, at 0:57. The camera keeps panning and matches all of his moves.

This is such a joke, isn't it?

A delay of just two seconds can't work out here. It's more than two seconds delay, of course.

At 0:56, he goes off screen to the right. A 2 second delay means he would see it at 0:58 in 'real time'. So after another 2 second delay the camera pans...at 0:60.

He panned one second later, which is impossible.

To follow the astronaut step by step with several more camera pans....is even more absurd.