Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey


So your Defender buddy posted a ridiculous, blurry youtube video and you did not offer a defense for it. I think this proves that the youtube he posted is non-admissable as evidence.

And I posted the same video, in MPG format, as a direct link from the nasa.gov domain, as requested. You have failed to acknowledge this at all. Here, as a bonus, I will also throw in a detailed discussion of what it shows, also from the same nasa.gov domain. www.hq.nasa.gov...

You can't just put up blurry youtubes and expect those be taken seriously by the Apollo Reviewers.

Love those Important Capital Letters. Do you get a badge, too?

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter


I like that prove me wrong as if it wasnt done already your funny. But more to the point you cant go into court and prove your case by making wild accusations without proof. You make a claim then say prove me wrong see you cant do that. It be like if i said well fairies and pixie dust got us to the moon prove me wrong. You cant because the scenario is so absurd. That is why in this you need to prove your statement problem is we know you cant do it therefore dead line of questioning what else you have? I really do hope that isnt all you have because so far you havnt even scratched the paint. As i said no crazy theories we want facts how did they do it and what proof you have?????

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Why not go find a better source for it, maybe on one of the many DVDs there are available for purchase? Seems to me that a better quality video would prove your point much more than it would prove mine, so off you trot and find one.

So your Defender buddy posted a ridiculous, blurry youtube video and you did not offer a defense for it. I think this proves that the youtube he posted is non-admissable as evidence.

I think the Defenders really need to understand the rules of evidence... because I think those rules will help your argument but only if you observe those rules! You can't just put up blurry youtubes and expect those be taken seriously by the Apollo Reviewers.

However, I will stipulate, that youtubes have some good uses, for example, documentary, narration, interviews with expert witnesses, oral histories, etc. Analyzing blurry pixels in a youtube video is not one of those good uses.

Here's the thing: take it up with the person who posted it.

Here's the other thing: find a better source (hint: a link has been posted to one)

Here's one more for luck: find someone who cares.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

I say it was a Howard Hughes Mobot robot-arm installed with a camera mount, inside an unmanned command module. Prove me wrong using the Apollo 12 70mm catalog.

Here's the thing, SJ. In the real world, it's the person making the ludicrous and controversial claims that has to provide the evidence. Seeing as the presence of astronauts in the command module is accepted mainstream fact, and the presence of a robot-equipped "Mobot" appears to be a whimsy that exists nowhere except in your imagination, it is your prerogative to provide the proof.

But, seeing as you gave us such an easy one, you can have this proof on me.

Here's a nice photo from the Apollo 12 70mm catalogue: AS12-48-7133.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

It shows Charles Conrad standing next to Surveyor 3 on the lunar surface. In the background, about 600 feet away, is the Apollo 12 lunar module. (Incidentally, the TV camera which Conrad has his hand on was brought back to Earth by the astronauts and is on public display. I would post a photo of it but you would claim I was cheating by posting a photo not in the 70mm catalogue, but this is of course a corroborating fact that your beloved grand jury would accept when provided by expert witness.)

You will see that both Conrad and the lunar module are on the moon, at a location precisely identifiable by the previously ascertained location of Surveyor 3. The photograph must, by a process of elimination, have been taken by Alan Bean, but I will accept that these men's identities are not proven by said photo per se. However, there is clearly a human being there.

The lunar module is known to be incapable of flying to the moon under its own power (not a fact that is in dispute), and is an integral part of the Apollo spacecraft. Therefore, at least one human being and the LM were carried to the lunar surface via the command module.

Therefore, the module was not unmanned. Therefore, your scenario is false.

The identities of the spacecraft and astronaut in question will, of course, be confirmed by our expert witnesses. You are, equally, welcome to bring in expert witnesses who are familiar with Mobot robotic arms.

Now, this thread has become very tiresome. Until someone comes in with something new to debate, it's sayonara from me.

Tom Hanks' docudrama series "From The Earth To The Moon" implies that during the Apollo 8 mission, the crew recorded telecasts of themselves floating around in zero gravity and then panned to the window where the Earth could clearly be seen in high quality.

Analysis of the archived Apollo 8 telecasts however shows this not to be the case. Not only that, but also water ice crystals can be seen floating outside the window. Thus confirming Ralph René's conviction that coolant water ejected into space during the alleged moonwalks should have been visible.

Yeah, like we see in Alien, expulsion of gas from suits:

a reply to: FoosM

Ralph René's conviction that coolant water ejected into space during the alleged moonwalks should have been visible.

Coolant water was not "ejected into space." Water was sublimated in the PLSS, not ejected into space. Ralph Renee strikes out again.

originally posted by: FoosM

Yeah, like we see in Alien, expulsion of gas from suits:

That's a good one! The Apollo landings were fake because the suits didn't look like movie effects! Tell us another.

Expulsion of gas you say? Tell me, can you see water vapour? No, it is an invisible gas. You can only see what we informally call "steam" when it condenses back to the liquid phase. But invisible gas doesn't look cool on movie screens, so they add billowing visible clouds of steam.

Like DJW said, the water was sublimated from the PLSS. Solid --> gas. No water in between, not even clouds of puffy condensation, Alien-style.

Never mind . . .

originally posted by: FoosM

Tom Hanks' docudrama series "From The Earth To The Moon" implies that during the Apollo 8 mission, the crew recorded telecasts of themselves floating around in zero gravity and then panned to the window where the Earth could clearly be seen in high quality.

Analysis of the archived Apollo 8 telecasts however shows this not to be the case. Not only that, but also water ice crystals can be seen floating outside the window. Thus confirming Ralph René's conviction that coolant water ejected into space during the alleged moonwalks should have been visible.

Analysis of the Apollo 8 telecasts show that Ralph Rene is a moron. The images of Earth appeared on the next day's newspaper front pages and they exactly match the satellite photographs of the day. Those satellite photographs were not available when the newspapers went to press, let alone during the live telecast.

a reply to: FoosM

Thanks FoosM. Watching Jarrah's "Better Eight Than Never" right now.

So Apparently, the way JW tells it, this guy Mark Gray over at spacecraftfilms thinks he owns copyright on the NASA footage? Am I getting that correct? That's clearly a red flag.

a reply to: Rob48

Here's a nice photo from the Apollo 12 70mm catalogue: AS12-48-7133.

spaceflight.nasa.gov...

It shows Charles Conrad standing next to Surveyor 3 on the lunar surface. In the background, about 600 feet away, is the Apollo 12 lunar module.

That's a "moon" set. Remember, Apollo 12 was supposed to be a "pin-point" landing but he's over 600ft away. He could have landed closer but it wouldn't make a good picture.

That's not "Charles Conrad". Can't see his face. Identification is questionable. It could be Howard Hughes in that suit.

The photograph must, by a process of elimination, have been taken by Alan Bean, but I will accept that these men's identities are not proven by said photo per se. However, there is clearly a human being there.

Rob, I have always liked this picture. For me it evokes many things about the narrative : the Ocean of Storms, Nixon, Hughes, cameras, moon sets, photo-manipulation and the goofy idea that the whole mission was wrapped around getting that camera back to Howard Hughes!

edit on 4/19/2014 by SayonaraJupiter because: this is my final edit, sorry i had two tabs up

originally posted by: choos

i already have shown you multiple times but you were too busy trying to sidetrack it.. ive posted it above again anyway..
does the mythbusters jump 1m into the air?? no they dont, therefore it proves the ropes have interefered with his jump..

The Mythbusters jump was a nearly perfect match to Young's jump at 67% (or 66.66%) speed. You said it was under 0.5 seconds slower because it was done on Earth.

I said Young's jump matches the same way at 1.5x speed. You said it was 2.46x speed.

We debated this issue, over and over.

You said maths proved your case.

I knew you were wrong, and I finally proved it to you.

Because you realized maths did NOT prove your case, they proved MINE!



The jump is valid, and it proves my case.

Whether you admit it or not...

originally posted by: choos
and yet you STILL continue to ignore the lunar dust.

why dont you ask your hero JW how he explains the dust falling at lunar gravity IF the footage was slowed 67%

You have no argument. I've repeatedly explained this to you.

Why go on and on with this nonsense?

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

That's a "moon" set. Remember, Apollo 12 was supposed to be a "pin-point" landing but he's over 600ft away. He could have landed closer but it wouldn't make a good picture.

No. Not 'over 600 feet', slightly less as the crow would fly if there was an atmosphere, which there isn't.

The mission was pinpoint because it was planned to go get parts of Surveyor 3. It was not designed to land on top of it, it was designed to land in the correct place, a place they knew about thanks to it being spotted on Lunar Orbiter photographs.

They therefore designed a trajectory to get to the moon, place Apollo 12 in the correct orbital path and then follow a specific set of orbital procedures to put it within walking distance of Surveyor 3.

What's your problem with that? I will probably park further away from the supermarket I'm about to visit than they did from Surveyor 3. In no way would this be regarded as not going to the supermarket.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The Mythbusters jump was a nearly perfect match to Young's jump at 67% (or 66.66%) speed. You said it was under 0.5 seconds slower because it was done on Earth.

near perfect?? in what world does jumping higher yet able to land about half a second earlier mean near perfect?? i would understand it better if the mythbusters landed after john young.. but they dont..

I said Young's jump matches the same way at 1.5x speed. You said it was 2.46x speed.

We debated this issue, over and over.

You said maths proved your case.

I knew you were wrong, and I finally proved it to you.

Because you realized maths did NOT prove your case, they proved MINE!

The jump is valid, and it proves my case.

Whether you admit it or not...

you never understood my argument it seems..

i was always of the opinion that in order to get lunar gravity to appear as if it was on earth you must speed up the footage 2.46x

ie. a natural jump on the lunar surface sped up 2.46x will match a natural jump on earth..

I had assumed that the ropes tying the mythbusters would not have affected their jump therefore being close to a natural jump thats where i was wrong..

do you understand my argument yet??

remember when i said if you drop an object from 1m height on the lunar surface and drop an object from a 1m height on earth the factor between the time difference is 2.46x... ie. NO interference from ropes..

You have no argument. I've repeatedly explained this to you.

Why go on and on with this nonsense?

because you cant explain it.. if three different amateurs can estimate the effect of gravity on lunar dust and you are saying its impossible who is wrong here??

explain the lunar dust already, stop ignoring it..

perchance do you even know what the meaning of estimate is??
do you even understand what this video is telling you??
have you even watched/read it??


it takes the dust about 1.24 seconds to reach its apex.. thats in lunar gravity.. so on earth it would have been 2.46x faster so about 0.504seconds.. (which does represent earths gravity)

and you are telling me that that footage was actually slowed 1.5x so the dust is now falling 1.25m in 0.76seconds..

so you are telling me now that the guy mistook 0.76seconds as 1.24seconds?? nearly half a second difference.. or about 12 frames.......... seriously??

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: FoosM

Thanks FoosM. Watching Jarrah's "Better Eight Than Never" right now.

So Apparently, the way JW tells it, this guy Mark Gray over at spacecraftfilms thinks he owns copyright on the NASA footage? Am I getting that correct? That's clearly a red flag.

Yeah but Jarrah's a liar and a bully, and disputes over copyright are not the same as disputes over accuracy. Jarrah is not accurate.

originally posted by: FoosM

Jarrah White, welcome back. He goes straight to the video, straight to the transcripts and he points out the comedic errors in the official narratives, he points out the revisionist errors in the Tom Hanks propaganda history "From the Earth to the Moon".

Importantly, Jarrah isn't arguing about the interpretations of pixels in this video - he's arguing on the source material for Apollo 8.

The 24 bottles of milk cracked me up

a reply to: onebigmonkey

What's your problem with that? I will probably park further away from the supermarket I'm about to visit than they did from Surveyor 3. In no way would this be regarded as not going to the supermarket.

Conrad and Bean are going down the grocery store to pick up The Hughes camera that was landed on the moon at the location of Surveyor 3. Surveyor 3 landed on April 20, 1967. The whole mission was designed around that. ares.jsc.nasa.gov...

Happy Birthday Surveyor 3 built by Howard Hughes!

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter
a reply to: onebigmonkey

What's your problem with that? I will probably park further away from the supermarket I'm about to visit than they did from Surveyor 3. In no way would this be regarded as not going to the supermarket.

Conrad and Bean are going down the grocery store to pick up The Hughes camera that was landed on the moon at the location of Surveyor 3. Surveyor 3 landed on April 20, 1967. The whole mission was designed around that. ares.jsc.nasa.gov...

Happy Birthday Surveyor 3 built by Howard Hughes!

www.law.cornell.edu...
RULE 401. TEST FOR RELEVANT EVIDENCE

Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action.

but ofcourse your post wasnt evidence now was it, so i guess i wasted my time posting this..

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter


The 24 bottles of milk cracked me up

Yeah, its a good visual aid.
Apollo is just a good mix of science and fiction.
You have real engineers & scientists working with artists, filmmakers and marketeers
to give us the Apollo docu-ganda. It looks and sounds real on the outside, but on the inside
its nothing more than Von Braun's imagination.

A fabric flags lasting as long as 40 years on the moon?
Really?

A PLSS designed to keep you cool in the heat can also instantly warm you in the cold?
Really?

Astronauts not knowing if they went through the Van Allen Belts. The major discovery of the 60's
during the same decade manned space-craft had to fly through them?
Really?

I mean, with imagination you can explain all those things away. Thats what's so funny about it.
Much of the "debunking" is just based on people's imagination with cherries. Its like fan-fiction
adding to the story of Star Wars or Star Trek. We have fan-fiction for Apollo as well.

We as skeptics simply have to keep reminding as many people as we can to think critically about
what is being presented as fact, scenarios to manipulate us out of the freedoms, wealth and property that
we have fought and worked hard for. And sometimes even our lives.

So yes, shouldn't we all have our red flags ready for program set-up by ex-Nazi's, greedy businessmen,
and crooked politicians? Shouldn't we all first been skeptical?

And be like... accordingtoathena.com...

a reply to: FoosM

We as skeptics simply have to keep reminding as many people as we can to think critically about
what is being presented as fact, scenarios to manipulate us out of the freedoms, wealth and property that
we have fought and worked hard for. And sometimes even our lives.

You really don't understand what a skeptic is, do you? A skeptic is somebody who doesn't take wild claims and crackpot theories at face value but instead tests them and evaluates them based on evidence.

People who swallow easily disproven idiocy presented by unqualified, uneducated fools by Jarrah White without testing their claims are the polar opposite of "skeptics".

Do you not think that as a skeptic you should "think critically about what is being presented as fact" by Jarrah White, who has no accreditation in the subject whatsoever, and has repeatedly shown that he gets his facts wrong, time and time again?

Or does your version of skepticism simply involve sticking your fingers in your ears when somebody tells you something that would upset your cosy little conspiracy theory?