Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

a reply to: choos
your stories move fast. so fast you cant even keep up with them

there ya go again,,,,,, showing a total lack of understanding of the apollo subject matter ....

its not surprising ya cant keep up though, since the propagandists dont even have a proper frame of reference too even calculate speed or velocity.. & sufer from the terminal time dilation length contraction paradox...

a reply to: Misinformation

Oh do feel free to explain to us poor fools where we've been going wrong.

In your own words.

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: choos
your stories move fast. so fast you cant even keep up with them

there ya go again,,,,,, showing a total lack of understanding of the apollo subject matter ....

its not surprising ya cant keep up though, since the propagandists dont even have a proper frame of reference too even calculate speed or velocity.. & sufer from the terminal time dilation length contraction paradox...

you say im showing a total lack of understanding and then you go on to say they had no proper frame of reference to calculate speed and velocity???

do you even know what you are talking about?? apollo had a good system, infact that system was used in the shuttle program also.. and you say i have a lack of understanding, funny guy..

p.s. whats the point of your video?? do you really think apollo spacecrafts were travelling near the speed of light or something?? or even near half the speed of light??

and to prove your story keeps changing what ever happened to you being so very afraid of TPTB for talking to much?? seems you arent afraid anymore??

originally posted by: Misinformation
its not surprising ya cant keep up though, since the propagandists dont even have a proper frame of reference too even calculate speed or velocity.. & sufer from the terminal time dilation length contraction paradox...

The frame of reference is the Earth or the Moon -- or even your starting speed.

The speed of the spacecraft relative to earth can be determined from Earth by measuring the Doppler shift of the radio communications coming from the craft. The frequency of the radio waves will be stretched or squashed if the craft sending those signals is moving away from or towards the receiving station. If we know what frequency the radio communications are supposed to be and compare that to the measured frequency, the speed of the craft can be determined relative to the receiving station.

Another method the astronauts used to determine speed when they were closer to an object (for example, when approaching or landing on the Moon) was radar. Radar could be used to tell the astronauts their speed relative to the object they were bouncing radar waves off of (e.g., the Moon).

Another way to determine speed relative to a starting speed would be through the use of accelerometers. An accelerometer measures all changes in velocity, so if you (or a computer) keep track of all of the accelerometer readings, then you should be able to determine your speed relative to the point you started keeping track of those readings.

In each case I cited, you have a frame of reference against which you would be measuring your speed -- your speed relative to that frame of reference.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
feel free to explain to us poor fools where we've been going wrong.

I dont think you understand...,,, I didnt come here too explain the Moon Hoax Theory ,,,, there is already a general overwhelming consensus that the apollo moon landings were a hoax ... I came here to mitigate the consequences that will result when the Moon Hoax is finally revealed...

Even you can appreciate that concern & will comprehend many of its obligatory ramifications...

strictly speaking, subsequent moon hoax theorist may have slipped up in an effort to achieve a more expedient end to the Hoax which they can hardly be blamed for..,,,

but frankly its still amazes the deceptive fallacies the propagandists persist & continue too employ as too indoctrinate individuals concerning apollo despite the obvious lack of validity...

The propagandists no longer seem willing too accept the fact that they are no longer dealing with your typical Moon Hoax Theorist of an bygone yore...

These new hoax theorist are trained to ignore your fallacies,, & refuse too just blindly accept the erroneous hazards of space travel....too ignore the propaganda that would make a billy goat puke...

originally posted by: Misinformation

I dont think you understand...,,, I didnt come here too explain the Moon Hoax Theory ,,,, there is already a general overwhelming consensus that the apollo moon landings were a hoax ... I came here to mitigate the consequences that will result when the Moon Hoax is finally revealed...

I'm not sure what you mean by "consensus", because it is not true that most people today feel Apollo was a hoax. Maybe several years ago (such as aorund the time of that FOX moon hoax TV show), a few non-committal people may have said "OK -- maybe the Moon landing was a hoax"....

...However, since then, most of the so-called "evidence" that Moon hoax people used to thrown around 5 to 10 years ago has been debunked. I think if you show those same non-committal people the evidence today (and the debunking), they will probably say "OK -- maybe the Moon landing was real".

Maybe you and a few others may still hold onto the idea of a Moon hoax, but considering how the past so-called "evidence" that most people knew about has been debunked, I truly doubt it is a consensus.

The propagandists no longer seem willing too accept the fact that they are no longer dealing with your typical Moon Hoax Theorist of an bygone yore...

These new hoax theorist are trained to ignore your fallacies...

Can you please explain how the video you posted about time dilation, frames of reference, and relativity is some sort of new hoax evidence provided by you -- you as this "new type" of hoax theorist? I can't see a connection between the video and the Moon Hoax.

originally posted by: Misinformation
I dont think you understand...,,, I didnt come here too explain the Moon Hoax Theory ,,,,

That much is apparent, as you have contributed nothing so far.

there is already a general overwhelming consensus that the apollo moon landings were a hoax ...

No such consensus exists

I came here to mitigate the consequences that will result when the Moon Hoax is finally revealed...

Despite the massive risk to your safety? How noble, how brave.

Even you can appreciate that concern & will comprehend many of its obligatory ramifications...

There are no ramifications, there is no 'moon hoax'.

strictly speaking, subsequent moon hoax theorist may have slipped up in an effort to achieve a more expedient end to the Hoax which they can hardly be blamed for..,,,

Gibberish.

but frankly its still amazes the deceptive fallacies the propagandists persist & continue too employ as too indoctrinate individuals concerning apollo despite the obvious lack of validity...

Nope. Your ignorance of the subject, complete lack of willingness to educate yourself and your inability to type just one full stop or comma totally invalidate any of the peurile nonsense you have posted.

The propagandists no longer seem willing too accept the fact that they are no longer dealing with your typical Moon Hoax Theorist of an bygone yore...

See above, you are perfectly typical of them.

These new hoax theorist are trained to ignore your fallacies,, & refuse too just blindly accept the erroneous hazards of space travel....too ignore the propaganda that would make a billy goat puke...

Really? Trained by who? Some moron on the internet?

Present some proof of something, then I might be impressed. Until then you are just another in a short line of the blinkered that somehow have arrived at the conclusion that their opinion is either credible or means something.

I'm off to tell the government where you live and what you've been saying about them.

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Present some proof of something, then I might be impressed.

Unfortunately no one can be told what the hoax is...you have too see it for yourself,,,
if you dont believe me ,,

Buzz has a Red or Blue piLL too offer....

originally posted by: Misinformation

a reply to: onebigmonkey
Present some proof of something, then I might be impressed.

Unfortunately no one can be told what the hoax is...you have too see it for yourself,,,
if you dont believe me ,,

Buzz has a Red or Blue piLL too offer....

so your best way to show us the hoax is to fraudulently edit a video to serve your agenda and post it on youtube??

you are doing nothing but trolling and posting hoax videos..

heres a snippet from the T&C of this site

15l.) [HOAX]: In the event you Post more than three items that are later determined to be of an obviously hoax, fraudulent, or faked nature, your account may be terminated without warning.

a reply to: Misinformation

Aah the old Emperor's new clothes argument. Nope. Nothing there. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

You need to get to your bridge. Goats are coming.

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
So there aren't any articles that say the radiation levels were too high for Apollo astronauts?

They mostly ignore the Apollo radiation 'data' completely, skipping by that hopeless pickle!

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
So there aren't any articles that say the radiation levels were too high for Apollo astronauts?

They mostly ignore the Apollo radiation 'data' completely, skipping by that hopeless pickle!

That's not what I said.

Are there any articles, in your vast and comprehensive knowledge of the subject, that show that radiation levels for the Apollo missions were too high? Any medical pr physics scientists anywhere telling us that Apollo missions would have, or did, experience excessive radiation levels?

Other than the articles I linked to that show that they weren't? Or the Apollo records that show that they weren't?

originally posted by: Rob48

So, if they don't mention Apollo, it's suspicious, but if they do mention Apollo, it's suspicious?

A little footnote mention of Apollo is worse than just ignoring Apollo completely!

Why?

Apollo isn't relevant, just a brief nod in passing .

It's like a penny for a tip looks worse than if they left no tip at all..

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Are there any articles, in your vast and comprehensive knowledge of the subject, that show that radiation levels for the Apollo missions were too high? Any medical pr physics scientists anywhere telling us that Apollo missions would have, or did, experience excessive radiation levels?

Other than the articles I linked to that show that they weren't? Or the Apollo records that show that they weren't?

The Apollo 'data' suggests it was/is very safe, indeed.

Could such papers find the Apollo data to be wrong, or false?

Would they know if it was wrong? If they do,

Can they prove it is wrong?

They can't really prove it, for certain.

The rebuttal would say - Apollo was over 40 years ago, and the environment was safe at the time.

Thus, it cannot be proven that the Apollo data is wrong.



Apollo-ites would try that, too, if I had such data.

a reply to: turbonium1
How many times does it need to be explained to you that a maximum 12-day trip to the Moon is IRRELEVANT to long deep-space missions? GCR exposure only becomes an issue once you are up there for MONTHS.

That is the reason it is hardly mentioned. The total radiation exposure on the Apollo missions was not even one hundredth of the safe limits. Why would you mention it? It would be like devoting a chapter to walk-in freezers when planning a trip to the South Pole.

Time and again you have utterly failed to acknowledge this.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Are there any articles, in your vast and comprehensive knowledge of the subject, that show that radiation levels for the Apollo missions were too high? Any medical pr physics scientists anywhere telling us that Apollo missions would have, or did, experience excessive radiation levels?

Other than the articles I linked to that show that they weren't? Or the Apollo records that show that they weren't?

The Apollo 'data' suggests it was/is very safe, indeed.

Could such papers find the Apollo data to be wrong, or false?

Would they know if it was wrong? If they do,

Can they prove it is wrong?

They can't really prove it, for certain.

The rebuttal would say - Apollo was over 40 years ago, and the environment was safe at the time.

Thus, it cannot be proven that the Apollo data is wrong.



Apollo-ites would try that, too, if I had such data.

So despite you claiming that somehow data exist out there that prove Apollo would be too dangerous from a radiation perspective, such data is not out there, and you have no proof whatsoever that Apollo would have been too dangerous from a radiation point of view.

Excellent, you can move on to misunderstanding something else now.

originally posted by: Misinformation

Unfortunately no one can be told what the hoax is...you have too see it for yourself,,,
if you dont believe me ,,

Buzz has a Red or Blue piLL too offer....

#Apollo45

Let's use that hashtag it will help bring people to this thread so they can learn about Apollo disclosures.

originally posted by: SayonaraJupiter

originally posted by: Misinformation

Unfortunately no one can be told what the hoax is...you have too see it for yourself,,,
if you dont believe me ,,

Buzz has a Red or Blue piLL too offer....

#Apollo45

Let's use that hashtag it will help bring people to this thread so they can learn about Apollo disclosures.

Back to your old tricks should i ask what was your point other than apparently change the topic?

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: turbonium1
How many times does it need to be explained to you that a maximum 12-day trip to the Moon is IRRELEVANT to long deep-space missions? GCR exposure only becomes an issue once you are up there for MONTHS.

That is the reason it is hardly mentioned. The total radiation exposure on the Apollo missions was not even one hundredth of the safe limits. Why would you mention it? It would be like devoting a chapter to walk-in freezers when planning a trip to the South Pole.

Time and again you have utterly failed to acknowledge this.

They NEVER mention it is only relevant for a specific time period in their papers. They don't say 'This doesn't apply to any mission 12 days long or less', or "Missions of 12 days or less are not relevant to this matter'.

YOU say that it only applies to long-term missions . They do NOT say it, whatsoever.

If that is what they meant, then THEY WOULD HAVE SAID IT!

You show me where they specifically say it is only applicable to long-term missions.

If you can't do that, then you should admit that you've just been blowing smoke here.


So which will it be, then?

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
So despite you claiming that somehow data exist out there that prove Apollo would be too dangerous from a radiation perspective, such data is not out there, and you have no proof whatsoever that Apollo would have been too dangerous from a radiation point of view.

No, I'm saying that if I had the data to prove it was too hazardous for Apollo spacecraft , you still would not accept it.

You would say that the data is not proof, because they measured radiation in the VAB as it exists today, and Apollo flew in the VAB over 40 years ago. The environment was very different then, blah, blah, blah.

I know very well how you Apollo-ites operate. There is always some sort of excuse you'll concoct in the vain effort to save your precious Apollo fantasy