Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: choos
a reply to: bobbypurify

by the rate it falls.. you said the astronauts were using wires right?? this would mean the dust or sand in your case would also be using wires..

You didn't know NASA can defy the laws of physics but apparently can't get a man on the moon lol.

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Some time ago I bought some mini-coins containing silver that was carried aboard Apollo 14 to lunar orbit.

Alan Shepard's ear ailment was labyrinthitis do you agree with that? He was grounded for over five years? Do you agree?

During the time that Shepard was grounded he was Chief of the Astronaut Office and involved in some lucrative investment deals made available to him in Florida and Texas - real estate and banking - and he made a million dollars. Shepard was not allowed to fly airplanes during that time. Do you believe?

After Alan Shepard had his secret, experimental ear surgery NASA doctors declared that he was 100% cured and by May 1969 he was reinstated to full flight status. Just the facts here. Do you agree?

Then Shepard began to bully his way back into the Apollo rotations, he had his aim on Apollo 13 but NASA headquarters gave him 14. Do you believe?

Shepard's post "moon" career saw Richard Nixon's nodding approval along with a promotion to Rear Admiral in the US Navy. He retired from NASA and the US Navy on July 31, 1974... only nine days before Richard Nixon resigned his presidency n disgrace. Shepard later went on to serve in a director for Marathon Oil based in Houston and was involved in a swamp land real estate deal. Tragically Alan Shepard and his wife both died within 5 weeks of each other in 1998. He died of cancer.

You better believe it because it's all a true and is part of Alan Shepard's narrative that you cannot deny... especially that secret surgery for l a b y r i n t h i t i s

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Both of those items seemed to accelerate pretty fast for 1/6 gravity.

seemed to.. which is your opinion based on your perception of what it should look like, basically what seabhac-rua is talking about..

there is a way to confirm it if you are willing to learn, it involves basic physics, anyone can do it.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Way to spam the thread once again at least change up the graphics once in a while. So apparently once again you have no point right?? When he first for it they didn't know how 4 fix it . But guess what with modern medical advances people now can have an operation to cure it and happens daily. Wow big mystery here stop the presses.

a reply to: SayonaraJupiter

Astronaut has ailment, surgery fixes ailment.

Your post proves nothing other than labyrinthitis can be cured with surgery and that you are rabidly desperate to crowbar Nixon in to anything you possibly can.

originally posted by: bobbypurify

No vacuum needed. And, other than the shots of them traversing on the rover, it could all be done in a studio. Sure, maybe some was done outside. Nothing suggests they were in a vacuum. I just see slowed footage and the astronauts supported by some wire device.

Then you need to explain the behaviour of the lunar soil as it is disturbed by engines, wheels and feet, as well as how things that would normally flap around in an atmosphere just don''t. Please don't wheel out the flag argument, it's been done to death.

I freely admitted it was my opinion that it looks like a joke, numerous times. I don't see how scotch tape would be used to piece together an instrument that cost the tax payers billions. I find that hilarious and extremely insulting at the same time.

We get that you don't like how it looks. However "It looks kinda funny" is not an argument that proves anything. There is footage of it in both Earth and Lunar orbit, please try and explain how this footage is impossible without resorting to arguments about aesthetics.

The jump salute where he gets barely over a foot off the ground? Doesn't the astronaut weigh about 60lbs with equipment included in 1/6 gravity? 1 foot is pretty sad.

Let's see how high you can jump from a flat foot start and see how well you do, then scale it up. Again you are relying on what you think should happen without any consideration of facts.

They jumped much higher than that in the 1/6 sims even with equipment on. Poor reference.

You'll have evidence of this course, and given that they are attached to very large bulky harnesses (see any of those in the lunar footage?) it's not surprising. Poor reference. Why not look at the footage of them jumping up to the foot of the LM ladder? Why not look at footage of them covering much more ground in a stride on the moon than they could on Earth, with no wires in sight?

Plus, there's the whole "flap up" argument that is shown in photo record and mysteriously absent in the video.

Shown by who? Liars like Jarrah? The morons over at Aulis? Let's see your sources. There are plenty of very simple explanations that prove them wrong.

No, they're in a calculated slow motion IMO. And you must know what wire devices they've used to insinuate that "crossing each other" would get them tangled. Can you give an example of this?? I've yet to come across this in my studies. Thanks!

In your opinion. . The whole slow motion thing is a cultural meme imprinted from too many bad movies who have lazy special effects departments. As for the harnesses, if you don;t think two astronauts crossing paths like that suspended on wires wouldn't get tangled, I'd like to see what sort of harness you think they were in.

Oh, okay. Well, I'll accept mistake of what's public record. But, it's entirely within the realm of logic to believe that a top secret satellite could have provided the images. You know, one that's not on the record. You'll ask me for proof and I have none, other than offer that it would be silly to think we know of every satellite up there.

Yes I will ask for proof, and until you can offer any you can't rely on the "ah well they must have", because all you are doing is inventing something to back up a lack of proof.

The military did have satellites up there (DAP, which then became DMSP), and often they had better imagery than the satellites developed by the civilian programme and these were all declassified some years ago, but none of them have ever shown the level of detail in the Apollo images.

It doesn't matter who is running the satellites, there are still logistical problems you need to get around in order to get the images. Geostationary satellites only cover one region of Earth, and Apollo showed all of it over time. Geosynchronous satellites (which had the best detail) take 24 hours to cover the Earth. So if you are in a spacecraft looking down at half the Earth, a satellite will take 12 hours to image that. Then you have to get the signals back to Earth (done by FM transmission that anyone - including amateurs - can intercept) and compile a mosaic of them into an image showing the whole Earth. On top of that it's still in black and white.

The position of the Earth's terminator and the configuration of weather patterns allows very precise timing of when the matching Apollo images were taken, and the public record of the satellite orbits show that they were taken before the satellite data could have been taken. They even have live TV images of them, which could not have been done by satellites.

The satellite data can be found in hard copy, not just online (I have a volume of NIMBUS images covering one of the Apollo missions, and if I had the money there is an ATS and also an ESSA volume on Abebooks). They can be matched with measurements made by meteorological data collected on the ground. On top of that, before people like me came along (and I was the first to look at every image of Earth in relation to this), you have to assume that all these images were collected just in case someone started looking, which is just the most extreme and convoluted paranoia you can think of.

The satellite images are genuine, and the prove beyond any doubt that Apollo's photographs, 16mm and TV are also genuine, and that they were taken exactly when and where they were always claimed to be taken.

So camera men and haress operators + satellite image fakers = how many people in your mind? Doesn't sound like too many to me. I don't know how "dumb" they were and I think you just built a strawman with this point. I won't stoop to answering it in fear of where it will lead.

I didn't build the strawman - you are arguing that this is what they did, give us some numbers and facts as to how.

Haha. You're something else. If Apollo gets proven to be a grand scaled hoax boy will you have some crow to munch.

And you will find me writing it in block capitals, bold, and 72 point font. I am never afraid to admit a mistaeke. I am not mistaken

The fact of the matter is neither you nor myself can be so sure. When you controll the constraints of an experiment, 2+2= pink dolphins! It doesn't matter! But you'll act as if you know exactly what it's like on the moon. I know you're argument is phooyey and for that matter, so could mine. The difference between us is that I'll admit it and due to your dissonant bias, you'll never do it.

See my statement above. I always admit mistakes. I can be sure, because I have spent a lot of time researching this and proving to my own satisfaction that the historical record is factually correct and entirely coherent and consistent no matter which angle you approach it from. 'Evidence' claiming a hoax never lasts more than a cursory glance.

But, thanks for your response. It took some time and made me consider some things. Star for you, young man!

Thanks and I'm not so young.

I am always happy to provide answers to sensible and intelligent questions - what can get wearing is the same things over and over again that are easy to prove incorrect with thought and research.

originally posted by: choos

originally posted by: FlyingFox
Both of those items seemed to accelerate pretty fast for 1/6 gravity.

seemed to.. which is your opinion based on your perception of what it should look like, basically what seabhac-rua is talking about..

there is a way to confirm it if you are willing to learn, it involves basic physics, anyone can do it.

He could also watch the hours of EVA footage that preceded it, which might help place it in proper context too

So if the Astros are falling slowly back to the ground and so is the sand, I'd be willing to bet it's the film speed reduction. Not the sand particles being on wires. Plus, the sand/dust seemed to be stopped by atmosphere while being kicked up by the buggy. Numerous examples available. It should have flung up 6x higher, instead, behaved like 1g atmosphere

a reply to: bobbypurify

No...sorry....man landed on the moon and drove a buggy too. Didn't need a licence to do so because those apollo astronauts were and are heroes. They were and are genuine and more priceless than any living humans at present.

Some people can't appreciate this and are jealous of these achievements. They can't understand the cost in human lives that occurred prior to these historic landings and have to demean the very fabric of the accomplishment because they simply aren't capable of being persons of the right stuff. These gentlemen were. They were leaders and pioneers.

They landed on the moon, made incredible progress and discoveries and came back to sit amongst us.

In this day and age myself, children and family find it incredulous that there are some who still disbelieve this accomplishment. To those naysayers, I say, get over it and move on. Humans walked on the moon and there needs to be no more proof than what has already been presented inclusive of the undenialble astronauts testimony.

Kind regards,

Bally.

a reply to: bally001

I'm not jealous, just critical. If we landed, I'd be really proud. I just don't know if we left LEO and I've been inclined to think we haven't

originally posted by: bobbypurify
So if the Astros are falling slowly back to the ground and so is the sand, I'd be willing to bet it's the film speed reduction. Not the sand particles being on wires. Plus, the sand/dust seemed to be stopped by atmosphere while being kicked up by the buggy. Numerous examples available. It should have flung up 6x higher, instead, behaved like 1g atmosphere

Many Moon Hoaxer has suggested that.

The Apollo 14 SEQ Bay Pendulum disproves that.

a reply to: eriktheawful

That's certainly provocative but I'd need to know a little more about the materials used and be able to see the other half of the period. Someone could easily rig the earth pendulum in favor to their argument. Interesting nonetheless. Have a star

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: eriktheawful

That's certainly provocative but I'd need to know a little more about the materials used and be able to see the other half of the period. Someone could easily rig the earth pendulum in favor to their argument. Interesting nonetheless. Have a star

I'm not sure it will give you quite what you want, but I'll chuck this in for you if it's of any interest and you haven't seen it yet

www.hq.nasa.gov...

a reply to: AgentSmith

Well, that may take me some time to look through. It's certainly an interesting take on the vacuum dilemma. It's a small detail that I doubt will sway me all the way over to the "we went" side but it has merit, if everything I read about it is true.

Question: What's the largest vacuum chamber on the Earth? CERN? Did the astros do any sims in a giant vacuum chamber?

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: eriktheawful

That's certainly provocative but I'd need to know a little more about the materials used and be able to see the other half of the period. Someone could easily rig the earth pendulum in favor to their argument. Interesting nonetheless. Have a star

You seem to be basing your opinion about this being a hoax on a lot of things that "could" be -- i.e., they could have used wires, or it could have been filmed in a studio, or they could have used a rigged feather, or they could have used a rigged pendulum.

However, do you have any positive evidence that the Apollo moon missions could not have been? To you have any evidence that they used a studio, or that they used wires to hold up the astronauts?

For example, when I brought up the wires question, your answer was basically "Maybe they used wires, and we just didn't know it because they hid them so well". I mean, I suppose that could be true, but it really isn't positive evidence supporting a hoax.

That logic sounds a bit like Carl Sagan's essay on reason and critical thinking, The Dragon in my Garage. That essay specigically applies to the spiritual and supernatural, but it also applies to this idea of "well, you can't prove that they didn't use wires"

The Dragon in my Garage

originally posted by: bobbypurify
So if the Astros are falling slowly back to the ground and so is the sand, I'd be willing to bet it's the film speed reduction. Not the sand particles being on wires. Plus, the sand/dust seemed to be stopped by atmosphere while being kicked up by the buggy. Numerous examples available. It should have flung up 6x higher, instead, behaved like 1g atmosphere

good progress, so you have eliminated the use of wires then?? and have decided that most likely they just slowed the footage?

to summarise, you have been able to deduce that it was filmed in a vacuum and they didnt use wires.. only slow motion right?

a reply to: bobbypurify

Glad to hear that.

There will always be heroes whether fiction or fact.

People will seperate either. In factual accounts throughout history there are those that will say, "This didn't happen". Or "he/she couldn't possibly have done that." or "That's impossible".

Same with fiction. But in some cases fiction has actually become fact inclusive of science fiction.

Being critical, whether subjective or objective, is good. I applaud you. But, consider the facts. This thread, and I've read the whole flamin thing, contains factual information. To be critical at this point of the thread ignores human achievement. Sheds idological doubt on the heroes of millions and sadly succumbs to the belief that we, as intelligent peoples, are no better than primitive apes.

It's a fact we have progressed from sailing ships to orbit yet there are even those who say, using the net, (satellites) that we couldn't possibly have achieved space flight, let alone live in an orbit above mother earth. We have left this orbit and explored beyond just like the pioneers, some 500 years ago, who set sail across a supposedly flat earth.
The same returned to those who said,"impossible" regardless of the sailors testimony. It was a simple green eyed envy. Those explorers were heroes and were simply brought down or attempted to be brought down by the non believers. History testifies these voyages happened, as will be the case for the apollo missions. We as a civilisation will be on the moon again and the apollo landings will be heralded as monuments. And sure as the "Flat Earth Society" there will still be those who don't believe the moon landings occurred.

Kind regards,

Bally

a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

I am able to realize how hard it will be to gather positive evidence if Apollo were a giant hoax supported by powers beyond my pay scale. This doesn't deter me. Apollo is a sacred cow. It's okay to be shunned from society for publically challenging Apollo's narrative. Full support of the missions from indoctrinated childhood educations all the way up the ladder to our government leaders; everyone just believes it to be true. Most people that believe it to be true are not as involved in the Apollo story like you, me or others in this thread. They just accept it.

Like 9/11. Let's say you won't believe WTC 7 was detonated somehow because there isn't physical evidence of explosives officially presented by our governing forces. But, everything else from an empirical standpoint leads you to believe that it was a detonation. From steel capacity facts, knowledge of Fire, construction, observed collapse, etc...

The lack of explosive evidence is a metaphor for the wires supporting the astros. No, I can't hand you a document for the wires. But, I have seen slowed footage of a man jumping in a wired harness that mirrored perfectly the jump salute. That stood out and made me now understand how 1/6th simulated Gravity could be achieved.

All the positive evidence is on your side. Whether it's fabricated or not.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

Well, that may take me some time to look through. It's certainly an interesting take on the vacuum dilemma. It's a small detail that I doubt will sway me all the way over to the "we went" side but it has merit, if everything I read about it is true.

Question: What's the largest vacuum chamber on the Earth? CERN? Did the astros do any sims in a giant vacuum chamber?

I suspect you know the answer already? :-p



PDF document - Link

I don't believe they filmed it in there though before you ask :-p

a reply to: AgentSmith

I wonder how long someone would have if their pressurized suit malfunctioned or their helmet came off in that device? Like, could they pressurize it quickly enough to save the trainee?