Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

SayonaraJupiter

onebigmonkey
And you didn't pay too much attention to what the references are. One of the pre-Apollo 8 references is effectively a "How to plan a project for NASA" report.

The others are all desk studies examining design considerations of the proposed remote LRV technology and likely mission strategies. They are not descriptions of existing technology.

This proves that NASA, in 1969, was actually paying off JPL for padded reports, compilations of previous reports and for mission fantasies of non-existent technologies.

It's another dark vein of corruption running through the Apollo program. But it's even more valuable than that!

Oh my no way a government agency funding useless projects and wasting tax payer money the shock and horror! What planet have you been on ? Nasa even know funds useless projects they have several know one of the stupid ones now is a submarine they hope to get to titan never mind the fact the technology is still decades away.

reply to post by Danny85

then there was the whole promise that Kennedy made to Americans that they would go to the moon not because it was easy but because its hard, which i think was Kennedy trying to say that 'Yeah they got someone into space but we're gonna shoot over that and go to the moon'

With JFK out of the way, the MIC will get everything they wanted out of LBJ and Nixon.

Kennedy was sold the moon rocket program by Nazi Werner von Braun, the best rocket salesman in the world. Kennedy needed to give the military industrial complex some money to keep them happy. JFK thought that a peaceful space program would be the ideal way to keep the pentagon and the CIA and the industrialists off his aching back for awhile. But it was not enough. The hawks wanted to increase production to wartime levels and the only way that can be done is to get involved in a hot war, a proxy war, with the Soviets.

There are a lot high stakes poker games being played at the same time. What we know is that the military industrial complex was making big bank off the policies of LBJ and Nixon. So many poker games... including Apollo!

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

With JFK out of the way, the MIC will get everything they wanted out of LBJ and Nixon.

Not so fast, pilgrim. You have yet to prove the existence of Richard Nixon. I can show you a long list of actors, all of whom have confessed to impersonating the alleged President!

SayonaraJupiter

No, your estimates for the robot arm is way, way over weight. There is no need to have the entire body of the mobot fit inside the command module... only the arms, motorized, remotely controlled, camera arms!

it might seem inaccurate but it might prove quite accurate.. the mobot is basically arms and camera arms.. and motors hydraulics and computers to control the arms..

but you want just the arms and camera arms.. which means nothing to control the arms or camera arms, no way to know the oreintation of the arms.. yet you still want them to remotely control the arms which have no machines to move them hmmm.. oh and a power supply..

No, you are trying to fit the entire mobot (from your image) into a command module is not going to happen. However, installing only the camera controlling arms could have easily been done in any one of the boilerplate block I command modules.

as above, the mobot is basically arms and camera arms.. so the entire block is what gives power and controls those arms.. if you want to do away with that huge block you will have immobile arms..

the only way for this to be possible was if howard hughes invented the time machine jump to 300 years in the future stole advanced robotics and advanced microchips and advanced power systems (and advanced stealth cloaks to hide it from the engineers building the command modules) and returned to the 1960's to put it into the command module.

Obviously you didn't read the NASA-CR-152720_RemotelyControlledLunarRover_1969.pdf See specifically Appendix A: References, because in the references section it reveals that most of the information in 152720 had already been reported on. There are 9 listed references. 5 of those 9 references were already published BEFORE Apollo 8.

No time machines here choos. The report did not magically appear on October 10, 1969. The ideas contained within the report had been around since at least 1959. And that brings me back to 1959 and Howard Hughes building his robots with TV eyes.

but you posted that report that report was published in 1969 and that report states clearly that the first mission is planned in 1973.. here is what you said:

SayonaraJupiter
Howard Hughes sent those lunar mobots to the moon prior to each of the televised Apollo missions were launched. And here is the mission plan for it:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

now the mission plan for your theory was to be first launched in 1973.. but then you also said they launched prior to each actual apollo missions.. so in order for that to be possible a time machine is required..

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

With JFK out of the way, the MIC will get everything they wanted out of LBJ and Nixon.

Not so fast, pilgrim. You have yet to prove the existence of Richard Nixon. I can show you a long list of actors, all of whom have confessed to impersonating the alleged President!

I figured he was an astronaut since apparently he had all this inside information.

Apparently im thinking he didnt exist at all and made up by SJ ive learned anything that he says tends to be a distortion of facts so im going to say this Nixon guy is juast another thing he lied about.

reply to post by choos


I keep saying he thinks NASA can shoot down spacecraft build androids not to mention advanced video editing with cgi and all before the first microchip was invented . But oddly doesnt think they could go to the moon i call that a major logic fail.

DJW001


Please post a clip of someone wearing fifty pounds of bulky, movement restricting clothing zipping around like these guys on the Earth's surface:

How do you know they are actually wearing fifty pounds of clothing? Because NASA said they were? You have to prove your claim, before we move ahead.

DJW001

Are you saying that this movement, which involves constantly hopping from foot to foot at high speed and flailing arms like a maniac looks natural to you?

Their movements are natural. That is, all of their movements can be replicated on Earth. If you see something that cannot be done on Earth, you need to be much more specific about it. If you can't, then it's game over.

The better question is - Why are these (supposed) first men on the moon doing the 'Funky Chicken' in the first place?? They move the same way, regardless of speed. Do you think they only look silly at 2x speed?

turbonium1

Their movements are natural. That is, all of their movements can be replicated on Earth. If you see something that cannot be done on Earth, you need to be much more specific about it. If you can't, then it's game over.

The better question is - Why are these (supposed) first men on the moon doing the 'Funky Chicken' in the first place?? They move the same way, regardless of speed. Do you think they only look silly at 2x speed?

And the answer is because they are all on the moon in lunar gravity. You'll find, if you bother to research, that the astronauts do spend some time discussing the best way of moving around in those bulky high mass suits under lunar gravity.

www.universetoday.com...

www.clavius.org...

I'd agree with you: the movements are natural. They are moving at normal speed. For the moon. Their movements are exaggerated because of where they are because the influence of gravity is less, and they are moving carefully because of the bulky suits and the low gravity, but they are not slowed down. It's because they are not slowed down that it looks stupid when the video is speeded up.

If you want evidence on video of things that can not be done on Earth then watch this:

www.youtube.com...

Not so much the astronaut, but the dirt. Watch how it moves when he digs it out of the ground. Look at the absence of billowing. Look at how far those soil particles go and the wave effect on the ground. That would not happen on Earth.

SayonaraJupiter

onebigmonkey
And you didn't pay too much attention to what the references are. One of the pre-Apollo 8 references is effectively a "How to plan a project for NASA" report.

The others are all desk studies examining design considerations of the proposed remote LRV technology and likely mission strategies. They are not descriptions of existing technology.

This proves that NASA, in 1969, was actually paying off JPL for padded reports, compilations of previous reports and for mission fantasies of non-existent technologies.

It's another dark vein of corruption running through the Apollo program. But it's even more valuable than that!

So you're completely back-tracking on the claim you made that prompted my response then? That would be you admitting that you're wrong then.

You have clearly never been involved in writing technical reports summarising other technical reports.

I've been in discussions before with conspiracy theorists who keep promising some deal breaking big reveal. The reveal either never happens or they end up looking stupid. Which do you think yours is going to be?

dragonridr
reply to post by choos

 

I keep saying he thinks NASA can shoot down spacecraft build androids not to mention advanced video editing with cgi and all before the first microchip was invented . But oddly doesnt think they could go to the moon i call that a major logic fail.

That's a fair assumption. It does not eliminate the 4 missing modules nor exclude the 700+ boxes of telemetry tapes, does it? No, I don't think the Apollo Defenders can win by logic alone, they also need belief to win. The belief in logic cannot overcome the missing objects, because that is a leap of faith.

onebigmonkey

So you're completely back-tracking on the claim you made that prompted my response then? That would be you admitting that you're wrong then.

I'm not back tracking, buddy! That report is going to fit in perfectly for Nixon's Apollo.

You have clearly never been involved in writing technical reports summarising other technical reports.

Now that's just a statement of pure ignorance. You don't know me, I don't know you. Simple as that.

I've been in discussions TESTIMONIAL before with conspiracy theorists CARD STACKING who keep promising some deal breaking big reveal. The reveal either never happens or they end up looking stupid. Which do you think yours is going to be?

Card stacking and testimonials? Why don't we just stick to the facts from now on?

reply to post by turbonium1


I've explained it before, but let me explain it again (assuming it doesn't fall on dumb eyes).

The shape of a trajectory (particularly, the curvature) is directly proportional to the gravitational acceleration. Low acceleration is flatter than high acceleration. The shape of the trajectory has absolutely no dependence whatsoever on time. Slowing down or speeding up time will not, in any way, affect the shape of the trajectory.

There is a simple, 100% reliable way to determine if the Apollo missions took place on Earth or not: look at the trajectory of anything in any of the film. Fit the trajectory to a parabola and determine the coefficients; that's high school math, if you're so smart, that should be easy for you. Is the answer 9.8m/s^2 or not?

Changing the shape of the path cannot be accomplished by slowing down or speeding up footage, nor with any combinations of wires, pulleys, or camera tricks.

All you need to do is find one single scene from the hundreds of hours of Moon footage where you can determine that the gravitational acceleration is Earth's. Do this, and you will convince the entire scientific community you're right. Or continue to make ludicrous (get it?) claims about Nixon, Hughes, and Kubrick.

Also, see Penn & Teller's Bull#.

SayonaraJupiter

Why don't we just stick to the facts from now on?

If you'd care to produce any that would be just peachy.

choos

ummm... yes the ropes will make him reach that height faster than the man without ropes.. however he will exceed that height, since gravity is the only thing to slow him down..

You don't understand my point.

The ropes are used to help lift the person to the same height as the person without ropes.

Let's say the person without ropes reaches a height of 26 inches. So that will be the target height for the man with ropes.

IHis height will NOT go higher than 26". His jump cannot be compared to the other man if they jump to different hieghts. That's why I've made it clear - they both are jumping to the same height.

Why do you think the ropes have to be used throughout his ascent? They do not.

The goal is to lift the man to a height of 26". How is that achieved with the assistance of ropes?

See where I'm going here?

Sure - to achieve the same 26" height, the ropes help lift him to, say, a height of 24.5". Then, gravity slows his ascent, to reach our target of 26".

From there, the two jumps are at an identical speed - ie: the speed of Earth's gravity.

So here's a lesson for you -

If you want to spout off about your knowledge of physics, and make nice little calculations, you'd better know what the fundamental issues are, beforehand.

Otherwise it looks a bit..ah..you know..

turbonium1

You don't understand my point.

i fully understand your point what you are failing to understand is this:

GRAVITY IS THE ONLY THING THAT WILL STOP HIM FROM GOING UPWARDS..

what does this mean?? it means if you pull someone up faster he will take a longer time to to reach his peak.. at his peak his verticle velocity becomes 0, only gravity which is constant throughout is slowing them down to this point.

The ropes are used to help lift the person to the same height as the person without ropes.

very observant of you.. but either the ropes pull the person up to the designated height slower than a natural jump so as to not exceed the height or it goes at the exact same speed as the natural jump.

Let's say the person without ropes reaches a height of 26 inches. So that will be the target height for the man with ropes.

if the man with ropes wants to achieve no higher than 26inches he needs to be pulled up either slower than the natural jump or jerked up with one force which is exactly the same as his legs would have given him in.

learn some high school physics.

IHis height will NOT go higher than 26". His jump cannot be compared to the other man if they jump to different hieghts. That's why I've made it clear - they both are jumping to the same height.

as above, but to add, there is no other magical force to slow them down other than gravity.. get this through your ignorant mind.

if you do not believe me, use these very very basic energy formulas:

ke=0.5mv^2
Pe=mgh
(ke=kinetic energy, m=mass, v=velocity, pe=gravitational potential energy, g=acceleration due to gravity, h=height)
show me what you mean, how you wish to defy physics..

this is what you are trying to tell me,

gets ropes to pull someone up faster than they can jump, so v goes up m stays the same.. equals ke goes up..

kineitc energy transfers to potential energy in a jump, so ke=pe, since mass and gravity is the same in both cases height goes up.. nope thats not what you mean

what you mean is that you can pull someone up faster to the same height with ropes..

so ke still goes up since velocity is higher, therefore pe also still goes up.. since gravity stays the same and height stays the same.. that must mean mass must have increased..

eureka!!! in order to fulfill your requirements in order to complete a jump faster with ropes as compare to a natural jump without ropes to the same exact height.. the person must gain weight mid-jump exponentially proportional to the velocity of the jump..

gosh i wish everyone was as smart as you

Why do you think the ropes have to be used throughout his ascent? They do not.

becuase ropes have been pulling upwards only, when he reaches his peak gravity is the fastest way down, ropes pulling up will only slow his descent.

The goal is to lift the man to a height of 26". How is that achieved with the assistance of ropes?

See where I'm going here?

Sure - to achieve the same 26" height, the ropes help lift him to, say, a height of 24.5". Then, gravity slows his ascent, to reach our target of 26".

what you are not understand is that if a natural jump brought the man to 24.5inches and it took him one second, and ropes brought him to 24.5 inches and it took 0.8 seconds.. do you know what that means?? it means he is travelling at a higher speed..

now do you know what that means?? it means at 24.5 inches he will be travelling at a higher speed than a natural jump, because in a natural jump gravity has begun slowing the man down as soon as he left the ground ie. he has had 24.5inches to slow down to the speed he is at on his way to 26 inches, whereas your ropes scenario he has 1.5 inches to slow down from a higher speed causing him to bypass 26inches.. what?? did you forget gravity is constant and is the only avaliable force to slow the upwards motion?

even if you make the man jump to 10inches and have the ropes pull him up the other 15inches, the ropes will have introduced the same energy required to reach the 26 inche height.. even if you pull him up slowly in which case, it will be slower than a natural jump..

no matter which way you look at it, you are wrong.. you are just too ignorant to notice it.

From there, the two jumps are at an identical speed - ie: the speed of Earth's gravity.

wrong wrong wrong.. if the ropes immediately let go as soon as he left the ground then only gravity will be the only force involved.. and provided the ropes used the same upwards force of the mans legs then and only then will each jump be identical

if the ropes imparted more energy or jerked him up at a higher velocity than the natural jump then he will reach a higher height..

So here's a lesson for you -

If you want to spout off about your knowledge of physics, and make nice little calculations, you'd better know what the fundamental issues are, beforehand.

Otherwise it looks a bit..ah..you know..

i am very clear of the issue and clearly you are not, you are trying your hardest to change the laws of physics.. if you dont believe me ask your dad to ask university professor who teaches physics.. but since you seem to be so intelligent, why dont you show me the calculations?? you have all the formulas on the previous page, this is basic high school physics im not joking, so it shouldnt be too difficult for you to prove your theory.

looks you have made a fool of yourself again.. clearly you dont understand highschool physics at all.. im not even using complicated physcis only basic physics and you still dont understand it..

ill say it again.. the only thing to slow a jump down is gravity.. in a natural jump, the only force involved after leaving the ground is gravity..

with ropes you are reducing the acceleration force due to gravity..

p.s. im sorry if you are under 18, i have been assuming you were an adult who has passed highschool, but evidently that is not the case.

reply to post by turbonium1

How do you know they are actually wearing fifty pounds of clothing? Because NASA said they were? You have to prove your claim, before we move ahead.

Okay, how much would you say all that stuff weighs? Name any weight you want, then proceed. Can you hop from one foot to another that fast for that long? Naked?

reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

I'm not back tracking, buddy! That report is going to fit in perfectly for Nixon's Apollo.

There you go, invoking the mythical "Nixon." You need to prove that such a person ever existed. There is ample evidence that he did not, but was merely portrayed by actors:

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I'm not back tracking, buddy! That report is going to fit in perfectly for Nixon's Apollo.

There you go, invoking the mythical "Nixon." You need to prove that such a person ever existed. There is ample evidence that he did not, but was merely portrayed by actors:

I thought you were going to invoke the name of the mythical astronaut who snapped AS12-50-7362 ? Oh well, I think my theory is much better explanation for the "7362", the pristine clean window shot of Earth.

Plausible: Howard Hughes built a robotic arm for the Hasselblad camera rig inside the unmanned Apollo 12 command module and it was capable of taking commands from ground control.

Plausible: That's a very small command module with 3 astronauts in it. Apollo 12's Hasselblad 70-mm images in Magazine Q are completely lacking in crew members! There should be more evidence of "floating around" the cabin in 0g. Where are the floating objects in the Magazine Q? There are no floating objects inside the unmanned command module because there aren't any humans inside it... just a robotic arm snapping pictures, commanded from the ground.

SayonaraJupiter

Plausible: Howard Hughes built a robotic arm for the Hasselblad camera rig inside the unmanned Apollo 12 command module and it was capable of taking commands from ground control.

are you sure?? you understand that the robotic arm cannot function without that giant block that it is connected.. it requires hydraulic power to move the arms. i wonder how they power the hydraulics?? must be like some super advanced miniturised engine stolen from the year 2200 since howard hughes had a time machine..

thats barely any room left to manoeuvre inside and that leaves 0 chance of fitting through the hatch, which means it needs to be placed inside before the command module is finished, which means in order for howard hughes to hide it from all the engineers, he needed to steal a stealth cloaking device from the year 2300.

he sure put that time machine to good use i must say.

p.s. its not just the camera arm, it needs the other arms to change the film also.. or were they using digital cameras with 64gb mini SD cards?? hmmm....

p.s.s.

I think my theory is much better explanation for the "7362", the pristine clean window shot of Earth.

have you got absolute proof that ALL 5 windows were dirty?? does magazine q show all 5 windows or only multiple shots of only 2 or 3 windows? now what would happen to your theory if there was one clean window?

SayonaraJupiter

DJW001
reply to post by SayonaraJupiter

 

I'm not back tracking, buddy! That report is going to fit in perfectly for Nixon's Apollo.

There you go, invoking the mythical "Nixon." You need to prove that such a person ever existed. There is ample evidence that he did not, but was merely portrayed by actors:

I thought you were going to invoke the name of the mythical astronaut who snapped AS12-50-7362 ? Oh well, I think my theory is much better explanation for the "7362", the pristine clean window shot of Earth.

Plausible: Howard Hughes built a robotic arm for the Hasselblad camera rig inside the unmanned Apollo 12 command module and it was capable of taking commands from ground control.

Plausible: That's a very small command module with 3 astronauts in it. Apollo 12's Hasselblad 70-mm images in Magazine Q are completely lacking in crew members! There should be more evidence of "floating around" the cabin in 0g. Where are the floating objects in the Magazine Q? There are no floating objects inside the unmanned command module because there aren't any humans inside it... just a robotic arm snapping pictures, commanded from the ground.

I think its been sufficiently proven your theories border on delusional. So at this point show us the technology that NASA miraculusly had to pull this off? Where is the design plans for an apollo command module with a built in robot? Where did they get its power supply? How did they control it since they wouldnt have computers capable of doing it? How come on other roles there are pictures of the astronauts were they blow up dolls? At this point im afraid your going to have to show us your notas crazy as we think and actually prove something instead of shear speculation. Because speculation can go anywhere without proof i think aliens were being returned to the moon when captured by the men in black. In fact thats why the windows were messed up because they have oily hands and couldnt keep there hands off the glass.

Oh and Nixon was an alien as well thats what watergate was trying to dispose of the evidense the aliens took over the government. Wow its easy to make stuff up isnt it?