Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 12916 times)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2535
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #360 on: November 21, 2018, 04:39:48 PM »
Because of the way you post I'll only give you a tidbit of the laundry list you provide.  When discussing the sand, again I have watched the video and the blurry images you present and of the video, there is no proof that the sand moved higher than the boots, perhaps it is your zeal to prove something that lets you see events that ae not present.
However, let me ask you a gravitational question, IF as you belief, but not proven, that the regolith goes higher than the boots, why is this proof that the sequence was shot on Earth.  Isn't gravity universal?  No sand would go higher than the boots unless it has been given extra energy to do so the formula for distance


https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/how-to-calculate-time-and-distance-from-acceleration-and-velocity/

and I chose that particular site as, you are a dummy or troll as Jay has indicated.
Fine material will not go higher that the boots unless there is that little bit of energy added.


Now as to my being:

"unheard of for a person defending NASA to resort to lying, wouldn’t it?"  Of course it would be not unheard-of for an HB to tell lies, the history is ripe with HB's lies.

"It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence, but when we see seemingly educated adults displaying such behaviour, there must be more to it. It has to be indoctrination, although there will be some that stand to make financial gain by defending NASA’s lies, and I am certain there is at least two of these people on these forums."

I have admitted many times concerning the errors I have made, unfortunately, you haven't.  Search the forum and you will sell my admissions.  Indoctrination?  that is rich, why don't you use a more proper term educated and versed in the Apollo program, by reading the literature.  Financial gain by defending.. That is rich NASA doesn't pay anyone to stand and knock down the BS you throw out.

Further you really need to spend some time in a physics book, this is high school level.  The regolith will depart the wheels with whatever the force is predominant.  If ANGULAR force is greater then the dust will travel in an arc, if the lateral force is greater then the path will be parabolic.  You cherry pick images, as thee are many that show parabolic paths.  Now who is lying?

I agree with Jay you are a troll, plain and simple.



Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #361 on: November 21, 2018, 04:45:41 PM »
Picking just a few points out of your stream-of-consciousness blather :

Examining a tiny piece of rock might indicate that it didn’t come from earth and it may even be somehow possible to determine with some degree of accuracy that it probably originated from the moon, but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions. NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.
Isn't this putting the cart before the horse?  You've decided the samples are not of lunar origin, therefore you aren't willing to look at any evidence that they might be.  You're not trying to have any kind of rational discussion, you're just reinforcing your own beliefs.

Quote
The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.
Not true.  And a small amount of research would have turned up plenty of reports of tracking of various missions.  The fact that you are either too lazy, or too afraid (in case it disproves your belief) to properly research the information, doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Quote
Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon
ditto...

Quote
so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret? If you think this is a minor point, then you haven’t thought it through, as this third party evidence, along with the lost telemetry data and technology would surely have gone a long way in silencing us conspiracy nuts.
There were no "conspiracy nuts" (glad it's yourself using the phrase) at the time of the Apollo missions, so there was no goal of "silencing" them.  Also, as already pointed out, and again showing your lack of research, the information wasn't secret, and no telemetry data or technology was "lost".  (Yes, some tapes were overwritten, but the data on them had already been processed and copied to other forms.)

Quote
What about the rover and this rooster tail thing? As I understand it, the alleged lunar dust, thrown from the wheels of the rover forms an arc, resembling a rooster tail, as oppose to a parabolic arc, which we would see on earth. Apparently, the air resistance on earth is the reason for the parabolic arc, but as there is no air on the moon, the alleged dust falls straight back down. What?! Surely the opposite would be true, as with no air resistance, the alleged dust would be allowed to follow its trajectory and therefore form a perfect parabolic arc? Or am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing a basic understanding of physics, and also an understanding of colloquial English use of phrases such as "rooster tail" in describing said basic physics.

Quote
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there is only one source of evidence available that could possibly prove it one way or another, and that is the video evidence, and sadly for you, it all points to a hoax. Kubrick would never have openly admitted to his involvement in the fraud, but they chose to end his life anyway, as he was about to blow the lid on the vile and deviant corruption within our governments and secret societies, of which he was exposed to. Who knows what was in those twenty minutes that he refused to cut from his last film, a couple of days before he was murdered?
Can I ask what brand of tinfoil you prefer for your headgear??

I do love your opening statement though :
Quote
It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence...
Don't you see any irony in writing something like that?
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1224
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #362 on: November 22, 2018, 08:01:41 AM »
The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.

How blind are you? Have you even seen one of the launches, you know, the ones tracked from the ground until they disappeared?

No proof they made it into orbit? Seriously? You mean apart from large numbers of photographs taken in Earth orbit prior to TLI?

For example:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?36

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?148

Not to mention the many photographs of Earth, and 16mm, taken immediately after TLI, all of which show an exact correspondence with the various weather satellites in orbit at the time, like this montage of Apollo 11 images taken in orbit:


Quote

Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon, so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret? If you think this is a minor point, then you haven’t thought it through, as this third party evidence, along with the lost telemetry data and technology would surely have gone a long way in silencing us conspiracy nuts.

Who says the tracking data was a secret?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730012127.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700051154&hterms=apollo+tracking+data&qs=N%3D0%26Ntk%3DAll%26Ntt%3Dapollo%2520tracking%2520data%26Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%26Nm%3D123%7CCollection%7CNASA%2520STI%7C%7C17%7CCollection%7CNACA

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700025195.pdf

Quote
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there is only one source of evidence available that could possibly prove it one way or another, and that is the video evidence, and sadly for you, it all points to a hoax.

Unfortunately for you the video (both 16mm and live TV) all point to the landings being genuine, no matter on how many occasions you say otherwise.

Online Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1355
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #363 on: November 22, 2018, 08:21:59 AM »
The evidence is in the clip, for anyone that can be bothered to analyse it.

Still avoiding the understanding that looking at a cloud of dust doesn't equate to looking at a single object.

Quote
The only two possibilities are, that either I’m making it up or you have impaired vision,

Or you are wrong. Explain why you keep failing to include that possibility.
Quote
It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong

Even sadder when people won't even consider it when presenting their conclusions.

Quote
Explain to a group of people that any object, regardless of size or weight will fall at the same speed in a vacuum and show them the jump salute with instructions on how to analyse the video, and they will all come to the same conclusion as I did.

Of course, because your 'analysis' is based on a faulty premise. Typical HB argument: take a true simple statement, then conclude that any apparent deviation from it is proof of something nefarious rather than an example of how the complexity of reality sometimes makes for some apparently anomalous observations.

Quote
Explain to people how to determine the size, the earth would look from a given distance, and then ask them to compare their findings to what we see on Apollo 11’s alleged transit to the moon, and again, they will also come to the same conclusion as I did.

Nope. Already answered that one. With information about the FOV of the camera and the distance of the Earth and it looks exactly right. You fail to put up any calculation to prove your point.

Quote
When I presented my evidence, I failed to take into account, the difference in specs between my video camera and the Apollo 11 on-board camera, but if I had, then the results would be even more damning.

The mere fact you considered your video camera to have any relevance to the problem at all is pretty damning for your 'analysis' (put in inverted commas because nothing you have done bears the slightest resemblance to actual analysis).

Quote
I challenge you to give me just one piece of solid proof that the moon landings were genuine.

Really not how this works, and in any case you have already pre-emptively dismissed any and all proof that can be offered as either fake (from NASA) or fake (from lying people supporting the NASA version of events).

Quote
How about the reflectors? We don’t need a reflector to bounce a laser off the moon.

No, but you get a stronger signal if you do use a reflector.
 
Quote
but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions.

That creaking sound must be those goalposts shifting again.

Quote
NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

Repeating that assertion won't make it true.

Quote
The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.

There is no proof of any of your alternatives either, so no basis on which to conclude fakery.
 
Quote
Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence

There we go again. Either no evidence or NASA-influenced evidence.

Quote
so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret?

There is a difference between 'kept secret' and 'I haven't seen it'. The data were published before every mission.

Quote
Kubrick would never have openly admitted to his involvement in the fraud, but they chose to end his life anyway

Three decades and multiple administrations later. That's some real efficient work.

Quote
as he was about to blow the lid on the vile and deviant corruption within our governments and secret societies, of which he was exposed to.

Since, apparently, you know a lot about this corruption, how would killing Kubrick help keep the lid on it? Or are you expecting a death squad visit some time soon?
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #364 on: November 22, 2018, 10:09:14 AM »
My Gods, they never stop with the Kubrick thing.  Yes, there's the obvious and frankly stupid "no one tracked the missions" error, but come on!  They won't even do the work to fit directing Apollo missions into Kubrick's known schedule for the time to realize that it doesn't work.  Much less any of the other reasons Kubrick would have been a terrible choice.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline ineluki

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #365 on: November 23, 2018, 06:49:43 AM »
As I’ve said on numerous occasions

Yes that's the problem with you disgustingly dishonest Troll, you say the same things over and over, even after you get explanations a 9 year old would understand...


Offline Dalhousie

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 435
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #366 on: November 24, 2018, 01:01:46 AM »
Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

I know this is post necromancy and I should not feed the troll, but this is so funny I can't resist responding.

Gravity is measured in geophysics in milligals.  Incidentally this is an SI unit, none has been defined as yet.  A standard gravity would be 980.665 gal, or 980665 millgals.

Los Alamos indeed lies over a gravity low of 260 milligals.  Not only does this very large anomaly extend north into Colorado, it is clearly related to geological structure.  Plus of course a low 260 milligals is all of 0.0265% less than a standard gravity, and detectable only with sensitive instruments.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0061/html/nm_boug.htm

Offline BDL

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 67
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #367 on: November 24, 2018, 12:29:56 PM »
Jay, I'm curious and I apologize if you have already answered, but have you met Sibrel up close and personal?

No, we've never directly met.

If you do decide to meet with him, be prepared for a bible duel. He’s pretty infamous for bible-poking battles.
“One small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” - Neil Armstrong, 1969

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #368 on: November 24, 2018, 02:34:12 PM »
Wow is this guy still getting responses lol

Offline apollo16uvc

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 159
  • Where no telescope has gone before.
    • Apollo 16 UVC
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #369 on: November 24, 2018, 06:37:08 PM »
My Gods, they never stop with the Kubrick thing.  Yes, there's the obvious and frankly stupid "no one tracked the missions" error, but come on!  They won't even do the work to fit directing Apollo missions into Kubrick's known schedule for the time to realize that it doesn't work.  Much less any of the other reasons Kubrick would have been a terrible choice.
I have been looking into that for some time. If you take into account how long 2001 a space odyssey took to make, and multiply that by all the live footage from the Apollo missions, it becomes pretty clear he did not have enough time.

This is not even taking into account the tens of thousands of photos, and 16mm footage, from different locations.

Would like to see your calculations!
Ultraviolet light photography rules!
Apollo 16
Skylab

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #370 on: November 25, 2018, 01:59:52 AM »
The sand above his boot had to be propelled upwards at a higher velocity than the actor, and the finer sand disperses and disappears on the way down before it reaches the ground. How could that happen if it were filmed in a vacuum? The only two possibilities are, that either I’m making it up or you have impaired vision, as it would be unheard of for a person defending NASA to resort to lying, wouldn’t it?

I see you have little to no grasp of basic physics or anatomy.  Acceleration equals Force divided by Mass, or A=F/M.  When you jump flat-footed, you don't actually jump with your foot flat.  Your heel comes up and you jump off of the balls of your feet with a little extra push from the toes.  As you do this, your heel lifts completely just before the rest of your foot does.  (https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/the-physics-of-the-vertical-jump/) This is why any fine evenly distributed particles you may be standing in will rise from the heel first.  Now, back to the equation.  Obviously, from the BASIC physics involved, the mass of the fine particles will be much less than the mass of a human resulting in greater acceleration. However, the force applied to the fine particles will not be equal to the total force provided to the jumper.  This is because the heel lift, that starts the jump AND the particulate acceleration, is just the initial lifting force.  Also, the force applied to the particles is only that which is contributed by the friction of the jumper's feet/shoes/boots, as there is no other avenue to impart it.  The final push off the balls and toes is yet to come.  So, two things happen.  The particulates are accelerated prior to the completion of the jump force AND the forces upon the particulates and the jumper are exponentially different. 

Conclusion:  The physics involved, regarding the relative heights reached by the particulates and the jumper, is the result of a complex and uneven exertion of forces.  Therefor, there can be no expectation of their relative heights gleamed purely from photography, and your claim for there being only two possibilities is utterly ignorant.

As far as dispersion goes, such dust in a vacuum would naturally spread out, as there is no air to slow and clump it into a cloud.  Your pictures of the LRV and the dune buggy actually prove this.  At the bottom of the LRV's rooster tail, the dust is spreading out and can be seen through easily.  As for the dune buggy, the dust is clouding up considerably more at the bottom of its rooster tail than it does in its arc, due to its reduced speed and further billowing caused by the atmosphere.

Note:  Edited for punctuation and reworded "with the relative heights" in my conclusion to read better.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2018, 02:04:54 AM by MBDK »
"Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy." - Lord John Whorfin

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #371 on: November 25, 2018, 10:56:31 AM »
My Gods, they never stop with the Kubrick thing.  Yes, there's the obvious and frankly stupid "no one tracked the missions" error, but come on!  They won't even do the work to fit directing Apollo missions into Kubrick's known schedule for the time to realize that it doesn't work.  Much less any of the other reasons Kubrick would have been a terrible choice.
I have been looking into that for some time. If you take into account how long 2001 a space odyssey took to make, and multiply that by all the live footage from the Apollo missions, it becomes pretty clear he did not have enough time.

This is not even taking into account the tens of thousands of photos, and 16mm footage, from different locations.

Would like to see your calculations!

I haven't bothered with calculations, honestly.  It's just that, you know, he made A Clockwork Orange in the middle of Apollo.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline bobdude11

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #372 on: November 27, 2018, 01:01:54 PM »
So Cambo,
 I just have a couple of things in response:
  • A question: Why are you so desperate to disprove the Apollo landings?
  • A level set: Following your lead, I reject any and all of the 'evidence' you use or have used, referenced. quoted, copied, or hinted at to attempt to prove a hoax. I will only accept conclusions you come up with independent of all current and past hoax claims this means anything and everything from anyone else (as mentioned, past and present).
  • You must present new arguments using your own calculations (yes, you MUST provide math results for anything you present - yours and yours alone - you cannot quote, reference or otherwise utilize anything from any other hoax supporter).


If you choose to ignore or dismiss this post, I will assume you have no response and are unable to provide any new arguments/'evidence' and therefore, to me, your claims, as of this post, are null and void until you present new and independent arguments complete with all of the data and the calculations used to derive that data and your conclusions.
Robert Clark -
CISSP, MISM, MCSE and some other alphabet certifications.
I am moving to Theory ... everything works in Theory
"Everybody remember where we parked." James Tiberius Kirk, Captain, U.S.S. Enterprise

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 748
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #373 on: December 03, 2018, 09:45:25 AM »
The lunar samples? In short, we only have NASA’s word, and when I say we, I include the geologists. Now here’s a novel idea, why not as well as a geologist being able to request a sample for delivery, he or she could also have a “pick up in store” option where they could make an appointment and browse through those hundreds of kilos of moon soil and rocks and be allowed to choose which specimen they would like their sample taken from, and then watch, while they cut them a slice.

Maybe that could be a Thing...if geologists had the money to fly around the world and spend a few days in Houston browsing through hundreds of samples.

It's just a darn site cheaper to browse the catalog in the comfort of their own office and have the sample sent through. Remember, the catalog tells the scientist the exact type of rock in each sample, with details about its uniqueness. Go to https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/ and pick a few samples at random. You never know, you might learn a bit about how each sample is a little different. And of course, if you bothered to learn a bit about science you might understand why a scientist might want one particular sample out of all those listed, rather than any other. Then, having asked for exactly that sample, she'd very quickly know whether she'd been given a piece of that specific sample as opposed to something from one of the others.

Why do you suggest your "pick up in store" option? Are you thinking of setting up a charter company to fly those cashed-up eggheads?

Quote
Examining a tiny piece of rock might indicate that it didn’t come from earth and it may even be somehow possible to determine with some degree of accuracy that it probably originated from the moon...

OMG, you finally got there. You actually accepted the idea that the Apollo rocks could have come from the Moon. Well done!

I take it then you accept the scientific consensus that these rocks, while similar to Earth rocks, also have distinct chemical differences which make terrestrial origin impossible.

Quote
...but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions.

To some extent I think you'll find scientists couldn't really care less how NASA came into possession of these rocks which you say "...probably originated from the moon..." They just want to do some good sciencey lovin' on their sample - to find out stuff about the geological history of the Moon, or something about the solar wind, or whatever.

But regardless of whether the scientists care or not how the rocks came to be on the Earth, the fact remains these Moon rocks are on the Earth. So if you accept they're Moon rocks, you now have to explain how ~380 kilograms of the stuff of the Moon is now on Earth, in a way that doesn't involve them flying through the Earth's atmosphere as meteorites.

Go on, take your time. See if you can do it without invoking the TARDIS.

Quote
NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

You what? So after just accepting the Apollo rocks "...probably originated from the moon..." you now say they don't exist? What are they, Schroedinger's rocks? They simultaneously came from the Moon and don't exist?

I think a little more explanation might be needed here. Like, a lot little more.

Quote
Russia would have blabbed? Even if the US and the Soviets weren’t in cahoots at the time, how would they go about proving it? They couldn’t track the Apollo missions, so the best they could do was listen in on radio transmissions coming from the direction of the moon, when they were lucky enough to be in site of the moon during a transmission. Those transmissions wouldn’t have given the Russians any cause for concern, as they did it themselves, during the Zond 5/6 missions, before the alleged Apollo 8 mission took place. A Russian voice was picked up coming from the crafts, giving the impression that the flights were manned, when it was actually a tape recording. The Zond 5 transmission supposedly had NASA flapping for a short while, thinking they’d been beaten to yet another milestone in manned space exploration.

LOL! Oh, stop it! Now we have Schroedinger's Cold War. The USSR was simultaneously "in cahoots" with the USA and causing a flap for NASA.

Quote
The Russians knew it was faked because they knew it couldn’t be done, but to accuse the US of fraud, without proof would be seen as sour grapes to the rest of the deluded world, and anyhow it was best to bite their tongue in the knowledge that they and others would now have a free licence to fake the shit out of space, and that cheap wheat sure did come in handy. It seems strange that one nation would help feed another nation with whom they were in conflict with, as wouldn’t it make more sense to help starve them?

"Da, comrade, we know that going to the Moon is impossible, we just don't know how to prove it." Do you seriously think an argument like that would work, like, anywhere?

Let me just spell this out in case I'm going too fast: if the Soviets knew that going to the Moon was impossible, all they needed to do was explain to the rest of the world what they knew. That way, the rest of the world would know that going to the Moon was impossible, meaning that the Americans going to the Moon must be impossible, meaning the Americans must be faking it. It would be a propaganda coup of the first order.

Oh, and by the way, why was it impossible for the Apollo spacecraft to go to the Moon? I forget whether you ever actually got around to explaining that.