Moon Landing

[Scribbler1]

You're right. I wasn't clear on that. The moon rotates at the same speed as it orbits, so in relation to the Earth it doesn't.

[Scott]

Hey people--I'd really like to hear some opinions on this.

*******************************************************************************
You've all seen the evidence that support wires were used in some of the later missions.
YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage

You've all seen this footage played at double speed.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

It can be seen here.
(Two links to "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon")
YouTube - funny thing happened on the way to the moon clip
A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon FULL.avi
(30 minute 30 second mark)

It can also be seen here.
Man didnt land on the moon
(21 minute mark)

The fact that the wire glints can be seen in the first clip and the fact that the body movements of the astronauts in the Apollo 11 footage look just like earth gravity when played at double speed are convincing enough. What really makes it even more convincing is that the body movements in the two clips are different. That means two different methods of faking moon gravity were used. The inconsistency is apparent.
The Apollo 11 footage was simply half speed slow-motion. The clip about the support wires was probably a little faster than fifty percent--maybe sixty or seventy percent of normal speed.
YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage
(first six seconds)

The combination of slow-motion and support wires looked better than the Apollo 11 footage. The only problem was that it was inconsistent with the Apollo 11 footage.

Here's something else I came across.
Aulis Online – Different Thinking
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, regarding the spacing of footprints on the lunar soil, Chris Knowles informed us of a science documentary transmitted on UK TV concerning a future manned mission to Mars. It was predicted that in the Martian 1/3G, an astronaut's movement should be undertaken at a pace nearer to jogging. It does not take a genius to calculate that if so, in 1/6th gravity, perhaps the Apollo astronauts should have been moving at twice the speed of the Martian pace-not walking about in 'slow motion'. So in their rush towards planning the future of manned space flight, the Mars analysts at least, seem to have well and truly forgotten the past.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Mr.Vicchio]

Man landed on the Moon, failure to accept that shows a deep seated desire to be special, to feel like you are smarter then everyone else.

Sorry the USSR would have busted any attempt at faking it.

[Scott]

Man landed on the Moon, failure to accept that shows a deep seated desire to be special, to feel like you are smarter then everyone else.

You didn't analyze the evidence I posted. You'd get laughed out of the debating hall for a response like this one.

Sorry the USSR would have busted any attempt at faking it.

You're just assuming that what the press was telling us back then reflected what was really happening. Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

Uncle Sam: How the Cold War worked
Deterring Democracy: Chapter 1 [1/20]

There's also the theory that the USSR blackmailed the US and got some very good deals on wheat sales. We never know who was blackmailing or bribing whom.

I think that what I posted above is conclusive proof that at least some of the footage was faked. If some of it was faked, all of it was probably faked. A real mission would produce real footage, wouldn't it?
If you think I'm wrong about what I posted above, say why.

[thx1138]

If you have not seen this, it will have you going for awhile!

YouTube - Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1
YouTube - Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

YouTube - Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 2
YouTube - Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 2

YouTube - Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 3
YouTube - Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 3

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 4
You'll find the links to all the parts on YouTube really well done!

[ruksak]

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage

The "wire glint" is simply light reflecting back into the camera. Simple debunk on that one.

Watching the way the dust behaves really just seals it for me. Especially when the astronaut gets up from falling about 2 minutes in.
If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the right boot. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. The Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today.

[Technosoul]

I worked for North-American Rockwell (Downey Ca.) which is where the capsule was built for the first moon landing. It was my first decent job after highschool, I worked in the quality control inspection department and we x-rayed the weilded areas to insure they were well bonded. After the moon landing and following the splash down we had to re-inspect the capsule to see how good it held up during the mission, stress wise.

The thing was very burned looking when we re-inspected it due to re-entry. After that they laid all of us off, apparently the idea was to "beat the Russians" to the moon as part of the cold-war phychology. Point is, they might not have spent money on re-inspecting the capsule if the whole mission was a movie made at Area 51.

[Scott]

YouTube - Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1

I saw this movie a while ago. I think it's an attempt to discredit the hoax believers. The part where Nixon and Kissinger and Rimsfield (I think) were talking was obviously out of context.

The "wire glint" is simply light reflecting back into the camera. Simple debunk on that one.

The light source was to the left of the camera. It could not have entered the lens directly.

Do you think the same thing about the glints in this clip?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov./alsj/a16/a16v.1213311.rm

They look like the same phenomenon that's in the other clip.
What I think happened is that the original footage was full of glints from the support wires. The removed them but missed the one in this clip because it was so close to the glint on the antenna.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov./alsj/a16/a16v.1213311.rm

If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the right boot. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. The Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today.

I watched it. I didn't see anything that couldn't have been filmed on earth. The dirt doesn't travel far enough to see the effects of atmosphere on the trajectory. If dust billowing was a problem, they could have sifted some sand to remove all of the dust-sized particles that would float in air. For good measure they could have run water on the sifted sand while still on the sifting screen while brushing it back and forth. Sand treated like this could have been placed where the rover was going to drive and the astronauts were going to walk and run.

Somewhere during the first half hour of this movie the topic of trajectories in a vacuum is dealt with.
Was it only a paper moon? James Collier (Better Quality)
I agree with what he says. The horizontal vector of the dirt kicked up by the rover changes. The dust slows down because it's encountering atmosphere. It is going slower when it lands than it is going when it is first thrown up by the rover wheels. In a vacuum it would land at the same speed at which it is thrown up. You have to look at the part of the sand that is thrown up at the lowest angle to see the effect.

The thing was very burned looking when we re-inspected it due to re-entry.

According to one of the theories, the astronauts were in earth orbit while the pre-recorded tape was broadcast to the world so the re-entry was supposedly real. The other theory is that they splashed down in the Atlantic right after launch. That still would have caused the same burning. They could have dropped the burned capsule out of the back of a plane at forty thousand feet to look like a return from the moon. There are lots of plausible scenarios that would explain the burning.

[Mr.Vicchio]

Laughed out of the debate... your trying to prove a fact as a lie..

That man never went to the moon.

And that you are now saying the USSR would NOT have busted the USA on faking the moon landings? They were tracking the missions, in hopes of proving us to be liars. To embarrass the USA, now, without resorting to Noam Chomsky to answer for you, why wouldn't they have done that?

[tivodan1116]

I can't wait until next year when the LRO sends back pictures of the astronaut's stuff still on the moon and these idiots have to come up with some other wacko theory about how all of THAT got there.

Scott, all of your BS about speeding up and slowing down footage is just that. Speeding up or slowing down footage such that it "looks like" it could take place at a different gravity doesn't mean anything. I could slow down footage of old "Blossom" episodes and make it look like Jenna Von Oy lived on Pluto. What is that supposed to show? :rolleyes:

[ruksak]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I could slow down footage of old "Blossom" episodes and make it look like Jenna Von Oy lived on Pluto.

That was "Six" right. I had this perverse crush on that girl when I was younger.

Quote by: Scott I watched it. I didn't see anything that couldn't have been filmed on earth. The dirt doesn't travel far enough to see the effects of atmosphere on the trajectory. If dust billowing was a problem, they could have sifted some sand to remove all of the dust-sized particles that would float in air. For good measure they could have run water on the sifted sand while still on the sifting screen while brushing it back and forth. Sand treated like this could have been placed where the rover was going to drive and the astronauts were going to walk and run.

Thats dust not sand. Anyone watching objectively should be able to correlate the difference between the behavior of flinging dust in a vacuum and flinging dust on Earth. There are hours of footage depicting them traveling across moon dust. It would take tons and tons of sifted sand to accommodate their needs and it still wouldn't look right.

Quote by: Scott The light source was to the left of the camera. It could not have entered the lens directly.

You will never convince me of this. Thats bullocks. This whole thread is bullsh!t. Worse than 9/11 conspiracy threads. At least they amuse me. I'm bowing outta this retarded topic.
Have fun guys!

[Rainbow]

@Scott
I followed some of the links you posted.
After watching the first video-clip, I was not sure whether those guys are comedians or intellectually impaired.

Nevertheless, I watched some UFO clips. Most of them a complete hoaxes, except for few archives.

[Zeebadee]

Obviously, the landings were faked, and I'm pretty suspicious of Mr. Ed also.

[SoylentGreen]

when did Mr Ed land on the moon?

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: SoylentGreen when did Mr Ed land on the moon?

I don't know, but if he did, his landing was faked too. Undoubtedly, Wilbur was in on it.

[Chris]

Quote by: Zeebadee Like I said, an observer on Mars would see all sides of the moon, and to him, it would complete a revolution. Therefore, it must rotate.

The moon doesnt spin on an axis like the earth. it does complete revolutions though. But it does not spin on an axis.

[Zeebadee]

Quote by: Chris The moon doesnt spin on an axis like the earth. it does complete revolutions though. But it does not spin on an axis.

I was waiting for someone to point this out. Now, what would happen if the earth suddenly disappeared? The moon would go off in a straight line, but wouldn't it then start spinning on it's own axis? The angular momentum it currently has should be maintained, shouldn't it?

[Chris]

why are we worried about the technicalities of astro physics? We should be talking about the validity of the moon landing here.

to be honest, I dont know what would happen, What would happen if the sun disappeared? the answer is irrelevant because objects just dont disappear in the universe. Our sun will become a red giant and then die.

[Keith Hamburger]

Quote by: Chris The moon doesnt spin on an axis like the earth. it does complete revolutions though. But it does not spin on an axis.

Ummm ... wrong. The moon spins on its axis to match it's revolution. It is tidally locked to the Earth so it always presents the same face. It has to spin on its axis, relative to the sun, for example, for that to occur. The sun sees the moon rotating. We don't because the moon moves around the Earth at the as it rotates.

Keith

[Chris]

you're splitting hairs. I said "The moon doesn't spin on an axis like the earth"

what part of that is wrong?

if you think of the earth as the sun and the moon as the earth, the moon does not spin on an axis like the earth does.

the Moon's rotation on its axis is synchronously locked with its revolution around Earth,

Libration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

oh and how do they measure librations? yeah, with laser measurements thanks to the APOLLO LANDINGS that DID take place. (back on subject)

from the wiki link
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...&filetype=.pdf