Pimander, i found this...a long time ago...Yet Apollo believers come up with all kinds of far fetched explanations about why they would have to create fake footage of the Moon landings. Studios that look like the lunar surface. If you land there you don't need to fake it!
Take a look at 2:27....how an astronaut can fall to the ground...on the moon?I don't see what's the problem with that fall. ???
I don't see what's the problem with that fall. ???
I don't see what's the problem with that fall. ???No problem with the fall.
I see a problem with how the astronauts legs lift off the ground as he is helped to his feet. Look again.At what time, in which video? :)
also....the "sand" flying all over......And what's the problem with that? ???
Take a look at 2:27....how an astronaut can fall to the ground...on the moon?
it's funny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0OUaBRG2yY
its been soo long when i study.let's see if i remember...thanks God...i found some videos with all evidences..
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8ZzFemBUJQ[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkYETGJ3OGE[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxZMjpMhwNE[/youtube]
I can't find it right now, but the fact that the NASA Apollo astronauts were clearly suspended on wires in some of the footage is obvious at about 2m30 in the first video you posted here.
Zorgon started a thread with some of the footage with amusing soundtracks but the search button is not my friend today. I'll try to find the footage.
At what time, in which video? :)Around 2m40 in the first one I embedded in this thread. I'll make it easier for you. 40s in this one:
Check out Moonwalkers, 'How we really went to the Moon"!
Quite remarkable at 2:43 in that video look at the positioning of his feet and how his feet are dragged, one arm on the ground was holding something which meant he would not have had enough leverage to toss himself up. If that was the case they should be jumping around 10' at a time up there not those little bunny hops. Also unlikely his partner could straighten him up and drag him at the same time with one hand unless he was a body builder and the other guy was very thin. :PExactly the part I was referring to. When Phage said he saw nothing unusual about that his credibility dropped to much lower for me. So sceptical except when it comes to what NASA has to tell us. Absolutely fascinating. ::)
The analysis is based on the idea that the films are in a vacuum and are flawed.
Photo with shadows that should not exist on the moon.I don't understand that, why shouldn't any shadows exist? And exactly which shadows? ???
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5903.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5903.jpg)
no large holes in the ground under the Lunar Module.Why should there be large holes in the ground? Because of the engine exhaust?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5864.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5864.jpg)
Evidence of the Lunar Module had not landed on the moon.Explain what you mean, please. :)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5920.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5920.jpg)
Picture taken against the sun without burning the negative.You should get your facts straight before posting them, otherwise it looks like you are so worried about proving your point of view that you use any thing you can get your hands on, without even knowing what it is.
Floor without propellant use of evidence at the time of landing.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863-69.jpg)
Around 2m40 in the first one I embedded in this thread. I'll make it easier for you. 40s in this one:Thanks. :)
[youtube]Zcz0eL_bYsI[/youtube]
Not only do his legs lift off the ground when he is helped to his feet but the way his feet skim across the surface and lift just after that show that something is pulling him into the air.I don't understand it, are you saying that he wasn't touching the ground? The only occasion when I see both feet off the ground is when he gives an impulse with his legs, but when he gets up he has the right foot on the ground and (I think) the left hand is being held by the other astronaut to help him get up.
[youtube]NxZMjpMhwNE[/youtube]And as it goes up, right? I see no signs of any braking effect.
Sceptically speaking: If there is an atmosphere and the bag is on earth then there is also air resistance acting on the open bag which functions like a parachute and slows the velocity of the bag as it falls.
Thanks. :)No but he does lift completely off the ground shortly after being helped to his feet.
I don't understand it, are you saying that he wasn't touching the ground?
The only occasion when I see both feet off the ground is when he gives an impulse with his legs,Look again. ::)
but when he gets up he has the right foot on the ground and (I think) the left hand is being held by the other astronaut to help him get up.
And as it goes up, right? I see no signs of any braking effect.It is hard to tell because the object is moving away from us.
No but he does lift completely off the ground shortly after being helped to his feet.Sorry, I still don't understand what you mean. :(
ArMaP, do you honestly not detect a third force acting on the astronaut in an upward direction?No, but to be clear, if you call that a "third force", what are the other two?
At several points there the astronauts motion is not consistent with the forces that the film shows acting on him. There is an additional force pulling him up, consistent - in my opinion - with a wire or elastic cable pulling the astronaut skywards to simulate low gravity.I don't see what's inconsistent with the forces supposed to be acting on the astronaut.
I'd also be interested to see which films show possible evidence of 1/6 gravity. Do Apollo 11 and 12 videos? It is in particular the Apollo 11 and 12 footage that I suspect is largely fake.True, but most videos we have were made with the camera on the rovers, and the first missions didn't have a rover, so they only had a (low quality) fixed camera.
Don't forget the hills too. How can the exact same background appear both with and without a lander in it (I don't have the shot here right now but I can find it later). That is impossible as there was nobody there to take a shot before the lander was present.All the cases some people say that they hills are the same in different occasions that I have looked into the hills do not appear as being exactly the same, we see differences in perspective.
Do the hills look like the terrain around the landing sites? How can the same hills appear in different missions that landed many miles apart?Please give specific images, without that I cannot comment.
The evidence screams of fake to me - even if they have landed a man on the Moon in later Apollo missions (or possibly via another means).All that I have seen is that most people are so worried about proving that the images/landing were fake that they ignore things like perspective, and most videos/photos presented as "evidence" are not identified, I remember one case of a video that said that two images (or footage, I don't remember) are from different missions when they were from the same.
ETA: And astronauts who have been to the Moon and back but don't know whether you can see stars in space! I'd like to see JimO explain that. :PYes, that's strange, specially because if the story was a lie they just had to get a lie for the stars.
That background (or front projection) I was talking about is discussed in the following video at 18m24s if you want to start exactly where the discussion takes polace. I'd suggest listening from 16m30 for background.Thanks for pointing the exact time, otherwise I would have ignored the video. :)
Good video Pim. Around 23.15 is new to me. the operating temperature parameters of the luna rover batteries, are way out to what they should be... The batteries would simply have fried on the moons surface!!!.The batteries were not on the Moon's surface, they were on the rover, inside their compartment.
Just days after this series was originally posted, Mark Gray of Spacecraft Films filed fraudulent DMCA copyright infringement claims against my videos. This not only resulted in the removal of these films, but the termination of my old account. Legally Spacecraft Films has no claim, because NASA's footage is public domain.??I also had a problem like that with a video from the tether breaking, some company said that I had used the footage from their DVD about the tether mission, but I sent them and YouTube the link to the NASA page from where I got the video and the video is still on YouTube.
The batteries were not on the Moon's surface, they were on the rover, inside their compartment.
Yea on the rover, ON the moon. ok maybe not touching the surface but just inches away. so obviously still way outside official operating parameters.Not that obviously, how is the heat of the surface supposed to enter the battery compartment?
the official story is full of holes and damn dirty lies I tells ya ;)You may tell all you want, it doesn't make it the truth. :)
Not that obviously, how is the heat of the surface supposed to enter the battery compartment?The same way it reaches the Lunar surface from the Sun - by radiation.
The astronauts were (as supposedly as the rover) on the Moon's surface, did they got boiled?No because they were in a TV studio on Earth! :P
Thanks for pointing the exact time, otherwise I would have ignored the video. :)No problems.
When you have the Lunar Module at 10 metres or 100 metres and a hill at 5010 metres or 5100 metres, there will not be a clear difference between the hill on both photos, as the hill is too far away for any change in perspective. Also, the slow animation on the video helps to hide any small difference in perspective that may have existed, I would like to know what photos are those (I don't remember, I have to see if I can find the other thread) to see the photos in full size and not converted to Flash video.I've emailed Andrew Johnson for a copy of the slide where he overlays the two pictures. I'll link him to this chat too. ;)
Yes, that's strange, specially because if the story was a lie they just had to get a lie for the stars.
After a third night's sleep on the surface, the two astronauts started their third and last EVA. Their first stop was four-and-a-half kilometres north, at a point on the rim of North ray crater, a large formation nearly one kilometre across. This journey took them thirty five minutes. On the edge of North crater they found the largest boulder the Apollo astronauts had been able to investigate so far. This was a size of a house, and it soon became known as "House Rock". Further driving and exploration eventually brought to crew back to the vicinity of Orion, where they parked the Rover, and re-entered the Lunar Module with those experiments which would be returned to the Earth. Although their time on a lunar surface had been less than planned, John Young and Charlie Duke had broken records for the time spent there, and for the weight of the samples that they were bringing back. The crew then prepared to return to orbit. The ascent stage engine fired as planned and Young and Duke rode the Ascent Stage to orbit. Orion's radar locked onto Casper at a range exceeding 150 miles, and a near perfect rendezvous was achieved. At this point both spacecraft again passed out of sight from Houston around the Moon. When they next rounded the Moon, the two spacecraft were less than six kilometres apart, but a planned TV broadcast of the docking operation proved impossible because of the faulty high gain antenna on the Lunar Module. Young and Duke then inspected Casper's SIM Bay to see if they could determine why some of the experiment were not functioning as planned. Ken Mattingly carried out a similar examination of Orion, noticing that the outer thermal blankets on the rear of the Lunar Module were badly damaged, and hanging off the spacecraft. These had been torn loose at engine ignition on the surface the Moon, but the thermal blankets underneath appeared to be intact.http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/a16summary.htm (http://history.nasa.gov/ap16fj/a16summary.htm)
No because they were in a TV studio on Earth! :PSo no problems for the rover either. :)
I've emailed Andrew Johnson for a copy of the slide where he overlays the two pictures. I'll link him to this chat too. ;)That would be great. :)
I mean there is a force acting on the astronaut in the opposite direction to gravity. My contention is that it is a wire or something elastic which the astronauts are suspended from to simulate low gravity.To me it looks like that force comes from the astronaut's right foot and his left hand, supported by the other astronaut.
The astronauts were (as supposedly as the rover) on the Moon's surface, did they got boiled?
One thing I think makes a difference and makes people see their movements as unreal is that the astronaut's centre of gravity wasn't on the same place as if they didn't have their life support systems on their backs, as those weighed some tens of kg.
One other thing...Something like this?
Back in the 60's BEFORE the missions they showed us fancy rigs on Earth that simulated 1/6th gravity. They had on the suits and the full back packs
When they showed us how high they could easily jump it was very high... they could do flips with ease... long distance jumps...
Study Conclusionhttp://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
Professor of University of California G. Schiller has noted: "To be successful, manipulation should remain invisible. The success of the manipulation is guaranteed when the manipulated believe that everything happens naturally and inevitably. In short, manipulation requires a false reality in which its presence will not be felt". Very often this false reality is amplified by the media.
In the convergence of these Apollo 15 pictures, more than a million equations (the number of pixels in the images) were calculated obeying the laws of optics. In order to obtain a zero stereoscopic effect for a remote landscape, typical distortion grids were generated around the photographic session sites.
Numerous Apollo 15 photo examples indicate an identical distortion grid – a projection screen at the distance of 100-120 metres from the front of the studio stage. A serious falsification of the true lunarscape, in particular, an artificial trench 30-60 metres in width given for the lunar Rima Hadley which is actually 1,200 metres in width; the image of this remote lunarscape being projected onto the curved background screen; and ‘astronaut’ photographers taking pictures in front of it in a studio set.
The Apollo 15 photographic record contradicts the stereoscopic parallax verification method. The apparent change in the relative positions of objects by moving the camera when the camera angles are separated by several tens of cms show that:
the distance to distant objects such as mountains is not tens of kilometres but is no more
than a few hundred metres;
the landscape is not continuous, but with clear lines of separation;
there is movement between nearby sections of the panorama relative to other sections.
Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.
These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.
I have the animation from Andrew Collins. I will upload to Photobucket later and try to get permission to use it on the website.
Tell him we will THUMP his books :D They are on Amazon ;)Sorry, its Andrew Johnson. I was mixing up my researchers. (I like Andy Collins too though.