collapse

Author Topic: Apollo Reality  (Read 14924 times)

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Apollo Reality
« on: December 14, 2011, 02:48:53 PM »
Apollo Reality

When I was a kid... (a long time ago... in a galaxy far far away...) I was an Apollo groupie...

Then over the years in research from various angles I started seeing flaws and holes in the story...

Then I met John  ;D

So just to set the records straight..

At this point in time... (subject to possible revision :D )

I believe we had an active small base on the farside of the Moon as early as 1962. I believe we were mining it shortly after.

Of this I have gathered a lot of evidence that satisfies me and I will present it soon. We also went so far as to have NASA get us some pics of Tsiolkowsky region from LRO. They offered a chance to take pics of any area 'for scientific' purposes... So Jack applied for geological reasons, we wanted to see if any rocks had been disturbed...  they did... there were... and even uber skeptic ArMaP at ATS did the work highlighting the movement

As to Apollo series, especially 11...

I have so much documentation that shows monkey business, yet there are obvious problems like the laser reflectors left behind...

Point is IF they did indeed go... why did they leave such a trail of fakery, of loosing all the video tapes and other things that don't add up.

Though this is an old and touchy subject... I would like to use this thread to reexamine all the available data, both pro and con, and see which crater we land in.

Now one of my biggest issues in all the photos is this....

In the lunar orbiter photos we see sharp jagged peaks, rough rocks and debris scattered everywhere...

In the Apollo photos ALL the hills in the background are smooth and rounded... no crags, no sharp spires... just smoothe rounded dust covered hills that are generally blurry compared to the rest of the image.

Now amazingly and to his credit, ArMaP also was bothered by this and we planned to do a joint thread on ATS

IF there is no atmosphere on the moon, how do we account for these smooth eroded hills? Why were we shown jagged rocks in LO images and smooth hills in Apollo?

Even here on Earth where we know we have erosion, we still have jagged rock peaks

What I need is to match locations between Apollo images and LO images...

But to my eye, the hills seem added into the pictures. And why are they blurry? If there is no atmosphere they should be sharp and clear, no matter the distance.

Laser targets? well if there is a base up there, doesn't seem hard to drive over and plop down a few artifacts ( and leave some tracks  ;D

So to begin let me post John's favorite video clip...

John's Favorite Moon Landing Video

[youtube]mouUUWpEec0[/youtube]

« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 05:38:39 PM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2011, 09:41:04 PM »
Apollo Reality

The following article is reprinted by permission. The photos are from a book about the history of Langley, so as such are authentic photos.

By Sam Colby
nasascam@yahoo.com


How, and where NASA faked the lunar orbit, landing and lift off.

 This web page will show how, and where NASA faked the lunar approach, lunar orbit, lunar landing, and lunar take off, for all the Apollo Moon landing video's. Contrary to what many believe, the sequences were not shot in a desert, Hollywood studio, or Area 51. There may have been the odd picture taken at Area 51, and a few Apollo pictures that were taken in some remote desert, but the majority of stills and video were performed at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. Scientist's at NASA knew in the early 60's that a manned mission to the Moon was impossible within 8 years, and a plan to fake the Moon landings was put into operation.

  NASA's fake Moon pictures were taken at various locations such as KSC, JSC, LRC, and of course the odd one or two desert locations. I would also like to point out to that the art of faking both still photographs, and movie film is as old as photography and film itself. The 1930's film "King Kong" showed a huge gorilla scaling up the Empire State building. If it's on film are we led to believe it's real? No of course not, but that is exactly what PAN's, (Pro Apollo Nutters) are claiming. Their ridiculous debunking claim is that digital manipulation of photographs and film was not available back in the 1960's, but they did not have digital artifacts back in 1930 when the film "King Kong" was made.  Langley is NASA's space research facility, and staff are sworn to secrecy. All files pertaining to the Apollo (fake Moon missions) are stored there and not due for declassification until 2026. Other artifacts including the burnt out Apollo 7 capsule which killed Grissom, Chaffe and White. They have the facilities to perform anything, fake backgrounds, simulated orbiters etc. First piece of evidence is the large 250 foot traverse crane shown below. Notice fake Moon crater surface created beneath the crane.



  This crane was PURPOSELY built in 63/64 to perfect the lunar landing as close as possible to the real thing, and used to suspend both astronauts, and the LM itself. It enabled movement of the astronauts and LM in all directions, i.e., up down, left right, forward and reverse. The trial runs were so good, and with NASA, fully aware that a Moon landing was impossible, opted to use the setup for faking the alleged   film of lunar landing, and take off, whereby the flag is blown over.

  According to Bobby Braun and other NASA officials the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled LM. However NO ROCKET POWERED LM WAS EVER SUSPENDED FROM THIS CRANE. In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine. If the PAN's disagree, then perhaps they could direct me to a video or film showing how the feat was, or could be accomplished. The landings were controlled purely by traverse and lowering of the LM in the same way as a conventional crane.

  Below are more pictures showing mock LM suspended from this crane. In the center (left) picture note the circular objects on the ground floor. The vast expanse of ground area beneath this crane was ideal for creating mock lunar landscapes. In reality the area was covered with gray ash, (possibly from some coal fired power station or boiler house), or plain cement. The circular objects were then raised by crane to create authentic looking Moon craters, as shown later.





  The far right picture above is a time lapse sequence taken at night. Notice spotlights on crane gantry, and how it illuminates the ground surface. The mock LM was traversed full length of crane, and simultaneously lowered at the same time in order to create an authentic looking lunar landing, when viewed from within the mock LM itself. Power supply to the mock LM was by cable from crane tower. This enabled a large fan, (fitted beneath the mock LM), to create the dust scatter effect of a rocket engine as it descended to the fake Moon surface. The film shown to public of the LM supposedly blasting off from the Moon's surface was also created beneath this crane at LRC. The mock LM was simply attached to the crane, and hoisted very rapidly at the same time a pathetic looking blast off sparks was enacted beneath it. The film was then speeded up for showing to the public, and it is interesting to note that the camera filming this sequence cut short once the LM had reached the crane maximum height. In other words WHY didn't the camera continue to film the LM until it was out of view? Quite simply because it was not possible to do under the circumstances in which the "lift off" was faked.





The above pictures were taken by Bob Nye on June 20 1969, one month before Armstrong, err, supposedly stepped on the Moon. Picture on right shows the lander hovering above fake Moon crater surface beneath the crane. Believe me folks this is how it was done, even if Pro Apollo Nutters say no way. Picture on left, taken at night, looks like a realistic Moon setting, although I am in no doubt that some out there will actually say this photo is the Moon. I have heard so much BS from the Pro Apollo Nutters nothing would surprise me. The light source seen in left picture is the same light source that highlights Buzz Aldrin in the controversial picture of him allegedly on the Moon. Those lights are fixed at top of crane gantry, as shown in earlier picture.



The picture shown above shows Armstrong at the site in January 1970. This is 6 months after he supposedly landed on the Moon, and likewise Apollo 12 had done the same. Evidently he returned to the simulation site 6 months later to figure out how he could do it, having conned the world into believing he actually did land on the Moon 6 months before this picture was taken.

  Pictures below show how astronauts were suspended from the crane in order to simulate low gravity. They eventually settled for an upright position with the astronaut suspended by strong elastic bungee cord, so that his feet were only just touching the ground, the same way as a baby bouncer. You can try it yourself by placing a given weight at the end of an elastic band. As the astronauts walked in a given direction, the overhead crane moved in the same direction. This enabled the astronauts to literally float along in a crude "Moon walk" fashion.
 


There is a classic piece of film, and I have only ever seen it once. It shows two astronauts supposedly on the Moon, but one astronaut is following behind the other in a dead straight line, and at a fixed distance. Two partners in a strange desolate place would not walk in such a stupid fashion, and so far apart. It's obvious both are following a given line/route, i.e., the line or route in which the two overhead cranes are forcing them to follow. In the pictures below, it can be seen how astronauts were suspended from this crane. It is interesting to note that high backward leg swing in far left picture. That high backward leg swing is identical to the back leg swing in the Apollo 17 photo of Harrison Schmitt supposedly tripping up on the Moon (shown right). In another video sequence of Apollo 17 astronauts supposedly cavorting on the Moon, one of them is actually suspended 2 feet horizontally off the ground. This sequence lasts for a couple of seconds, so how do NASA officials explain that, and why is it that no one else has passed comment on this totally absurd picture shot? It's clear evidence that person in space suit is suspended from wires, or some other line. The picture below shows astronaut suspended via a tubular spring to create the "bounce effect" as though they were walking in reduced gravity on the Moon.





Picture on left is a view taken from top of the Langley crane, looking down onto fake lunar surface created beneath. Picture right shows Donald Hewes beneath the Langley crane. Hewes created the fake lunar surface, and was heavily involved in the fake lunar landing and lift off video's.


CONTINUED...

Astronauts on wires?

[youtube]Zz9Bzi_GyD0[/youtube]
« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 09:11:30 PM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #2 on: December 16, 2011, 09:41:13 PM »
PART TWO
The Studio Moon Set


By Sam Colby
nasascam@yahoo.com

 
  Still not convinced? Then maybe this NASA archive, dated 26 August 1969, and copied word for word, will change your mind. It relates to Donald Hewes, who oversaw operations/filming with the fake landing and take off. Read it, then think hard about it. Why were NASA phaffing around with fake lunar landscapes, one month AFTER Armstrong supposedly pulled it off for real? Answer, to make the fake film look ever more realistic, when future, higher quality images were broadcast to an already gullible audience.

Quote
  Looking down from the top of the gantry on to the simulated Lunar Surface. James Hansen writes: "To make the simulated landings more authentic, [Donald] Hewes and his men filled the base of the huge eight legged, red and white structure with dirt and modeled it to resemble the moon's surface. They erected floodlights at the proper angles to simulate lunar light and installed a black screen at the far end of the gantry to mimic the airless lunar "sky." Hewes personally climbed into the fake craters with cans of everyday black enamel to spray them so that the astronauts could experience the shadows that they would see during the actual moon landing." (p. 375) From A.W. Vigil, "Piloted Space Flight Simulation at Langley Research Center," Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, November 27 - December 1, 1966. "Ground based simulators are not very satisfactory for studying the problems associated with the final phases of landing. This is due primarily to the fact that the visual scene cannot be simulated with sufficient realism. For this reason it is preferable to go to some sort of flight test simulator which can provide real life visual cues. One research facility designed to study the final phases of lunar landing is in operation at Langley. ... The facility is an overhead crane structure about 250 feet tall and 400 feet long. The crane system supports five sixths of the vehicle's weight through servo driven vertical cables. The remaining one sixth of the vehicle weight pulls the vehicle downward simulating the lunar gravitational force. During actual flights the overhead crane system is slaved to keep the cable near vertical at all times. A gimbal system on the vehicle permits angular freedom for pitch, roll, and yaw. The facility is capable of testing vehicles up to 20,000 pounds. A research vehicle, weighing 10,500 pounds fully loaded, is being used and is shown [in this picture]. This vehicle is provided with a large degree of flexibility in cockpit positions, instrumentation, and control parameters. It has main engines of 6,000 pounds thrust, throttle able down to 600 pounds, and attitude jets. This facility is studying the problems of the final 200 feet of lunar landing and the problems of maneuvering about in close proximity to the lunar surface."

Published in James R. Hansen, Space flight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center From Sputnik to Apollo, (Washington: NASA, 1995), pp. 373-378.



Spaceflight revolution: NASA Langley Research Center from Sputnik to Apollo
James R. Hansen

 
  We now go inside the Langley Research Center complex itself to see how they faked the lunar approach and close orbit of the Moon's surface. We've all seen the film supposedly taken from the LM as it approached the Moon, and then begin to orbit. The speed at which it changes from approach to lunar orbit is utterly ridiculous, as any craft traveling at that speed would crash straight into the Moon. No one could control a craft in such as way as shown in the film, and in reality no one did. The following pictures show exactly how it was done.

 



  Size does matter believe me, especially when NASA want to create a fake lunar surface as shown in the above picture on left. It literally dwarfs the two men stood in front of it. It's unbelievable the time, trouble and expense that NASA incurred purely to fake the lunar missions. It was of course done purely to convince the world they were the leaders in space. This very large picture, and others were used in conjunction with a rail mounted camera, which also focused on a large rotating PLASTER PARIS model of the Moon, ) shown on the right).   NASA knew, (after Kennedy's speech in 61), that a lunar landing before 1970 was impossible. Realizing this they had no option but to fake the missions. A program was launched at LRC to design props/backgrounds etc. to convince the media they had achieved the goal set by Kennedy. The pictures above were scanned from a book, hence the poor quality, however the following pictures are from NASA.
 


  The high resolution picture above left shows a 20' diameter sphere which can be rotated from below. In the left of that picture can be seen a huge blank placard. This is the scene before LRC staff began work on converting the sphere to an authentic looking Moon complete with craters, ( for lunar approach), and the placards were to be lunar orbit. Notice also the rail track around placards, (there were 3 placards in all). Note moving trolley on that track. The camera was mounted on that trolley. It first began to film the rotating sphere, (lunar approach), it then swung around and began scanning the fake lunar surface on placard, (lunar orbit).



  The picture above shows the sphere after modeling work. Pretty impressive eh? Notice how background is in the dark. Remove that bloke from the picture and you could EASILY pass this photo as being taken by the Apollo command module circling the Moon. It is evident that there were many people involved in the faking of Apollo, and NASA claim that if it were faked someone would have spoken out by now. Well LRC staff are sworn to secrecy, and they must have been 100% in favor of the fakery, otherwise they would not have participated in the first place.




 
The two pictures above show how LRC made "plaster paris" copies of the Moon craters on the placards. They are checking that the craters are exactly to scale and layout, as craters shown on the lunar photographs previously taken by high magnification telescope. (Editors Note: Lunar Orbiter Photos 1965-1967) Notice the sphere in left hand picture after modeling work. This sphere had a light inside it which was translucent on the outside, hence the appearance. The large placards with Moon craters was also backlit. Turn off all your lighting, and you end up with the picture shown below left. This is how the Moon would look in the void of space if you could get close enough to it, however no one, not even Armstrong could get anywhere near to the real thing.




 
  NASA claim that picture below is far side of Moon, taken by Apollo 8. Compare this sphere with one shown above in left hand pic. It speaks for itself does it not? In all of these pictures notice the black background. This of course made it easier for touching  up photo's to ensure that background space was indeed black.




 
  These two pictures prove that you do not need pressurized suits to create an authentic Moon approach or orbit. Take a film whilst approaching the plaster paris model, and it would be enough to convince a gullible audience that film was taken whilst approaching the Moon.



  This final picture shows Charlie Duke (pointing), and John Young, at the simulator controls for lunar approach/orbit. The picture on TV screen is reminiscent of the pictures we saw on our TV screens. We were told it was the Moon, but the picture showing on TV screen in photograph is not the Moon. It is a camera filming the plaster paris model of Moon.
Both John Young and Charlie Duke were heavily involved in faking of the Apollo Moon missions.

  So there you have it. I have shown how NASA faked lunar approach/orbit, and lunar landing/take, so next time you see a film on TV of any Apollo craft supposedly approaching, orbiting, landing on, or taking off from the Moon, you will know exactly how it was done.
 
This work was created by Sam Colby and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Pegasus R.C or its members. However the presentation is well done and contains much historical data and photographs not easily found, and as it touches on the subject of NASA coverup, we felt it a valuable addition. The reader is left to form their own conclusions. The original and other pages concerning this issue can be found at...


By Sam Colby
nasascam@yahoo.com

APOLLO REALITY
« Last Edit: August 13, 2012, 05:41:07 PM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #3 on: December 16, 2011, 09:42:18 PM »
Apollo Zero

A new look at an old conspiracy...

Very well done and some new info as well

This one is for John  ;D

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P47fB1joHSA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qIZUhE25KA[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKhuwI6EDfI[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AauvIcbyPTY[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-q5Ou9FIMo[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJJDUpxeQp8[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwZq3_xkaMk[/youtube]


Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #4 on: December 16, 2011, 09:55:51 PM »
  John Lear

Quote
Originally posted by majicbar

There is absolutely no doubt that we went to the Moon.

There is not the slightest possibility that any Apollo Mission went to or orbited the moon simply because the moon's gravity is 70% that of earth and there was not enough fuel (22,000 lbs.) in the lander to deorbit, land, take-off, rendezvous and dock with the command module.

That the moon has 70% of the earth's gravity has been worked out and proven mathematically using the Bullialdus//Newton Law of Inverse Square in a 3 body equation for Apollo 11. (Earth, Moon, Sun.)

There is breathable air and the daytime sky is saffron yellow (Menger).

For all you Apollo Huggers you are not using all the facts available to you in your misguided beliefs.

There is no basis for Newton's assumption that gravitational force is due to and proportional to the quantity and or density of matter. Keplers Third Law trumps Newtons second law and those are the facts.

If you don't have a background in College Math and read Pari Spolters "Gravitational force of the Sun" then there is no use debating this issue because you are uninformed.

John Lear

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #5 on: December 16, 2011, 09:57:54 PM »
Originally posted by Gigas

I found the video panning of the landers escape module a rather questionable impossibility unless a guy was left behind on the moon to pan the cam so flawlessly. And it was in color too.

But, ya know, the one thing most telling is this, beside who videoed the first step on the moon, why is there no landing propellant blast indications. After all, we see plenty of soft moon dust laying there as if undisturbed by anything but moon boots.

There is so much phony stuff with the landings that it should be obvious to anyone with a functional mind.



OK, tell us why no landing blast from that engine nozzle just a foot above the surface. Shouldn't there be a hole with a blow off perimeter where the moon dust is blown out.


Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #6 on: December 16, 2011, 10:01:35 PM »
Originally posted by spacemaverick58

Zorgon,  a question if I may.

In the first youtube presentation (Apollo Zero 1 of 7) it is said that there are two Van Allen belts.  I heard recently that a 3rd had been discovered.  Problem is, I can't find the article.  Do you have any insight or knowledge of a 3rd belt?

Editor's ETA:

Never mind, I found it.

An orbital nuclear detonation in 1962 code-named Starfish Prime created a third Van Allen belt composed of high-energy electrons. This belt was a hundred times more intense than the existing Van Allen belts and was computed to have a half-life of 20 years. [Bennett and Percy, Dark Moon, p. 309]

An answer to my question:

The authors give no reference for the claim that this artificial radiation belt was "a hundred times" more "intense" than the naturally-occurring belts. Nor do they define what is meant by "intense". The Starfish Prime test did in fact produce a temporary artificial radiation belt, and it's true that this belt persisted longer than anticipated. But it was not an impediment to the Apollo missions because it had dissipated to a safe level by then, and was very small (and easily avoided) to start with.

Radioactive half-life applies to radioisotopes only. It does not apply to clouds of magnetically-retained charged particles. The authors imply that their theory is confirmed by expert authors, but in fact the author they cite discusses only the general concept of radioactive half-life. Bennett and Percy are responsible for having misapplied it to this problem. Radioactive half-life and particle belts have nothing at all to do with each other. The dispersal of this belt doesn't have anything to do with radioactive decay, and a great deal to do with solar weather and shifting magnetic fields.

The authors argue that such a radiation belt would still be highly intense to this day. However they have shown no evidence that any of the radiation from Starfish Prime is still there. Instead they refer to irrelevant scientific principles and claim it "must" still be there.

A possible answer to radiation shielding on the Apollo series.  I had wondered about the Van Allen belts myself and the affect on astronauts going through the belts to the moon (if they indeed did go). 

The jury is still out for me on that one as I do more of my own research!

Information obtained from the following link:

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 10:06:06 PM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #7 on: December 16, 2011, 10:03:12 PM »
ellirium113

That 1st picture says a lot. Look in the landing gear foot pad dishes...NO DUST...no skid marks...did they float down gently like a feather? Considering they used rockets to help their descent you should see dust all over nooks and crannies on this thing in a real world scenario. Lowering it there with a crane though would not cause this. If they did land on the moon that picture would not convince me it happened IMO.

Originally posted by spacemaverick58

Just for the sake of argument regarding the dust I looked at this site regarding the dust. I am by no means and expert but look for those things that give me evidence. If the evidence can be proved above being circumstantial then I stand with that evidence. However, I maintain an open mind to alternatives. I found this on a website regarding the lunar regolith or dust.

http://www.clavius.org/gravdust.html

I found the site to be interesting.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 10:05:49 PM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #8 on: December 16, 2011, 10:08:46 PM »
  John Lear

Quote
Originally posted by majicbar
The nozzle of the Decent Propulsion System rocket was never closer than 6 feet from the surface. Sensor legs were attached to the landing pads so that he engine could be cut off before landing to prevent a blowout by the nozzle contacting the surface. The exhaust pressure created an even flow outward from the nozzle and the pressure was never so great to cause a hole to develop. Note how the ground under the lander is blown evenly smooth and not rough as it is in other shots away form the lander.



That would be a nice excuse but the audio tapes say 'touchdown' before they say "engine off" in all 6 landings.

And I can guarantee you that piece of junk isn't going to glide 50 feet. Its not even going to glide 1 foot in 70% gravity.

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #9 on: December 16, 2011, 10:09:31 PM »
More soon....

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #10 on: December 16, 2011, 10:50:39 PM »
The Gravity is all Wrong

Back in the day I recall seeing NASA training scenes showing how high the astronauts would be able to jump in 1/6th G, but when I watch the footage on the Moon, they seem to be struggling more than they should.  A 120 pound rock would only weigh 20 pounds on the Moon under 1/6th G... but if you watch the videos they cannot move rocks of that size... and even comment on it in one video that I will have to relocate...

Well I found an original NASA video of the jump and walk training film from Langley, added to Apollo Reality's update and put on youtube. Watch this video at the 4 minute mark and notice how high he jumps when its set to 1/6th G

[youtube]alXPrrEUcEY[/youtube]

Now for comparison lets look at this

Apollo 16 crew salutes the flag (Moon Jump)

[youtube]icayHrkoBvc[/youtube]

"Houston.... we have a problem....!"   ;D

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #11 on: December 16, 2011, 10:58:43 PM »
FAKE APOLLO 8 ORBIT

Another one from Apollo Reality... this one is a composite of real footage and footage simulated using the equipment shown early at Langley.  Watch the beginning sequences...

Quote
The video on the left below, was shown to the media as being the Apollo 8 orbit of the Moon and Earth, (I would like to point out that the views of Earth in this video are genuine, whilst those of the Moon are not). It encapsulates all sequences at the Langley fake Moon studio. The film shows high definition craters, which is the fake Moon surface beneath the Langley crane. This is followed by filming of the placards whereby at the end of plaster paris placards, the camera can be seen to rotate through 180 degrees, move up, and return scan of the placards. The camera is then filming the 20' sphere, and pans up to show the curvature of the sphere. This video is just so ridiculous. Notice at the end how the Command Module can be seen falling away and reflected in astroNOTS visor. How did they get to the Moon with no Command Module, as there was no separation of modules on the Apollo 8 mission.

[youtube]VnBtYpMgFZI[/youtube]

Quote
Uploaded by APOLLOREALITY on Jan 19, 2010

This video proves once and for all the fakery of Apollo. It is claimed as being shot from Apollo 8 as it orbited the Moon. Notice at 0:29 how the camera filming slows to almost a halt then rotates through a full 180 degrees before going back on itself at 0:34. If this were being filmed from a module orbiting the Moon IT WOULD BE TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR SUCH A MANOUVER, LEAST OF ALL IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. Maybe some of you Pro Apollo Nutters out there can explain the feasibility of this, (you may need to increase your anti delusion medication before contemplating how such a scenario could have happened). If you still can't figure it out look at the movie camera and fake Moon placards at the APOLLOREALITY webpage. The film sequence from 0:15 to 0:23 is the fake lunar surface beneath the Langley crane, and 0:48 to 0:54 is the filming of the 20' diameter sphere at Langley. Considering there were no separation of modules at the Moon why is the Command Service Module shown being reflected in astroNOTS visor between 0:57 and 1:03? Meanwhile 0:36 to 0:47 is just to laugable for words. LOL



Quote
There was no need for NASA to land a man on the Moon before 1970, as the photograph above left shows. Project Apollo staff at Langley had a firm grip on it as early as 1964. Move out the way fella's, this is meant to be a picture taken by astroNOTS approaching the Moon.


APOLLO REALITY

"The Moon is essentially  gray, no color, looks like plaster of Paris...!" - James Lovell

AUDIO

And ever since then NASA has been showing us the Moon in gray scale.  Below the small image of Earth was taken in TRUE COLOR on the way to the moon from the Clementine satellite...



NASA took that image and enhanced it and saturated it, then pasted it into an image with the moon in obvious gray scale...  :o  Well there you have absolute proof of 'image manipulation' by NASA to send a message...

The Moon is GRAY....

« Last Edit: December 16, 2011, 11:46:15 PM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #12 on: December 17, 2011, 12:04:55 AM »
The Tin Can that went to the Moon?

So I have some questions... This Lunar Lander looks like a tin can. Now I have heard John talk about this thing and why it couldn't have possibly made the trip... and we will look at John's stuff in the thread... but Sam Colby has found some interesting pictures direct from NASA that I have never seen before and quite frankly look to me like there is NO WAY that thing had people in it in space.   :o

By Sam Colby
nasascam@yahoo.com




Quote
This photograph was taken inside building No 5 at Johnson Space Center.

It shows astroNOTS sorting over disused metal cabinets, and other junk paraphernalia from which to build a LM for fake photographs. Note the octagonal shaped box left of center, which was used to build the model LM.

Now I want you all to look VERY CLOSELY at the metal work on this contraption and explain to me HOW this thing is space worthy?  :o



Quote
The front end of this LM appears to have undergone some sort of bashing with a sledgehammer or other, well it's only a cardboard model innit, set against a fake backdrop of the Moon surface.

I only hope the astroNOTS were wearing their hard hats when the battering took place.

Okay so WTF? And before you say "Its a FAKE" here is the original in high resolution from NASA



NASA AS16-122-19533 Full Size

Quote
AS16-122-19533 (23 April 1972) --- The ascent stage of the Apollo 16 Lunar Module (LM) approaches the Command and Service Modules (CSM) during rendezvous, with a contrasting background of darkness and the moon's Sea of Fertility (Mare Fecundatatis). Taken from the CSM, the photo shows the aft side of the LM during a yaw maneuver. Note the buckled thermal panels. Messier and Messier A (right center) are among the most readily identifiable features on the surface below. While astronauts John W. Young, commander; and Charles M. Duke Jr., lunar module pilot; descended in the Apollo 16 LM "Orion" to explore the Descartes highlands landing site on the moon, astronaut Thomas K. Mattingly II, command module pilot, remained with the CSM "Casper" in lunar orbit.

NASA AS16-122-19533 (23 April 1972)

NASA acknowledges the buckled panels... with a brief note. Below is a close up of the twisted and buckled plates.







And then there is THIS.... from Lunar and Planetary Institute they show AS16-122-19533 to look like this before NASA 'color didling to make the moon GRAY again



Quote
The photo below is to ridiculous for words. NASA claim this is the actual Apollo 16 Lunar Module on the Moon. Look at all that gold foil around the base, and why is that gold foil not seen in the photo of Apollo 11 LM, after all they were of the same design. I would like to know how they got the Rover out without tearing this gold foil. In addition to the gold foil there is also some sought of black fabric draped just anywhere. What a mess, moreover what a joke. Look at side of LM. It's made up of sheets of thin metal pop riveted together, or maybe cardboard held together with double sided tape. Even the joints are not seated flat, but buckle out in all directions. The under side looks like corrugated sheet, and even that does not mate correctly with the vertical panels. If this is top quality engineering for such an important mission, then I'm a banana. Can't you PAN's see that this is a quick knock-up job, taken in a studio here on Earth, to satisfy gullible people like yourselves, it could not have landed on Moon. Incidentally Grumman built a life size LM in cardboard, I think this is it.




Quote
In the final picture shown below we take a closer look at this supposedly high quality work from Grumman Engineering, and can see just what a botch job that made of it. NASA inform us that this piece of junk cost $350,000,000, (over $25 billion at todays prices). Look at the angle strip on corner edges, they cannot even get the beading strip angle correct, and have left it jutting out.  I don't think NASA is taking the p**s, I know they are. It's a joke, because I have seen better quality work from kindergarten kids building a stage prop for pantomime. Lets face it the whole Apollo project was a pantomime and the Apollo astronauts were nothing more than clowns, but it beggars belief that there are still millions of people around the globe who actually believe the garbage put out by NASA. I find it somewhat scary to think that there are so many people in the world who are completely out of touch with reality. Blame the CIA, after all they saw that TV could be used to brainwash the media, and boy did they take full advantage of it.



By Sam Colby
nasascam@yahoo.com

APOLLO REALITY

Wow... even the thruster housing is all buckled... How can this be?

This sound file is labeled Duke.. has anyone heard it before and who is 'Duke'?  You have anything John?

WAV AUDIO FILE





« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 01:59:22 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #13 on: December 17, 2011, 12:27:45 AM »
Okay I had to check about that ripped gold material... :D In the following image you can see that they ripped open the foil to get the rover out...  But the buckled plates are clearly visible literally popping at the seams.  How did that thing hold any cabin pressure?   :o



NASA AS16-107-17435 Full Size Image

Here are the closeups of the buckled plates and you can see insulation coming out  :o







« Last Edit: December 17, 2011, 02:00:10 AM by zorgon »

Offline zorgon

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 20299
  • Gold 883
Re: Apollo Reality
« Reply #14 on: December 17, 2011, 02:04:48 AM »
Need some help verifying this one... 
When was this image taken?




According to Sam Colby...

Quote
This picture shows Buzz Aldrin in his Apollo 11 capsule, returning from, ermm, the Moon, AND of course in the blackness of space. But wait what do we see through the capsule window? Why it's the light blue haze of Earth's atmosphere, living proof that capsule was only in Earth orbit. In fact that light blue haze streaming through capsule window can be seen in video coverage from EVERY Apollo mission, Apollo 8 through to Apollo 17, as all were simply EARTH ORBITING.

I will return to this one when I get more data and input...


 


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC
affiliate_link
Free Click Tracking
Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

* Recent Posts

Re: Immaculate Deception by A51Watcher
[Today at 10:42:04 PM]


Re: bigfoot caught on sherrif's dashcam in Georgia by The Seeker
[Today at 01:00:14 PM]


Re: bigfoot caught on sherrif's dashcam in Georgia by space otter
[Today at 10:45:48 AM]


Re: bigfoot caught on sherrif's dashcam in Georgia by ArMaP
[Today at 09:29:01 AM]


Re: Immaculate Deception by astr0144
[Today at 07:19:02 AM]


Re: bigfoot caught on sherrif's dashcam in Georgia by The Seeker
[Today at 06:14:15 AM]


Re: Another Roswell program making conclusions of what really happened by astr0144
[Today at 05:49:49 AM]


Re: Immaculate Deception by astr0144
[Today at 05:19:55 AM]


Re: Another Roswell program making conclusions of what really happened by petrus4
[Today at 04:23:13 AM]


Re: Another Roswell program making conclusions of what really happened by ArMaP
[Today at 04:02:42 AM]


Re: Immaculate Deception by zorgon
[Today at 02:38:25 AM]


Re: Immaculate Deception by zorgon
[Today at 02:26:47 AM]


Re: Immaculate Deception by zorgon
[Today at 02:17:29 AM]


Re: bigfoot caught on sherrif's dashcam in Georgia by petrus4
[Today at 12:38:21 AM]


Re: bigfoot caught on sherrif's dashcam in Georgia by zorgon
[April 24, 2018, 11:41:46 PM]


Re: Another Roswell program making conclusions of what really happened by astr0144
[April 24, 2018, 06:10:16 PM]


Re: Another Roswell program making conclusions of what really happened by ArMaP
[April 24, 2018, 05:23:07 PM]


Another Roswell program making conclusions of what really happened by astr0144
[April 24, 2018, 05:10:56 PM]


Re: Immaculate Deception by astr0144
[April 24, 2018, 03:36:01 PM]


Re: Immaculate Deception by astr0144
[April 24, 2018, 03:15:50 PM]