|
Jackson Holly
|
 |
« Reply #400 on: June 16, 2009, 12:02:27 PM » |
|
Its total BS... first they complain they dont see tracks although there are some or the pictures are copped in a way that you cant see any tracks cause its croppen almost right at the tire. Mister, there should be tracks BETWEEN the front wheel and back wheel in the cropped shot. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #401 on: June 16, 2009, 12:07:56 PM » |
|
Yes, I am ... do you have a better suggestion to explain no tracks? I can see tracks in the first picture for sure. The wheels of the lunar are wire mesh, they would not leave what YOU expect, they throw soil backwards as can be clearly seen in many lunar rover videos, are you saying it's impossible for them to have been covered in this way. Footprints compress the soil underneath, the wire mesh threw it backwards. And.. this is amazing... are you really suggesting they dropped the rover in on a crane? I'll ask again... why would they do that? To make it look like there were no tracks? Really? These are the kinds of shots they worked hard to prevent from getting to the public by hiding or destroying them. Other pix do show trax when the rover was actually driven on set. But, they did make dumb errors. This is funny.. dropping a rover on the set from a crane instead of driving it on... that's a dumb error. Yeah.. I guess it's easy to make that kind of error. Again.. why would they do that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #402 on: June 16, 2009, 12:10:42 PM » |
|
Mister, there should be tracks BETWEEN the front wheel and back wheel in the cropped shot.
Not if soil is thrown back. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #403 on: June 16, 2009, 12:35:32 PM » |
|
I can see tracks in the first picture for sure.
The wheels of the lunar are wire mesh, they would not leave what YOU expect, they throw soil backwards as can be clearly seen in many lunar rover videos, are you saying it's impossible for them to have been covered in this way. Footprints compress the soil underneath, the wire mesh threw it backwards.
And.. this is amazing... are you really suggesting they dropped the rover in on a crane?
I'll ask again... why would they do that? To make it look like there were no tracks?
Really?
This is funny.. dropping a rover on the set from a crane instead of driving it on... that's a dumb error.
Yeah.. I guess it's easy to make that kind of error.
Again.. why would they do that?
I have said that there are plenty of pictures showing trax ... see below ... the set had to be maintained 'virgin' to complete the illusion ... they would drop in the props and the astronauts who would play out the scene leaving the boot-tracks. The original APOLLO 11 shots were almost certainly shot onstage only ... the following 'missions' were more complicated w/the rover and they came up with different solutions for different shots.~~~~~~~~~~  AS15-85-11403 ~~~~~~~~~~  I believe this is at LANGLEY if I remember correctly ... looks like an early shot as they put the set together ... if a "test", why the black backdrop? ~~~~~~~~~~  Is this convincing to anybody? An out-take ... what happened to their 'stiff' flag? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #404 on: June 16, 2009, 12:44:47 PM » |
|
I have said that there are plenty of pictures showing trax ... see below ... the set had to be maintained 'virgin' to complete the illusion ... What f*cking illusion? The illusion that they dropped the rover in there on a crane? Are you insane? You already said they rolled it on the set for other photos. Just where are your powers of logic? Oh.. you're a hoax believer... sorry... logic is not a strong point. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
isagogik
Member
 Offline
Posts: 33
|
|
« Reply #405 on: June 16, 2009, 01:14:21 PM » |
|
The rover's left back wheel is in the air because the front wheel is on a height and the two other much lower. It is very obvious if you really look at the picture. In two of the three pictures it is also easy to see the tracks, and in one (the close up) you can't really see any. But that could just be because of how the photo was taken. I mean if you can't see the tracks on the other two it means that there is something with the photos that makes them hard to see.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
iks83
|
|
« Reply #406 on: June 16, 2009, 01:18:33 PM » |
|
They always keep on piling more and more BS never staying at one issue... stars, stones, jumps, size, flag, tracks, lights, radiation and on and on and on. and never really prooveing anything. And its so easy... just make the same calculations on the data and tell us where they show its impossible. But no they never do just like the noplaners... always showing you pictures they cant understand saying look here look there its fake blablabla. And always contradicting ones... look here no tracks... but there are tracks... there are no stars!!!1111oneone... but there are stars... its just... this board needs a ignore function. you cant debate them cause they always will go into another issue when they get cornered. omfg no tracks!?!?!! they must have used a crane!  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #407 on: June 16, 2009, 01:30:48 PM » |
|
you cant debate them cause they always will go into another issue when they get cornered. Always! |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #408 on: June 16, 2009, 01:35:16 PM » |
|
They always keep on piling more and more BS never staying at one issue... stars, stones, jumps, size, flag, tracks, lights, radiation and on and on and on. and never really prooveing anything. And its so easy... just make the same calculations on the data and tell us where they show its impossible. But no they never do just like the noplaners... always showing you pictures they cant understand saying look here look there its fake blablabla. And always contradicting ones... look here no tracks... but there are tracks... there are no stars!!!1111oneone... but there are stars... its just... this board needs a ignore function. you cant debate them cause they always will go into another issue when they get cornered. omfg no tracks!?!?!! they must have used a crane! LOL and the fact that this has gone on for 11 pages is proof of this ! Those who believe , believe. Those who doubt, doubt ! Really we do have more important things to put our brain cells to work on no? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
Dok
|
|
« Reply #409 on: June 16, 2009, 02:06:36 PM » |
|
Well I can certainly see them in this picture.
Are you seriously suggesting they dropped the rover from a crane?
Why?
So that there would be no tracks?
really?? could you point them out please??  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #410 on: June 16, 2009, 02:11:53 PM » |
|
What f*cking illusion? The illusion that they dropped the rover in there on a crane?
The illusion that they were shooting the moon.
Are you insane?
No.
You already said they rolled it on the set for other photos.
I said they drove onto the set sometimes when it worked for the shot.
Just where are your powers of logic?
Que?
Oh.. you're a hoax believer... sorry... logic is not a strong point.
Yes, I am very much a hoax believer ... if you haven't noticed, that is what they do.
~~~~~~~ The rover's left back wheel is in the air because the front wheel is on a height and the two other much lower. It is very obvious if you really look at the picture. In two of the three pictures it is also easy to see the tracks, and in one (the close up) you can't really see any. But that could just be because of how the photo was taken. I mean if you can't see the tracks on the other two it means that there is something with the photos that makes them hard to see.
The back wheel is off the ground for what reason?
The first no-trax pix has some lines in the background ... several as a matter of fact ... but they don't look like trax to me ... see how the lines veer off sharply behind the rover? But If you want to believe they are the rover trax, OK. I will put up more no trax pix if you like ... I thought these were good examples. Showing the SUV stuck in the sand is bogus BTW ...
You did see the pix of trax (no rover) in my last post?
One more:  Donald Hewes beneath the Langley crane. Hewes created the fake lunar surfaces there.~~~~~~~~~~ From a NASA archive dated August 26, 1969 a month after the APOLLO 11 flight. Why were they going ahead with MORE REALISTIC "testing" after the Apollo program was in full swing?  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, Spaceflight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center From Sputnik to Apollo, (Washington: NASA, 1995), pp. 373-378.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This is not a court of law and I am not trying to prove anything with this information ... what I am trying to do, is to sow some seeds of truth as I do in other NWO related sleight-of-hand. They set up the situation as a 'test' ... 'simulation' ... an 'exercise', then switched to live.The months (years?) of astronaut 'training' was said to require all the expensive hardware, etc ... and realistic movie-making sets ... thus the budget and the cover for filming the bogus pictures.~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #411 on: June 16, 2009, 02:23:03 PM » |
|
Voshkod3 -- how would you comment on the classified footage showing the Apollo 11 crew faking a shot of the Earth, pretending to be half way to the moon? You can see it in the Bart Sibrel film.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #412 on: June 16, 2009, 02:26:37 PM » |
|
Voshkod3: The wheels of the lunar are wire mesh, they would not leave what YOU expect, they throw soil backwards as can be clearly seen in many lunar rover videos Do you have other videos showing the rovers in action on the moon ... all I have is the one propaganda clip from Apollo 15. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dok
|
|
« Reply #413 on: June 16, 2009, 02:37:25 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dok
|
|
« Reply #414 on: June 16, 2009, 02:39:49 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
canandy
Guest
|
|
« Reply #415 on: June 16, 2009, 02:44:16 PM » |
|
LOL  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #416 on: June 16, 2009, 02:56:50 PM » |
|
Voshkod3 -- how would you comment on the classified footage showing the Apollo 11 crew faking a shot of the Earth, pretending to be half way to the moon? You can see it in the Bart Sibrel film.
I think I know which film you meant but can you confirm please? If it's the film I think then he deliberately didn't show ALL of that film sequence you mention, the WHOLE sequence proves that it wasn't a paper earth stuck on the window, the camera moves around the capsule and the earth becomes partically obscured by the window, you don't get to see that bit. Explained quite well here: http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/Bart Sibrel is a liar and a deceiver. Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX7UKH3_xuAAnd the film is not "classified" whatever that means. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #417 on: June 16, 2009, 02:59:08 PM » |
|
Voshkod3:
Do you have other videos showing the rovers in action on the moon ...
all I have is the one propaganda clip from Apollo 15.
Go to Nasas website, every mission journal is there with transcripts and video clips. The link is in this thread in one of my previous posts (where I pointed out the clip where the lunar rover is deployed). Use your brain. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #418 on: June 16, 2009, 03:01:26 PM » |
|
Sadly you probably think it is. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #419 on: June 16, 2009, 03:08:01 PM » |
|
If there was "proof" then we would not be having this discussion surely?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #420 on: June 16, 2009, 03:13:27 PM » |
|
If there was "proof" then we would not be having this discussion surely?
There is proof, there are millions of individual bits or proof that build up the project that was Apollo. The most publically documented project in history. People want to believe in UFO's too, but there is no proof.. I can't help that. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #421 on: June 16, 2009, 03:15:48 PM » |
|
I more easily believe in aliens than I believe that the moon landing was a hoax !
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #422 on: June 16, 2009, 03:16:41 PM » |
|
Its quite obvious to me and I am sure some others here that you are a disinfo agent. Really? Physician heal thyself. You have been promoting Nasa for years. You dont wish to comment on all of the stages that have been showed, but you wish to keep bringing up exposure times of the film, Your one "Golden Goose". They must pay you a pretty sum of fiat currency to continue with the deception. I'm quite willing to discuss the next point (all the points) once YOU admit that the "Apollo lunar surface pictures are fake because there are no stars" claim is b*llshit. Are you prepared to do that yet. I will nail this baby one point at a time - when you admit you are wrong about point 1, which you are, then we move on. Well? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #423 on: June 16, 2009, 03:18:16 PM » |
|
If its taken 12 pages to get to this point then this is gonna be the thread of the century ! :S
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #424 on: June 16, 2009, 03:18:54 PM » |
|
If its taken 12 pages to get to this point then this is gonna be the thread of the century ! :S
Trust me, we won't get past point 1. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #425 on: June 16, 2009, 03:19:28 PM » |
|
Then further posts are pointless no?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #426 on: June 16, 2009, 03:24:00 PM » |
|
Probably.
Hoax believers will NEVER admit they are wrong, even when they are clearly proved so.
I've been doing this for years.
I said I wouldn't do it again.. but here I am.
Perhaps it's because I love what America did on the Apollo project... perhaps it's my hatred of the way all serious government secrecy issues get buried with this crap and it's b*stard siblings like 'no-planes' (the same people pushing it normally).
It's an old intelligence trick.. Nixon had a word for it 'rat-f*cking'.
They are 'rat-f*ckers'.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #427 on: June 16, 2009, 03:26:40 PM » |
|
If they really believe this then let them. People believe crazier stuff than this - it doesn`t really matter.
If people are using this as a means to tie up the truth movement as being slightly "cukoo" then energies would be better spent elsewhere !
In my opinion atleast !
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
Outer Haven
|
|
« Reply #428 on: June 16, 2009, 03:35:51 PM » |
|
I'm quite willing to discuss the next point (all the points) once YOU admit that the "Apollo lunar surface pictures are fake because there are no stars" claim is b*llshit. Um, Voshkod3... how would admitting that prove the pictures to be real? Now YOU admit that the "Apollo lunar surface pictures are real because someone admitted that the "Apollo lunar surface pictures are fake because there are no stars" claim is b*llshit." claim is... bullcrap.  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"This is the liberty we've won for ourselves -- Outer Haven!"
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #429 on: June 16, 2009, 03:38:54 PM » |
|
Um, Voshkod3... how would admitting that prove the pictures to be real? You miss the point. I want the hoax believers here to admit THEY ARE NOT PROOF of fakery - which is now 100% clear they are not. There are a couple of posters in particular who need to admit this. How about you - do you admit that? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #430 on: June 16, 2009, 03:39:25 PM » |
|
round and a round and around we go . . . !
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #431 on: June 16, 2009, 03:42:52 PM » |
|
round and a round and around we go . . . !
All I'm asking is an acknowledgement of a simple truth. The truth is that photographs of stars in space or a night sky are wholly dependent on exposure time, it there is a bright object in the picture - such as a spacecraft or lunar surface - the exposure time is too short to capture star light, which is faint. It's a simple truth - and they can't even accept that (actually one grudgingly did, with a 'but'...) It's really interesting to see how they react. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #432 on: June 16, 2009, 03:48:51 PM » |
|
The film exposure problem is non existent, there is no atmosphere on the moon. The stars are a light source. They would be shining bright as day. The astronauts didnt see them? How is this. See! I rest my case. Why does Nasa continue to doctor the Nasa footage and pictures to black out the stars? I rest my case even er.. morer. Because if the world realized how obvious the stars are in space we would without a doubt prove to the world, and skeptics of the truth such as your self, the truth behind the Nasa hoax. Are atmosphere is composed of so much water and rock/minerals that at night we have no clue how bright the stars really are. When you say to go outside under a street lamp and look up into the sky and count the stars that is not a realistic scenario. You are seeing the ambient light reflected and overwhelming the incoming starlight that has to pass through the 30 feet of moisture and many feet of rock to get to us. I think you need to quite cashing the checks.....  Hasn't got a clue about photography. Now is burlguy mad or bad? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
phasma
|
|
« Reply #433 on: June 16, 2009, 03:51:25 PM » |
|
I suspect, like the rest of us, a bit of both :S
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra
|
|
|
|
Voskhod3
|
|
« Reply #434 on: June 16, 2009, 03:51:40 PM » |
|
Burlguy you are an ass.
I think I proved my point.
The thread is yours - I've got better things to do.
Carry on spreading the nutty stuff that buries real issues with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Dok
|
|
« Reply #435 on: June 16, 2009, 03:52:10 PM » |
|
Oh you really are the "Beck of Apollo Lies". |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
pcc
|
|
« Reply #436 on: June 16, 2009, 04:08:58 PM » |
|
You are seeing the ambient light reflected and overwhelming the incoming starlight I thought that was pretty good..  |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #437 on: June 16, 2009, 04:12:09 PM » |
|
Voskhod3: About the starless sky ... I have have not disagreed on that point ... it is problematical ... however, you did see the black backdrops on the LANGLEY photos? And read the NASA discussion about it in my post above?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ This looks more like they plan to 'strip-in' a background. ~~~~~~~~~ Two small pix showing the same 'backdrop' or 'photoshopped' images ... and BUSS ALDRIN returns to the scene of the crime, the cinder cones of Hawaii. Does that little hill look familiar?   ~~~~~~~~~ O ~~~~~~~~~ I am not being facetious here ... does anyone have an explanation for this? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson Holly
|
|
« Reply #439 on: June 16, 2009, 05:32:56 PM » |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
