NASA lies: Apollo 16 Moon Hoax evidence (Conspiracy a proven fact)

Check out the one above wow

Its amazing how they are faking and hoaxing their way through space!!

Yup. There's good money in it. Never did Fox any harm, or the (a)history channel. Although I seem to recall Sibrel finished his days in a trailer home, so maybe not as lucrative as he might have hoped.

Who is Sibrel? He worked for NASA to stage the fake moon landings?

Sibrel was the guy punched by Buzz Aldrin after accusing him of being a liar.

It was Kaysing that lived in a trailer.

Makes more sense.

Kaysing essentially invented the hoax. And as with so many innovators, it was other people who got rich off his idea.

Some trailer homes are quite nice.

You can do better than that.

Bro,
Has anyone pointed out the fact that in the first black and white vid there is a big star right above the landing mod and the color video has no stars at all?
I would think a star would show up in color all the same as a black and white vid.

Either way, there is no doubt those numb nuts never went to the freakin moon. So much evidence proves this.

n

Um...what?

There weren't two video cameras outside the LM. Not on any mission.

Apollo 11 brought a B & W SSTV outside to shoot the EVA. All the other missions used the color TV camera for their EVAs. (12-16 did bring a second camera as back-up, but it was never brought out on the surface).

There was the DAC, which was a 16mm film camera on a fixed mount, clicking away at about 1 frame per second. DAC camera positions and angles are not anywhere near the same as Westinghouse Color Camera positions and angles, though.

So your comparison is impossible.

Interesting, considering there is no stars on other moon footage and they claim they couldnt see any?

Im pretty sure they had at least a dozen cameras with them to their studios when faking the shots.

What you are "sure off" is immaterial.
There are people who are "sure" that the Earth is flat.

The only thing that matters is what evidence you bring.
Forty years and counting and the hoaxies still haven't produced a single iota of evidence.


Darryl Cunningham Investigates The Moon Hoax [link to darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com]
Moon Base Clavius, for all your debunking needs [link to www.xmission.com]

Neither statement is true.

Actually there is enormous amounts of evidence. Still ongoing hoaxing. Here are some recent examples on how they use the same footage to fake many Shuttle missions, as one example:

[link to www.septclues.com]

Exact same footage, just in different contrast, and zoomed in and out. Same angle, same placement of camera, all identical, throughout a decade! LOL, as if it could ever be like that if they were real.

lol here I have a pic for this post :)
:apollospace:

I believe the published videos may not have been the way they got to the Moon.

just wasted 11.15 min of my life..

Mistaking lies, ignorance, and brainfarts for "evidence" tells us all we need to know about the hoaxies.


You will have to proof the bolded part.

ASSumptions are not facts.
Looks like =/= Is like.

Some of the standard logical fallacies hoaxies like to engage in.
As if they never learned to think.


Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 12/18/2012 01:42 PM

LOL nice one and true one, just spinning around and back.

You will have to proof the bolded part.

ASSumptions are not facts.
Looks like =/= Is like.

Some of the standard logical fallacies hoaxies like to engage in.
As if they never learned to think.



The only one who didnt learn to think here is you, brainwashed and swallowing down what you are served by the governments whole as "the truth". Even the most ludicrous "evidence" they show you for their claims is taken at heart no matter how illogical it is.

Since you resort to ad homming rather than answering the question, we now all know that you pulled your premiss "this is not possible" out off your ass and are incapable of proving it.


Since you're a scientific illiterate you are incapable of judging what is and isn't ludicrous.
You're accusing millions of domain experts from Atlanta to Pyonyang of not knowing their stuff.
Meanwhile you bring nothing to the table that could be remotely called evidence.

You are ludicrous.




Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 12/18/2012 06:10 PM

Three things, well, there are a ton more, but how could they ever get a rocket into space, then put the humans into spacesuits that could never block the solar radiation,,,then, walk around on a moon in direct sunlight where we are told is hot enough to boil water on? We're told they had suits with tubes of water that cooled them...HOW DID THEY COOL THE WATER?? You need oxygen to, like an air conditioner, cool the air or water.

We are told the moon has no atmosphere, and hence, no oxygen, SOOOO, do those suits look big enough to lug around that much water, or oxygen?? Ummm, no.

The second, this EXTREMELY complicated mission could be pulled off in a high tech rocket and lunar lander that has less computer ability than a modern cell phone?? Would you put your ass into a rocket to the moon that had only the power of your cell phone......?

And third,,,,I believe that NASA admitted that they DID film a moon landing in a studio just in case the footage could not be beamed back to earth.

I don't blame them for being apprehensive, I have T-Mobile and still have no service at my house that is reliable....

So in other words, you can't prove it, and decided to rant and resort to ad hominems.

Engineers aren't as stupid as you think they are. The moon has the same heat environment as low earth orbit. It takes TIME to heat things up. The surface of the Moon can get hot but it isn't that hot immediately. Oxygen can be compressed.


How many megabytes does it take to get to orbit? What kind of computing power do you really think they needed? The majority of calculations were done in mainframes on Earth and the results radioed to the spacecraft. Most of them could be done on a sliderule if necessary.


No they didn't.


thanks for the unrelated non sequitur.

Well if you REALLY are so ignorant you think ONE single magical wonder bolt would keep a massive space shuttle connected to a rocket, you are beyond salvation I fear.

Honestly, can you CONSIDER the MASSIVE amounts of energy and direct FORCE put upon this, the THRUST, what is this bolt made of? KRYPTONITE?

[link to www.septclues.com]

[link to www.septclues.com]

[link to www.septclues.com]

How the HELL could those two beams with ONE single bolt hold that huge many tons large non-aerodynamically designed shuttle in place? Imagine the G-Forces and all, how does it keep in place?

Imagine what sort of massive aerodynamic lift forces, at Mach+ speeds, must be withstood by the anchoring of the shuttle on its fuel tank.

The pull forces exerted on that single, lone bolt must be phenomenal; to make matters worse, not only do we have one single bolt 'securing' the front end of the Shuttle - as well as the lives of these astronaughts and the success of all these shuttle launches, it is also a moving part ! (a fact which, notoriously, makes it even more vulnerable to disfunction/breakage - titanium or not titanium or KRYPTONITE brought in by Superman himself)

Why do hoaxies make up claims? Is it that the real statements by NASA are too hard to disprove, or is it that they don't understand what it is that is being said and present their own flawed version instead?



The usual way rockets do it. Sufficient thrust/mass ratio. Rockets, in fact, are used because they are one of the few things around with enough power density -- and the kind of power that can be turned into thrust with a high enough efficiency.




I think we managed to solve the opacity problem with fabric a long time ago. Or do you think most clothing is transparent to visible light?

You may not have said what you meant. However, most of the output of the sun is in the visual spectrum. Very little is in the form of ionizing radiation, and very little of THAT is of a type that would make it through as much as a sheet of paper.



Not what is claimed. Part and parcel of the description of the coolant loop is how the water is chilled. And, no, you don't need oxygen to chill anything. Inside your refrigerator is essentially no airflow (aside from convective cells). What is happening on the inside of the shell of your refrigerator is expansion of a working fluid.

Same thing -- EXACTLY -- that causes a CO2 cylinder to become cold when you let off gas.

Or take a Peltier Junction, which is a solid state electronic device.

In both of the above examples, a difference is created; it is colder inside the refrigerator, and hotter outside. In both, yes, that excess heat is then rejected via radiators -- but unlike the misnamed automotive "radiator," these are not primarily convective; they would work in a vacuum as well.

In the case of the Apollo suits, the engine leveraged was, basically, the behavior of water in the lunar vacuum. Unlike the closed loop of your refrigerator, it was a wasteful process; water is allowed to boil off, cooling the heat exchanger it is dribbling out of.



Umm, yes. Here's a seat-of-the-pants calculation for you. Look at a typical SCUBA tank. As a first approximation, maximum breathing time off a single cylinder is one hour. The PLSS worn on the surface of the Moon is at LEAST the volume and mass of that one tank.

And the PLSS has two huge advantages. First, it is essentially a rebreather, not an open-circuit rig such as used by sport divers. Second, it is pure oxygen, not the mixed-gas of a typical diving cylinder. Since our atmosphere is only 20% oxygen, without even including rebreathing the PLSS should be capable of sustaining life for over five hours.

(In practice, the O2 tank on the PLSS is considerably smaller. SCUBA is performed under pressure, and for open circuit diving this means that you use more air at increased depths. The PLSS makes up for this and more by also having to include batteries, fans, radio, and of course the 6-7 kilos of cooling water. The longest EVAs were still only about twice the five-hour figure arrived at above.)

(Basically, if you do the math in any kind of detail, you find the numbers still work out in Apollo's favor. The thing is quite possible, even with generous engineering margins).



Not exactly. NASA had more computer power, and certainly much better "expert systems," (aka a huge staff of actual rocket scientists on call), and they were in constant communication with the rocket.

This is basically like saying your computer mouse doesn't have enough RAM to do decent graphics. Nonsense. Your mouse doesn't NEED any RAM. It only needs the cable.



No. You may be mis-remembering that a speech was rehearsed (and I think it might even have been recorded) by the President in case the first mission was a failure and the crew was lost in space.

The live coverage was rather crammed in at the last minute, and was a bit ad-hoc. It just hadn't occurred to anyone that people would care that much about live TV coverage. (And, sadly, by the time of Apollo 13, they were right again).

Don't hand-wave. Calculate.

Don't forget to include the SSME, which are also lifting the Orbiter component at the time.