NASA moon landing 1 of 5 conspiracy fraud hoax scam 1969-1999

[wonnthree]

the U.K. has more conspiracy theorists than America could ever dream of..however..there issome decrepitude in the lunar landing and the wonderful starched flag when there is no wind on the moon

[971QKE]

The host of this program seem to only have two brain cells, and one is occupied looking for the other one.

[ZigSputnik]

British broadcasting at its lowest point. These people should be utterly ashamed. I just hope they all got back to their respective lunatic asylums and weren't allowed to roam the streets after the recording. Truly shameful.

[rerevisionist]

@ZigSputnik - you need psychiatric help.

[mooninquirer]

I like David Percy and Mary Bennett ( watch their very thorough documentary ----- google : WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MOON )

What I don't like about this TV show is the inclusion of people who are into the "paranormal" That seems to discredit the normal skepticism that everyone should feel about it, based on science, government fraud, and obvious behavior of lying.

It is the other way around ---- the astronauts and NASA say UFOs as space aliens were seen on the moon or the trip to the moon

[rerevisionist]

@mooninquirer - Yes, I agree; however this programme was broadcast just after an entire series, going on for weeks, which included quite a few astronomers, 'astronauts', supposed experts in things like the cold war etc. I think if Channel 4 had announced an entirely serious programme, they'd have got a lot of flak. Also a lot of serious people are cowards - there must be physicists and biologists and engineers who could have appeared but were too chicken....

[mooninquirer]

@rerevisionist Oh, no, I don't think the scientists were too chicken ----- the media executives are too chicken, or rather, controlled and bought out. The media is only going to briefly give a little taste of the truth, to deflect criticism that it is ALL lies. This is the explanation for the Fox documentary, that can be watched by googling :: MOON LANDING HOAX.avi

This is my experience with the HIV = AIDS hoax. The news media is an a frenzy lately with stories of "living with HIV "

[nesokretep]

@mooninquirer -- Why does David Percy leave very significant facts, such as the abundant availablity of natural light, and the unevenness of the lunar surface, out of his so-called "analysis?"

He is either quite ignorant, or else he is expecting his audience to be.

[recoveringcultmember]

Why didn't they take a telescope to the moon with them?

Furthermore, why isn't there a telescope on one of those unmanned probes that landed on the moon?

If they could land a five ton LM on the moon in 1969, think what a good telescope they could have put there, with a transmitter, to send back pictures. It would have been better than the Hubble scope.

[nesokretep]

@recoveringcultmember -- No. Apollo could not have contained anything that would have been "better than Hubble" ... or even anything like Hubble.

There is nothing about a telescope being on the moon that is any better than having a telescope in low earth orbit. And it would be TREMENDOUSLY more expensive to launch and to maintain.

[recoveringcultmember]

"Calculations have been carefully worked out on the type of vehicle we would need for the non-stop flight from the Earth to the Moon and to return. The figures speak for themselves: Three rockets would be necessary, each rocket ship would be taller than the Empire State building (1250 feet) and weigh about 10 times the tonnage of the Queen Mary, or some 800,000 tons." -Werhner von Braun

But, no source is given for this quote.

"Conquest of the Moon"?

[recoveringcultmember]

That guy, Bart, i think, that was doing the interview that I listened to, said that von Braun said that to go to the moon with one rocket would require an 800,000 ton rocket. Of course, the Saturn V was much lighter than that.

Have you ever heard any such comment from von Braun? He evidently said it early on, and then recanted later.

Also, von Braun said that an astronaut on the moon would have to hide in a cave to survive micro meteorites.

[nesokretep]

@recoveringcultmember -- micro meteorites on the moon are not any more dangerous than micro meteorites in low Earth orbit and people go there all the time.

Also: The fuel required for a trip to the moon is absolutely impossible to "fake."

The energy potential of the fuel as well as the weight of the fuel and system is all independently verifiable public knowledge.

And the calculations to confirm the force requirements can be done by anyone who passed high school physics.

[rerevisionist]

@nesokretep - Small meteorites as in a meteor shower would be extremely dangerous in an airless vacuum. They move fast enough to heat white hot in the air - bullets don't do that.

The three-stage rocket is essential to maximise distance from the earth; excess weight is dropped. So a tiny module looked reasonable. Perhaps you'd care to do calcultions on the moon - a lawnmower amount of fuel supposedly enough to leave the moon and accelerate to circle the moon. Use your high school physics!

[nesokretep]

@rerevisionist -- You are apparently attempting to make yourself sound stupid by refering to a "lawnmower amount of fuel" but I guess I'll give an approximate summary anyway:

.

The Ascent module was about 10,000 pounds mass. About 5,000 pounds of that was fuel. 10,000 lbs mass = 1,700 lbs weight.  The engine had 3,500 pounds thrust so it lifted off easilly. At a few thousand feet altitude, they did the "pitch over" maneuver and start forward acceleration.

[rerevisionist]

@nesokretep - if you look at published drawings of the supposed module you'll find the amount of fuel was the same order of magnitude as a lwanmower's fuel. Look at the diagram; you can find it in books published in the 1970s. There was nowhere near enough fuel. Moreover, there was no way to guide the thing up - fins etc are useless in a vacuum. The thing would have veered around like a firework rocket without a stick.

[nesokretep]

@rerevisionist -- If you look at the published drawings of the ascent module you will see fuel tanks that are adequate for holding 5,000 pounds of fuel. Do the math. It's simple.

And your statement that there was "no way to guide the thing up" is one of the most ignorant things I have ever seen posted on YouTube. Of course there was. Rockets launched into space never depend on fins for guidance.

See if you can figure it out before you post anything else that makes you look silly.

[rerevisionist]

@nesokretep - I'm not even bothering to reply.  I'll leave your moronic comments as a sort of epitaph.

[nesokretep]

@rerevisionist -- So you will leave as an epitaph your statement that implies that "fins" are needed to guide a rocket?

Yes. That is a fitting epitaph not only to ignorance about rocket guidance systems but your stubborn ambition to NOT understand anything about the subject.

[nesokretep]

@rerevisionist -- There are TWO ways that rockets designed for launch into and/or travel through space can be steered. Neither of them require "fins."

Some rockets vary the thrust vector by moving the main rocket nozzle.

Some rockets steer by using separate thrusters to push the body of the rocket in the desired direction.

Both methods can use either automated gyroscopic guidance systems or manual control. Gyroscopic "autopilots" have been around since way before space rockets.

[nesokretep]

@rerevisionist -- And as far as the fuel capacity of the lunar ascent module is concerned, I'll just ask a very simple question:

Have you even bothered to figure out the fuel tank volume that would be required to carry 5,000 pounds of fuel? How big across would a cylindrical or sperical tank need to be for that much fuel?

[nesokretep]

@rerevisionist - The faster they go forward the less they use the engine to go upwards. At the same time, the more fuel they use the lighter the craft is and the more easilly they can accelerate. But the approximate numbers are:

3,500 lbs thrust against 10,000 mass will give about a 1/3 g forward acceleration (that is only 1/3 of the force you feel while you're sitting in your chair.)

But a 1/3g acceleration for only 9 minutes will get the vehicle to the 4000 mph orbital velocity.

[nesokretep]

@rerevisionist -- So where do you see the problem with getting a rocket engine with 5 thousand pounds of fuel to give a very gentle 3,500 pounds (1/3g) thrust for 9 minutes?

This is what you are supposedly objecting to. If you have a problem with it, please explain.

[nesokretep]

@rerevisionist -- The main number to recall for the acceleration and time calculation is 32 feet per second per second, which is the acceleration due to gravity on Earth. Once you know that, the approximate acceleration time is easy.

1/3 of 32 feet per second every second divided into 4,000 miles per hour is about 9 minutes.

[recoveringcultmember]

A few days ago, I noticed that Disney's movie 'Mary Poppins' was made in 1964. It featured a woman flying over London. In 1965, Ed White was shown flying over the earth.

It occurs to me that NASA space technology follows movie studio technology. What they are able to do in a Disney movie, repeats later in NASA movies.

[Quex01]

@recoveringcultmember yeah, that was all walt disney bullshit

[rerevisionist]

@Rob260259 - I don't know any who've put their names to it. I agree with what you're perhaps implying, that that is deplorable.

However 9/11 is rather different; and the global warming fraud.

[rerevisionist]

@rerevisionist - I've had to delete a lot of crap.

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist There you are. I was worried about you. I hadn't heard from you in a while.

[rerevisionist]

@recoveringcultmember - domestic hassle

[rerevisionist]

@Rob260259 - Rob; not every one of them, just the ones whose money depends on the myth. You appear to show the same mentality - though it's hard to guess who'd bother funding you.

[tardwhisperer]

It's okay. Deception of that magnitude cannot and will not go unpunished. 2+2 always =4. These fools think that life is an accident that they can take the liberty to manipulat at will. The experts are fools. The wise men are idiots. The strong men are babies. The kings are women.

[adamakacolumbo]

i enjoy pineapples

[Rob260259]

By the way; David Percy is a proven liar.

[rerevisionist]

@Rob260259 - can you briefly list your sources of evidence for this libel?

[Rob260259]

@rerevisionist

"- can you briefly list your sources of evidence for this libel?"

No, I can't. It'll be a very long list.

Try watching videos of Astrobrant2, Philwebb59, BlisterHiker, Lukequixotesanjose, Shanedk, LunarTuner, GoneToPlaid, CusterApollo, Jcgmed and many many others.

[rerevisionist]

@Rob260259 - I'm interested in souirces. Have you looked at the actual photo of (e.g.) the supposed man on the moon?  None of the videos you cite are serious evidence.

[rerevisionist]

@recoveringcultmember - to get Venus that size would need a telescope of at least x100 I'd think. Probably more - so the LM would only show up as a highly magnified out-of-focus fragment.

[rerevisionist]

@recoveringcultmember - what do you think of David Percy's idea, that a lot of the fakery was a deliberate trail? - I'd guess more likely by temporary staff rather than permanent!

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist I never heard of David Percy. I'll have to check it out.

It might just be jokesters, trying to see just how stupid people are.

Or maybe it's the Ruling Elite, who are saying, "We spend a lot of time, effort and money on public education and popular news media, to turn the public into uncritical ignoramouses. We want to see how effective our methods are. Throw something out there that's obviously fake, and see how many fall for it. "

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist I found Percy's 'whistle blower' theory.

No, I don't think they were 'whistle blowers' trying to leak out the truth. I think they were all psychopaths, and a psychopath loves to tell a lie and get people to believe it. The more outrageous the lie, the more satisfaction the psychopath gets when people believe it.

The higher levels at NASA are a cult, I am sure. Lower levels, probably didn't know what they were involved in.

[rerevisionist]

@recoveringcultmember David Percy is in the 5-set videos here! The chap with abundant hair. Some of the people were employees, and Percy says he thinks they could see what was going on and deliberately inserted clues.

This is what Eichmann did in his trial.  E.g. he said the Germans used a Russian submarine diesel motor to gas Jews - when the Germans had never had such a thing.

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist Eichman was being tortured to make him lie. Do you think the NASA people were being tortured, threatened, or otherwise controlled?

Eichman, or one of the others, also named a camp location that didn't exist, and many jews claimed to have been there, and there was no such town. Did NASA astronauts ever name a star or something that doesn't exist?

[rerevisionist]

@recoveringcultmember - well, 15% of trainee astronauts died mysterious deaths, didn't they!

[Rob260259]

@rerevisionist

"..died mysterious deaths, didn't they!"

No, they didn't. Just like this video doesn't hold water. It's the usal moonhoax conspiracy crap.

[rerevisionist]

@Rob260259 - Rob, why not check the figures for deaths of 'astronauts'? About 1 in 6 died young, and in circumstances undeniably mysterious.

[Rob260259]

@rerevisionist

"undeniably mysterious"

Again; nonsense. Make a video about it. I'm anxious to see your list.

[BlisterHiker]

@Rob260259

It strikes me that hoax believers are ready to accept words of lunatics and dropouts who never achieved anything significant in their lives, while rejecting what thousands of hard working people in many countries say...

The mechanism of the denial is quite powerful. Only few people have balls to admit they were wrong about conspiracy theories. Cowards are left standing and pretending they don't see all the evidence in the world showing that Moon missions were real.

[Rob260259]

@BlisterHiker

Well, it doesn't strike me Blister. It kinda amazes me. But I guess you're right. There seems to be a growing number of self-proclaimed 'researchers' and 'detectives' on the Internet. Real life is boring. So some idiots are very happy to have 9/11, JFK, Bigfoot, Moonhoax, Chemtrails, whatever.

[BlisterHiker]

@Rob260259

You're right. Conspiracy believers rarely believe just one theory.

I think if we sum time and manpower spent by those people on all that bs globally, they could build a Great Pyramid!

Look at that cheap liar Jarrah W. for example. With the time he spent making all that garbage on YouTube, he could probably graduate from college, but sadly he's too dumb to know it.

What a waste, globally... Such a pity those people don't want to spend their time doing something positive instead.

[rerevisionist]

@BlisterHiker - as usual, you're mistaken. Most conspiracy types are one-trick ponies. I'm exceptional is seeing the whole thing as a syndromem extending from Marco Polo and Jesus and Shakespeare to AIDS, cell biology, some aspects of technology, and the 'holocaust' etc.

However it takes considerable general knowledge which is far outside most peoples' range.

[BlisterHiker]

"it takes considerable general knowledge which is far outside most peoples' range"

@rerevisionist

- you should rather call it an illusion of grandeur, attention deficit disorder, or simply a result of mental immaturity and ignorance.

You are talking about "considerable general knowledge", yet you don't even understand the camera settings required to capture pictures of starfield properly...

Read your own comments below, "expert" and continue making ass of yourself if that suits you.

[rerevisionist]

@BlisterHiker - As appears to be usual, you're wrong but life's short etc. It's always difficult to know how to reply to people who are beyond reason, and I have several strategies, but one of them is not to bother, which I'll adopt here.

[BlisterHiker]

@rerevisionist

Am I wrong? Wrong about what? About you claiming to have some "deeper understanding" or "considerable general knowledge which is far outside most peoples' range", when you can't even understand the basics of photography?

It's the same story with most of conspiracy theorists who should go back to school instead of fooling themselves.

You don't have to bother. I don't care. It only confirms you have no real arguments, just like those lying "experts" presented in this video.

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist I can see a connection between the pharoah of ancient Egypt, and NASA.

Pharoah claimed that the sun rose every morning at his command. If he didn't command it, it wouldn't rise. He had the people in fear in awe because they believed it.

Exodus says, God commanded Moses, "Go down to the river in the morning and meet Paroah." Here's what I think: Moses was interupting the ceremony. Moses was proving Pharoah was a fake.

When the fake is revealed, the power is lost.

[recoveringcultmember]

@BlisterHiker It works both ways. Who is in denial? The NASA believers, or the doubters?

[rerevisionist]

@Rob260259 - Christ. It isn't nonsense. A pile of them died and it wasn't in motor bike accidents, the usual cause of death for moronic young males.

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist Sounds like a dangerous occupation, working for the govenment.

I was thinking, maybe MK Ultra, mind control? Could they have put the astronauts through that? Maybe they had the astronauts really believeing they were on the moon?

I'll have to start paying more attention to astronaut's faces, and those of other NASA people. After going through mind control one half of the face shows different emotion than the other half.

[rerevisionist]

If you google for a11.1103147_mf.jpg you get a panorama, apparently made from several pictures stitched together. Turn up the brightness (or just look carefully) and you'll see anomalies in the background. I suspect there was a bank of lights, giving backlight, which have been blacked out.

I found a Czech forum (trodas dot wz dot cz) - fascinating to see (through the barrier of machine translation) scepticism surfacing

[rerevisionist]

@recoveringcultmember - Exactly.

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist But if you wouldn't have mentioned it, i wouldn't have thought of it. After thinking about it, it's obvious that no star or planet would look any bigger from the moon than from earth. It might look brighter or clearer because of no atmosphere. The largest object in the sky would be earth. And you would be compelled to look at it, and wonder, 'Am i going to get back there?"

So, what's NASA doing with this picture? I never saw it until Blister mentioned it.

[rerevisionist]

The bloke with the Irish name is quite funny. I feel sorry for Americans, deluged by propaganda. Only an American could imagine a crackerbarrel salesman type could be convincing.

BTW if that's really meant to be Venus, it's absurdly oversized. Whoever composed that can't have ever tried photographing the moon, stars, planets with an ordinary camera.

The absence of an earth picture after 'landing' is astonishing - but of course most people haven't thought of that.

[BlisterHiker]

Thank goodness we have conspiracy theories... it makes it so much easier to spot an idiot.

(C) propagandagroup

[BlisterHiker]

I suggest Moon hoax conspiracy theorists visit very good website explaining all main claims of hoax theory:

clavius(dot)org

Apollo missions were real. No evidence against that for 40+ years and counting.

Speculations, sensations and personal opinions do not constitute the evidence. Clearly, all that plus sheer lies is all that Moon hoax theory has to offer.

Considering growing level of ignorance, I am not surprised to see so many people tricked by liars promoting that hoax garbage.

[recoveringcultmember]

From NASA: Apollo 11:"The sky was equally baffling. Although the Eagle had landed on a bright lunar morning, the sky was as black as midnight. An astronomer's paradise? No. Not a single star was visible. The glaring, sunlit ground ruined the astronaut's night vision. Only Earth itself was bright enough to be seen, luminous blue and white, hanging overhead."

Question: If you take a NASA moon walk photo, would it be possible to turn up the brightness until the stars appear?

[rerevisionist]

@recoveringcultmember - worth noticing that they didn't take a picture of earth, despite the fact it would have been the most interesting thing there! Four times the diameter of the moon, hanging up there -- the reason they didn't was because they were on earth!

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist I found two nasa pictures and tried turning the brightness up. Nothing there.

They say they were using ASA 160 film, in a hasselblad, with a shutter of 1/500. Don't know the aperture.

[recoveringcultmember]

@recoveringcultmember I found a web site dennismammanadotcom. He says you need ten seconds shutter with a 200 or 400 film speed for a night sky. So maybe NASA was wise on this one, not to have stars in the photo.

[BlisterHiker]

"maybe NASA was wise on this one, not to have stars in the photo"

@recoveringcultmember,

Apollo missions were focused on Moon exploration, not photographing the stars.

One exception is far UV spectrum photography done during Apollo 16. Why was it done? Because Earth's atmosphere blocks most of far UV radiation.

With brightness and contrast enhanced, some bright stars become visible. Here is a video you should watch:

watch?v=76gn3Z2CCU4

>

[rerevisionist]

@BlisterHiker focused on moon exploration. What a joker you are. What scientific purpose is served by sticking flags in the moon? Jumping up and down and saluting? Not trying to detect meteors?

[BlisterHiker]

"What scientific purpose is served by sticking flags in the moon? Jumping up and down and saluting?"

- and how much time did those activities take compared to total EVA time on the Moon, rerevisionist?

On the other hand, taking pictures of starfield would require high quality tripod, which would take precious weight and space in Lunar Module.

You also also ignorant of simple fact it was impossible to correctly expose BOTH sun-lit surface, astronauts and the stars.

>

[rerevisionist]

@BlisterHiker - The hasselblads presumably had B and T settings as all cameras did then. They could have put a camera on the moon's surface where it wouldn't move and taken a nice photo of stars. Except they weren't there.

[BlisterHiker]

@rerevisionist

You obviously don't know much about basics of photography.

They used two shutter speeds in the Hasselblads on the Moon: 1/125 and 1/250, both way too fast to capture the stars.

To capture nice view of the starfield it requires at least 30 seconds of exposure with the film they used.

Do you understand the difference between 30 and 1/125 or 1/250?

Besides, they didn't go there to take pictures of stars when any observatory on Earth could do it better with their telescopes.

[BlisterHiker]

@rerevisionist >

Such pictures would look so bad that uneducated hordes of Moon hoax believers would quickly scream that NASA faked them!

I suggest you talk to a professional photographer about what it takes to take good quality pictures of stars. Btw, stars are only half brighter in space than on clear night sky, but so is the intensity of sunlight. Dynamic range of film is insufficient to capture both in the same picture.

Learn your abc, "expert"...

[BlisterHiker]

@recoveringcultmember >

Find high resolution version of picture AS14-64-9189. You will see Earth and Venus above Lunar Module standing on the Moon. Why is Venus visible in that picture? Because Venus is 10x brighter than brightest stars in the night sky.

Reading comments left by people like you, I find it really pathetic that such little knowledge of science and history of space exploration doesn't stop you from making offensive comments against NASA and all hard working people there.

[recoveringcultmember]

@BlisterHiker NASA is run by a Satanic cult.

(How's that for offensive?)

Most people who work for NASA have no idea what's going on.

Why is Venus visable above the LM sitting on the moon? Because all things are possible in a movie studio. I guess you believe that Mary Poppins actually flew over England with an umbrella. I mean, the pictures prove it; don't they?

[BlisterHiker]

@recoveringcultmember

So much for facts and science in your comments...

I was hoping you show motion analysis, image analysis, some calculations etc, so we could discuss specific topics. The only thing you proved instead is your ignorance.

Don't talk about studios and special effects because you make ass of yourself even further.

Maybe some day you grow up mentally and wake up from your hoax dream.

Until then, I am not interested in reading your bullsh.t, lunatic "expert"...

[recoveringcultmember]

@BlisterHiker Just after looking at the 9189 picture, I went outside, about 4:30 AM, and guess what I saw, hanging up there in the sky? A crescent moon, which looked exactly like the crescent in the picture, which is supposed to be Venus. Of course, it was still dark, the sun wasn't up yet, the crescent showing the direction of where the sun should be. In the NASA picture of the LM, the sun would be behind the moon from the photographer, and the landing site in the dark.

[recoveringcultmember]

Respond to this video...OK, I found the 9189 picture, and several like it. It's an interesting picture. First off, it shows the dish antenna on top of the LM, pointed down at the ground. I wonder who they were communicating with? The LM is softly lit, unlike most other pictures. The direction of the crescent shape would indicate that the sun was behind the moon.

If any picture would show stars, I would expect this one to, but it doesn't. It definitely looks like a studio picture.

[recoveringcultmember]

"The inner structure is of aluminum sandwich construction which consists of a welded aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core and outer face sheet." apollosaturndotcom

Sounds to me like the astronauts were riding in a Dewar flask. They were inside a reflective aluminum skin, actually two, which were surrounded by a vacuum.

An interesting concept that never occured to me before. Would the heat build up, and not leave?

[BlisterHiker]

"aluminum inner skin, adhesively bonded aluminum honeycomb core and outer face sheet"

@recoveringcultmember,

Could you prove your theory or show scientific publication confirming that aluminum shielding of Apollo spacecrafts was insufficient for couple of days long trip beyond LEO?

You shouldn't forget about fibrous insulation layer which was stopping secondary particles effectively. You also forget about all hardware and instrumentation around the astronauts.

I'm waiting for your "science".

[recoveringcultmember]

@BlisterHiker Prove what theory?

[recoveringcultmember]

I was just reading something by William Cooper: A vacuum is a perfect insulator. Consider the Thermos jug.

I have know about Dewar flasks since high school, but never thought of it. How would they cool the moon walkers? Search for 'NASA Masonic Conpsiracy' Also, the space craft would get hot, and not radiate heat.

And, I add, if a rocket is a heat engine, it must have a heat source and heat sink. If a vacuum isn't a heat sink, then the rocket won't work. Maybe. I'll have to think some more.

[recoveringcultmember]

@recoveringcultmember It would still seem that you could have radiation. "A Dewar flask consists of a double-walled flask, with the space between the two walls exhausted to a very high vacuum, to minimize transfer of heat by convection and conduction. The inner surfaces of the walls are silvered to reduce transfer of heat by radiation; areas of contact between the two walls are kept at a minimum to keep down conduction of heat."

Was the aluminum skin of Apollo painted black on the inside?

[nameofthepen]

"In this segment Matthew Williams refers to 'certain structures on the moon', by which I presume he means the artefacts generated by extreme digital processing of images."

- Rerevisionist, info box

.

Yes, reminds me of John Lear and Richard Hoagland and their "moon bases". I rather suspect John Lear of being a spook, spreading disinfo while pretending to have "come over to our side".

[recoveringcultmember]

@nameofthepen I assume you are speaking of the near side. There is talk that the far side has a secret moon base. Since pictures that NASA says are from the far side might be pictures of Arizona desert, I suspect that it's really a structure on earth.

I looked at the pictures that were supposed to be the first from the far side of the moon, taken by USSR, and i could tell some were of rusted, pitted steel, magnifed, I have been suspect of all far side lunar pictures.

[rerevisionist]

@recoveringcultmember - 'suspect .. all far side pictures'. Googling far side of the moon photos gives one such - maybe the one you mean.

NASA built a 20 foot replica moon, from plaster (or more likely? acrylic). Obviously the near side could be designed very accurately. But the 'astronauts' were supposed to go round the moon - so there could be a problem of representing it! I can't help wondering if there were supposed photos of the far side and if they're all consistent.

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist There's a poster I was looking at this morning, Archangel4Mike, I think. He has several. One is about the fake NASA moon.

i stopped the motion, and looked at some of the moon pictures, and could plainly see lighter and darker squares, as if it were sections of a put together model. You don't notice it as pictures fly by.

Also, one picture, at .10, was plainly lit from the bottom left, but the top right had a backlite, and you can see the curve of the moon.

[nameofthepen]

Loving this so far, and looking forward to the rest of the series. Unfortunately, due to Google's famous "format improvements", I can't make my "Like" vote register, which continues to happen every day, on the first video I watch that day.

[rerevisionist]

I found a video of Randi addressing a group apparently at NASA. Topics included a simple matchbox trick, homeopathy, card tricks.... It's sad to see the pathetic old chap not facing the really big frauds, bit displacing onto trivia. Utterly pathetic.

[rerevisionist]

Search youtube for 'Chinese space walk fake'. I hadn't thought of underwater shoots to simulate weightlessness!

[BlisterHiker]

@rerevisionist

All idiotic claims regarding alleged faked Chinese spacewalk have been debunked.

google a little to find out all explanations, starting with alleged reflection of lighting rigs, through so called "bubbles in the water", ending with motion of their flag.

Btw, if you had any decent observation skills and actually watched the whole EVA, you'd see Earth moving underneath and motion of small pieces of fabric and plastic, completely impossible underwater.

Keep truFin'...

[rerevisionist]

@BlisterHiker - thanks for your valuable email. I make no claims one way or other about those videos. I was merely drawing attention to them. However it seems a very plausible idea since there's Chinese H bomb footage which is clearly phoney.

[recoveringcultmember]

@BlisterHiker Go watch the 1965 space walk of Ed White. It was faked. It isn't hard to put pictures in the background of anything you want.

[BlisterHiker]

"It was faked. It isn't hard to put pictures in the background of anything you want."

- and if you could only prove that, recoveringcultmember...

YouTube is full of "experts" like you, all knowing great mysteries and conspiracies, but showing only personal opinions and speculations as evidence...

Sorry, if you want to prove your theory, present the proof.

Chinese spaceflights and spacewalks have been confirmed by international scientific community.

What evidence do you have? Nothing.

[recoveringcultmember]

@BlisterHiker First, when Ed White pushes himself from the capsule with his foot, the capsule remains rock solid still. That's because it's sitting on the movie studio floor. Second, he holds the gun above his bellybutton, which would cause him to somersault, which it doesn't because, third, he is hanging from a wire, which is evident by the way his body rotates on only one vertical axis.

[BlisterHiker]

"he is hanging from a wire, which is evident by the way his body rotates on only one vertical axis"

@recoveringcultmember

I think you should go back to school and learn what center of mass is.

Your other comments are worth as much as this one.

[recoveringcultmember]

@BlisterHiker What's your point? i don't understand what you are trying to refute.

The center of mass of a human body is behind the belly button. (If you think of an unborn baby, floating in the fluids of the womb, you might recognize why the belly button is where it is.)

To avoid rotation, Ed White would have to hold the pressure gun exactly at the center of mass, which he doesn't appear to be doing.

And in space, there's no reason to be limited to one axis of rotation.

[BlisterHiker]

"The center of mass of a human body is behind the belly button."

- that's just another example of your ignorance, recoveringcultmember.

Human body is a dynamic form. It's not fixed, rigid structure. Center of mass shifts significantly depending on body shape and position of limbs. If you paid attention to what gymnasts or ice skaters do, for example, maybe you'd know that.

Your comments are wrong and and unsupported by any scientific facts.

[recoveringcultmember]

@BlisterHiker OK. Maybe the center of mass isn't EXACTLY at the bellybutton, but the bellybutton is a lot closer to the center of mass than the right nipple, where White looks like he is holding the gun.

[BlisterHiker]

@recoveringcultmember

I suggest you talk to a physics teacher, familiar with specifics of spacesuits. Maybe face to face conversation will help you.

[rerevisionist]

@BlisterHiker - In fact US 'astronauts' also trained under water; it was supposed to give practice in being weightless.

I don't know if you're a hired liar, or genuinely belief your material. The fact that you pick on isolated claims and pick away at them with videos weighted with timewasting material suggests the former to me.

However, if you are genuine, make the effort to analyse the entire process - three stage rocket, right up to thing with a lawnmower's fuel taking off from the moon...

[recoveringcultmember]

@rerevisionist Concerning the fuel on the ascent module: The data I have found says the hypergolic fuel had a heat value of 184 BTU/lb. I need to confirm that a little better. But if true, that is pathetic. Compare that to 50,000 to 60,000 BTU/lb for kerosene.

There is a video about it: Chemistry of lunar liftoff:

watch?v=JLCrZGgKD-k

[BlisterHiker]

"make the effort to analyse the entire process"

@rerevisionist,

You should take your own advice seriously.

I showed examples of utter lies spread by Percy to promote his business. It's more than enough to know what kind of person he is.

Make sure to buy his books and DVDs. He's counting on people like you.

Isnt' that interesting that engineers and scientists all over the world have no doubt about authenticity of Apollo missions, and only you, hoax geniuses know the truF?...

[rerevisionist]

@rerevisionist - ahah ... I found a National Geog mag years old showing 'astronauts' training under water. Maybe the Chinese borrowed the tank!

[BlisterHiker]

Moon hoax advocates are liars, and most of them lie on purpose to make profit on gullible, biased and uneducated people.

.

This video exposes just a few of many lies of David Percy, one of the leading Moon hoax liars:

watch?v=v2qEEoQCb2I

Apollo missions were REAL. No evidence against that for 40+ years and counting! Lies, speculations and pseudo-science do not constitute the evidence.

[rerevisionist]

@BlisterHiker - please don't repaste your same moronic remarks.

[rerevisionist]

@BlisterHiker - he isn't a liar. You're a prostitute. Fuck you. Humanity needs people with the guts to tell the truth. Despair and die, you piece of shit.

[BlisterHiker]

@rerevisionist

Yes, he is a LIAR, and he doesn't stop there. He also manipulates original footage. One of the tricks he uses to fool gullibles like you is frame rate changes. He knows what he's doing. He's cold blooded liar making money with lies. You are just too dumb to see that.

Fact that you resorted to extreme insults so quickly, without even trying to defend his lies with real arguments, says enough about you. Why? Because you have no real arguments.

Examples: watch?v=v2qEEoQCb2I

[rerevisionist]

It just occurred to me that the air pressure is equivalent to thirty feet of water. It's also equivalent (cp. Galileo) about a foot of mercury. Probably therefore a few inches of lead - not three feet!

[rerevisionist]

Quite a good discussion - Channel 4 I think invented the late night chat formula, with one host plus interested people, discussing a topic. I've added a few titles - these people are now about ten years older. Watch specially for David Percy (photography) and Marcus Allen (edits, distributes Nexus mag). Mary Bennett works, or worked, with DP; they collaborated on a book published soon after this. Some of the people here are less solid imho, involved in things like crop markings.

[GreekForTruth1]

@rerevisionist

Where is No 2??

It was getting interesting!

[rerevisionist]

@GreekForTruth1 - Hey, well, glad you liked it - that's what I thought all those years ago. All 5 parts are up now; usual hassle with uploads aborted for no discernable reason..