Thank you for stating the obvious Andrew1484.Andrew1484 wrote:Man has [n]ever been to the moon.
The MOON HOAX
-
- Member
- Posts: 272
- Joined: Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:45 pm
Re: The Moon Hoax
Re: The Moon Hoax
Only on tv...Maat wrote:I'm sorry, HonestlyNow, but I don't understand what your point is either Who is trying to debunk that people (including another clues member) have seen some kind of rockets launched from a long way away? My question to the newbie, kervik, was where he had seen rockets and whether it was in person, i.e. close enough to see anything significant.kervik wrote:Where do the rockets go? . . .Whenever I see the rockets I wonder where are they going?
What are your thoughts on this:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_QxXT60_J4
How far do you think it is from reaching the end of our atmosphere.
I remember this from a couple of years ago when there was this exciting thread about Dutch Amateurs launching themselves into space. And then it was later changed to just low orbit.
Re: The Moon Hoax
I agree that seeing rockets go up is no evidence for man in the moon at all - that's just silly.
+1
+1
-
- Member
- Posts: 465
- Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 1:09 am
Re: The Moon Hoax
And anyone claiming to have witnessed a "rocket" launch should be challenged: let's seem some corroborative photographs of the alleged event.fbenario wrote:I agree that seeing rockets go up is no evidence for man in the moon at all - that's just silly.
+1
-
- Banned
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm
Re: The Moon Hoax
Looked like a giant firework. Acceleration from zero was apparently pretty quick. Probably not safe or wise to put any animal life-form above a certain weight on top of it with that kind of acceleration. To state the perfectly obvious: How high it went above sea level would probably depend on things like how long the motor ran, how much thrust it put out, how heavy the machine was at the start and how much lighter it gradually became as it consumed the fuel and what speed it had finally reached when the fuel ran out. Lots of variables we don't know and have no way of proving true or false even if somebody gives us some numbers.kervik wrote:Only on tv...Maat wrote:I'm sorry, HonestlyNow, but I don't understand what your point is either Who is trying to debunk that people (including another clues member) have seen some kind of rockets launched from a long way away? My question to the newbie, kervik, was where he had seen rockets and whether it was in person, i.e. close enough to see anything significant.kervik wrote:Where do the rockets go? . . .Whenever I see the rockets I wonder where are they going?
What are your thoughts on this:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_QxXT60_J4
How far do you think it is from reaching the end of our atmosphere.
I remember this from a couple of years ago when there was this exciting thread about Dutch Amateurs launching themselves into space. And then it was later changed to just low orbit.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm
Re: The Moon Hoax
There is some evidence that man did go into a relatively low Earth Orbit during Apollo though. No further out into space than that. In the Capricorn One "whistle-blowing" idea for a movie, they did not even get that far.fbenario wrote:I agree that seeing rockets go up is no evidence for man in the moon at all - that's just silly.
+1
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWoL_lhRtl0
-
- Banned
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm
Re: The Moon Hoax
Why ask for photographs that can be faked?reichstag fireman wrote:And anyone claiming to have witnessed a "rocket" launch should be challenged: let's seem some corroborative photographs of the alleged event.fbenario wrote:I agree that seeing rockets go up is no evidence for man in the moon at all - that's just silly.
+1
We don't even need to see photographs to demonstrate that the Apollo moon landings must have been faked.
To be sure the obviously faked Apollo moon photographs don't help the Moon Hoax Deniers in their whacky point of view that man did go to the moon, but rocket launch photographs are irrelevant in my opinion. We cannot know if there were human passengers on board or not, so forget about the launch and look for other anomalies would be my advice. There are more than enough anomalies out there!
http://ayoung2084.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3254
Re: The Moon Hoax
I know of one launch anomaly -- for me anyway.
How do they keep the “manned” rockets from spinning during launch?
When you watch, for example, the Saturn V launches, the rockets are always rock steady – no spin at all – even after they gain altitude and are tracked with telephoto lenses.
Like this:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzCsDVfPQqk
Yet there is evidence of a torsional force at work:
And, I see no means for controlling roll in the Saturn V diagrams that I've looked at like this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ematic.jpg
But, in every non-NASA rocket launch with on-board video that I've looked at (both models and full size) the rockets always spin when under power:
http://tinyurl.com/d9jtdwz
But, NASA's rockets never seem to do that. At least not the "manned" flights. I wonder why.
The non-spinning rockets do have a much more stately and majestic look about them.
How do they keep the “manned” rockets from spinning during launch?
When you watch, for example, the Saturn V launches, the rockets are always rock steady – no spin at all – even after they gain altitude and are tracked with telephoto lenses.
Like this:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzCsDVfPQqk
Yet there is evidence of a torsional force at work:
And, I see no means for controlling roll in the Saturn V diagrams that I've looked at like this one:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ematic.jpg
But, in every non-NASA rocket launch with on-board video that I've looked at (both models and full size) the rockets always spin when under power:
http://tinyurl.com/d9jtdwz
But, NASA's rockets never seem to do that. At least not the "manned" flights. I wonder why.
The non-spinning rockets do have a much more stately and majestic look about them.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm
Re: The Moon Hoax
Majestic? LOL. These rockets were priapic male members of the Saturn (Satan) god-dude of Saturday (like Obelisks - O'Baal'isks - Shafts of Baal - The lost penis of the Moon god Jehovah, Baal, Osiris or Allah; i.e. the JahBulOn god-dude of Moon-day/Monday or Luna-day/Lundi to Freemasons). As Above, So Below!lux wrote: The non-spinning rockets do have a much more stately and majestic look about them.
[img]http://b5media_b4.s3.amazonaws.com/28/files/2007/09/the-washington-monument.jpg[/img]
http://b5media_b4.s3.amazonaws.com/28/files/2007/09/the-washington-monument.jpg
The communist USSR transported their rockets horizontally, very sensibly, and then erected them at the last stage, when in launch position. But the fascist USA transported their 111 Metre tall phallic symbols (ref: numerology) all the way in the erect position. Highly dangerous, severe risk of falling over, but the weird NASA astrological witchcraft Obelisk type "sexual magick" symbolism was pretty obvious. Majestic indeed.
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducato ... -v-58.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4 ... s/m271.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/ ... 34x286.jpg
Last edited by Andrew1484 on Fri Sep 21, 2012 12:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Moon Hoax
It seems US rockets have some very small fins or whatever at the bottom ... to stop spinning ... or for steering ... or braking?lux wrote: Yet there is evidence of a torsional force at work: ...
The non-spinning rockets do have a much more stately and majestic look about them.
Re: The Moon Hoax
Yeah, fins are a big help:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsVTf26m2h8
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsVTf26m2h8
-
- Banned
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm
Re: The Moon Hoax
Fins might be usefully used to induce spin to stabilise the trajectory of missiles in flight in air. It might make any animal contents of the rocket rather "dizzy" of course, if not a lot worse than that!lux wrote:Yeah, fins are a big help:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsVTf26m2h8
Funny how some of the silly Apollo 13 propaganda movie "Saturn V" launch was shot so visually convincingly in a parking lot, using really cheap "tin can" props. If Stanley Kubrick was involved, back in 1969, in faking Apollo launches, as well as faking all of the other stuff, I wonder how he would have done it.
The Art Of Creating Awe
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luoKOkTxOtU
Kubrick's Odyssey - Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick
http://vimeo.com/41771132
Blurb: "This provocative and insightful film is the first in a series of documentaries that will reveal the secret knowledge embedded in the work of the greatest filmmaker of all time: Stanley Kubrick. This famed movie director who made films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, placed symbols and hidden anecdotes into his films that tell a far different story than the films appeared to be saying. In Kubrick's Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick's film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA."
Last edited by Andrew1484 on Sat Sep 22, 2012 11:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Banned
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2012 4:03 pm
Re: The Moon Hoax
Heiwa wrote:lux wrote: Yet there is evidence of a torsional force at work: ...
The non-spinning rockets do have a much more stately and majestic look about them.
It seems US rockets have some very small fins or whatever at the bottom ... to stop spinning ... or for steering ... or braking?
I think the 8 retro rockets, above the fins, provided the braking No throttle control on solid fuel rockets, only used at stage separation.
"Steering" was via the "steerable" gimballed 5 main liquid fuel rocket motors, allegedly.
Fig. 1 -Different methods for steering a rocket. (a) air rudders; (b) exhaust vanes; (c) V2/A4 exhaust vanes in the exhaust plume; (d) gimballed engines; (e) reaction control thrusters. (Photo (c) courtesy V2Rocket.com)
Re: The Moon Hoax
Did you write this, Andrew1484? If not please cite source. It seems to be word-for-word from the YouTube video caption hype which, I suppose came from Weidner. Or, are you Weidner perhaps? In any case please cite source.Andrew1484 wrote:
This provocative and insightful film is the first in a series of documentaries that will reveal the secret knowledge embedded in the work of the greatest filmmaker of all time: Stanley Kubrick. This famed movie director who made films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, The Shining and Eyes Wide Shut, placed symbols and hidden anecdotes into his films that tell a far different story than the films appeared to be saying. In Kubrick's Odyssey, Part I, Kubrick and Apollo, author and filmmaker, Jay Weidner presents compelling evidence of how Stanley Kubrick directed the Apollo moon landings. He reveals that the film, 2001: A Space Odyssey was not only a retelling of Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's novel, but also a research and development project that assisted Kubrick in the creation of the Apollo moon footage. In light of this revelation, Weidner also explores Kubrick's film, The Shining and shows that this film is, in actuality, the story of Kubrick's personal travails as he secretly worked on the Apollo footage for NASA.
The reason is that the comment highly praises persons who may not necessarily be considered praiseworthy by members of this forum (myself for one) so it should be put into context to prevent misunderstandings. It is also accepted practice here.
BTW, I have studied Weidner's essays and even bought copies of the Kubrick films he cites and studied them in relation to his points and found the whole thing to be an excessive stretch of logic, a general waste of time and (IMO) mostly a barrel of red herrings. Though a few of his points might have limited validly I think the "package" as a whole is likely disinfo. Just my opinion and just thought I'd mention it.
Lastly, while you are welcome to quote me and add your thoughts to my comments, if you do so please comment on the actual point(s) that I raised rather than steer the topic off in another direction. For example, I mentioned my observation about the lack of spinning motion of NASA rocket launches in comparison to other launches. Maybe it's a valid observation and maybe it isn't but your posts (which quote and reply to my comments) go off on a tangent about using fins to steer rockets or some such topic which really has nothing to do with the point I raised -- so why include my quote in your ramblings?
Many forums consider such tactics to be deliberate derailing of threads -- in other words, troll tactics. It's also just annoying.
Last edited by lux on Fri Sep 21, 2012 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Moon Hoax
Weidner uses this obviously manipulated image, just look at the guys head at the back on the right, clearly just pasted in. After all his so called mastery at image manipulation/front screen projection - to use this image as a main poster is bizarre!
Does anyone know who that guy is? I thought it might be Fredrick Ordway the 3rd but that's the front right guy, I think.
Edit: Image from http://gramercyimages.com/assets/kubrick.jpg and in the Weidner film comes in at 10 mins and is used to tie in Kubrick to Nasa through Ordway.