The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Discussion in 'Moon Landing' started by Scott, Jun 5, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There's lots of clear evidence of fakery in the footage of the Apollo missions. Here's one of the clearest anomalies I've seen.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------

    Watch how the corner of Collins' jacket moves in this clip.
    http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A028ADB54169962B6961582AEC2F/apollo-xi-the-little-gem-par.aspx
    (4:10 time mark)

    -----------------
    Here's another video that shows the footage-
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc"]YouTube - ‪Apollo_11__The_TV_Transmission_Conspiracy_Theorists_Hate_.mp4‬‏[/ame]
    (00:50 time mark)
    -----------------

    The corner of Collins' jacket swings back and forth the way it would in gravity.

    At the 00:08 time mark in this clip watch what happens.
    [ame="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4"]YouTube - ‪Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station‬‏[/ame]

    The astronaut with the jacket pulls her arm up and down twice. The corner flops up and down. This is clearly zero-G as the corner has no tendency to go downward. There is no up or down.

    In the clip that shows Collins the jacket corner has a clear tendency to go downward.

    This guy starts to run fast on the treadmill at around the 00:14 time mark.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4"]YouTube - ‪ISS space station treadmill running‬‏[/ame]

    The guy on the far left at the start of this video is wearing a jacket.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0cxuSxOBUA"]YouTube - ‪treadmill dance parody‬‏[/ame]

    Watch the corners of his jacket. Both his and those of the guy in the first video behave exactly the way Collins' jacket corner behaves.

    Watch this woman's hair at the 00:40 time mark.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fUGSVPOGn8"]YouTube - ‪Treadmill Knockout workout!!!‬‏[/ame]

    It also behaves exactly the same way that Collins' jacket corner behaves. It has a clear tendency to go down.

    This woman is jogging in zero-G. Here hair flops up and down but there's clearly no gravity; her hair has no tendency to go downward.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbfX2vQaVew"]YouTube - ‪Sunita Williams marathon‬‏[/ame]

    Here she is when she's not running.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdMuRkwgWE"]YouTube - ‪Suni talked about her long hairs in space‬‏[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2evMR9PvCk&NR=1"]YouTube - ‪Living in Space - Sunita Williams & Michael Lopez‬‏[/ame]

    There's no tendency to go downward just as there's no tendency for this astronaut's jacket corners to go downward.
    [ame="http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4"]YouTube - ‪Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station‬‏[/ame]

    When Collins is running or just standing, his jacket corner has a clear tendency to go downward.

    This is the astronaut who was running in zero-G on earth.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0YK-wG35WM"]YouTube - ‪Astronaut Sunita Williams & Mission Commander Michael Lopez‬‏[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_s3FnfXj5Vk&feature=channel"]YouTube - ‪Making It Happen-Sunita Williams 1‬‏[/ame]

    That footage of Collins jogging in place was supposed to be halfway to the moon but it was obviously taken in strong gravity.
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here's some more evidence.

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 15 flag waving‬‏[/ame]
    At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

    There's an analysis of that here in this three part series.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ&feature=PlayList&p=41BF9062EF97A674&index=0&playnext=1"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: The Flags Are Alive. PART 1.‬‏[/ame]

    More here...
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker:+Flagging+The+Dead+Horses&aq=f
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg"]YouTube - ‪Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement‬‏[/ame]
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE"]YouTube - ‪Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage‬‏[/ame]
    [ame]http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm[/ame]

    What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved their methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

    At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
    [ame="http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736"]Man didnt land on the moon[/ame]

    It can also be seen in this video at around the 30 minute 40 second mark.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066#

    (The above video "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" keeps going on and off-line. If the above link is dead, click here)
    http://video.google.es/videosearch?...to+the+moon&hl=es&emb=0&aq=1&oq=a+funny+thin#

    It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
    --------------------------------
    When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE"]YouTube - ‪Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage‬‏[/ame]

    Here it is doubled.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G29WT2_y1-E"]YouTube - ‪Jumping on the moon at double speed‬‏[/ame]

    When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations)...
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW31fOWzY-E"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: The Penny Drops. PART 1‬‏[/ame]

    ...combined with wire supports in the later missions.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk"]YouTube - ‪Feather & Hammer Drop on Moon‬‏[/ame]
    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg[/ame]

    Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is no blast crater under the lander.
    http://thoughtworld.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/picture1.jpg

    That is discussed in this five part video series.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEQNZQdJFtI"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: No Crater. PART 1‬‏[/ame]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Look at the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor at the beginning of this video.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE"]YouTube - ‪Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage‬‏[/ame]

    Now look at the reflection of the sun in the visor in the picture at the top of this page.
    http://www.sciencephotogallery.com/low.php?xp=media&xm=1694861

    It's pretty clear that the reflection in the Apollo astronaut's visor is that of a big light. Here's an article about that.
    http://www.aulis.com/sunsize.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At bottom of this page there's a picture of the astronaut's visor that has in it the reflection of what looks like some kind of studio light.
    http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_9.html

    The moon rocks are often presented as proof the missions were real. There are plausible explanations that would explain them.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSIlgQhUi9A"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D. PART 5.‬‏[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AQQHTjeMkA"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Rocks & Crocks. PART 1.‬‏[/ame]
    http://www.geschichteinchronologie.ch/atmosphaerenfahrt/28_moon-stones-from-Earth-ENGL.html

    continued...
     
  3. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ...continued

    People say the Soviets would have snitched. There are explanations for that too:
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=moonfaker+cold+war&aq=f

    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/index.html
    (excerpt)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?
    Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Soviets, with their own competing moon program and an intense economic and political and military rivalry with the USA, could be expected to have cried foul if the USA tried to fake a Moon landing. Theorist Ralph Rene responds that shortly after the alleged Moon landings, the USA silently started shipping hundreds of thousands of tons of grain as humanitarian aid to the allegedly starving USSR. He views this as evidence of a cover-up, the grain being the price of silence. (The Soviet Union in fact had its own Moon program).
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Noam Chomsky's analysis of the cold war-
    http://www3.niu.edu/~td0raf1/history468/apr2304.htm
    (excerpt)
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On the domestic front, the Cold War helped the Soviet Union entrench its military-bureaucratic ruling class in power, and it gave the US a way to compel its population to subsidise high-tech industry. It isn't easy to sell all that to the domestic populations. The technique used was the old stand-by-fear of a great enemy.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It someone were to make a deathbed statement saying the moon missions were faked, the press would never report it as the press is controlled.
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
    http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0

    Also, it would be downright dangerous for someone to come forward. Look what happened to these guys.
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here are some videos.

    http://es.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker&search_type=&aq=f
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc
    http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmIWhzTzLn0
    http://s125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/?action=view&current=Roverplantsreflector.flv
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What Happened on the Moon" (documentary)
    http://video.google.es/videosearch?...ppened on the moon&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wv#
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Was it Only a Paper Moon? (documentary)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2rfsy3Sd0c
    (8 parts)

    Here are some articles.

    http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
    http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
    http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
    http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
    http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
    http://www.aulis.com/investigation.htm
    http://www.reddit.com/domain/northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com
    http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2008/11/project-apollo-what-were-they-thinking_24.html
    http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Moon_Hoax
    http://www.erichufschmid.net/Apollo_NASA.html
    http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/index.html
    (Wagging the Moondoggie)

    The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

    Here's a link to the entire conference.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1535324572487804641

    This keeps going on and offline so if this link is dead, try googling "Apollo 11 press conference".

    Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561

    continued...
     
  4. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    ...continued

    The main reason they had to fake it was probably space radiation. Here are some articles and videos I've found on the subject.

    http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
    Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    two sets of radiation data
    http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
    (excerpt)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
    OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
    to
    disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
    unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
    really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
    Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
    one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
    likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
    http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
    http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo

    These two are important
    ---------------------------
    http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2rotplZn0g
    ---------------------------

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKB5u_VTt6M
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcytzf7PkRA
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6DhY1NvmIc
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ltWMbHdDU
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnckudD9oa8
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiTzo3G_hvo
    ---------------------------
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFiIR7hA1rM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toI1Xw9paW4
    ---------------------------
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xlKooAbKpM
    (23 parts)

    The Chinese space walks were obviously faked in a water tank and NASA's official position is that the Chinese space walks were real.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
    http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
    http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

    The pro-Apollo posters at the forums of both the "Clavius" and "Bad Astronomy" websites tap danced around the evidence that the Chinese space walk was faked because they have to agree with the official US government version and they can't say it was faked without looking silly. Here are the threads. They're hilarious.

    http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy
    http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=2206

    They pretty much destroyed the credibility of those two sites when they didn't seriously address the evidence.
    http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

    It's pretty clear that they're government damage-control sites.

    Here's some good research if anyone wants to delve further.
    http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/single/?p=48603&t=51606


    Here's some more stuff on Clavius and Bad Astronomy and Jay Windley.
    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628

    (this explains who Jay Windley is
    http://www.clavius.org/about.html )
     
  5. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    We'd never hear about it if someone tried to blow the whistle; the governement can find lots of scientists willing to sell out and lie, etc.

    At about the 30 minute mark of this video a scientist says that science fraud is common.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643#

    Scientists at the Rand Corporation say that depleted uranium is safe.
    http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm

    There are other scientists who say the opposite.
    http://www.google.es/search?q=depleted uranium&tbs=vid:1

    It's clear that the government can find scientists willing to sell out and lie.

    Here's a scientists who say that it's impossible to get something published in a science journal if it goes against the official version.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
    (00:16 time mark)

    This means that if there's a scientist who thinks the rocks didn't come from the moon, he'd have a hard time getting his opinion known.

    If someone tried to blow the whistle, the press would ignore him or her.
    http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=William+Schaap++-+The+Media,+CIA,+FBI+&+Disinfo.+&aq=f
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
    http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
    http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /Propaganda_System_One.html

    Here's some evidence that it might even be downright dangerous to try to come forward with the truth.
    http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

    We are lied to about history.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/149071-american-imperialism.html


    http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
    (excerpts)
    ---------------------------------------------
    Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

    A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

    A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
     
  6. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It looks like NASA has been faking spacewalks too.

    In these two videos what looks like air bubbles can be seen rising.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38ynHKGzplQ"]YouTube - ‪International Space Station Hoax : Air Bubbles Rise- Space Walks Simulated in A Massive Water Pool‬‏[/ame]
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GO1cWhD_6Nw"]YouTube - ‪Moon Landing Hoax Apollo16- Air Bubbles Rise As The Astronauts Simulate A Space Walk in A Water Pool‬‏[/ame]

    Go down about a third of the way in this link...
    http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm

    ...to where it says, "APOLLO 9: Dave scott performs Extra Vehicular Activities LAVA # : LV-1998-00030.mov
    The astronaut is unusually flexible compared to today's shuttle astronauts on EVAs; the Apollo suit does not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits. The experimental thermal samples flutter and follow non-linear curved paths, as if under the influence of or affected by atmospheric drag and turbulence.

    That looks pretty suspicious.

    I've seen long footage of zero-gravity so I don't doubt that they've acually made it into low earth orbit. Maybe they're faking some of this stuff to save money. I wonder if they fake space walks because of micro-meteorites.

    The Chinese obviously faked their spacewalk...
    [ame="http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA"]YouTube - ‪Proof China Faked Their Spacewalk (Part 2)‬‏[/ame]
    [ame="http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE"]YouTube - ‪About paper and bubbles of ShenzhouVII‬‏[/ame]
    http://www.aulis.com/cctv_discrepancies.htm
    http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
    http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

    ...and the official NASA version is that the Chinese space walk was real so NASA has no credibility.

    Jarrah White discusses a possible fake spacewalk in this video at the 4:45 time mark.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNP828YIUQo"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 2.‬‏[/ame]

    He discusses another one in this video at the 7:45 time mark.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U-NGXBIaaA"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 4.‬‏[/ame]

    It looks like the Soviets may have been doing some faking too.
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dPIBSkYO-U"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 10‬‏[/ame]

    This continues into part 11.

    I watched the whole thing a year or so ago and there is more stuff scattered throughout the series about fakery in earth orbit. I wish I'd saved the time marks.

    If they can fake moon missions and space walks, they may have even faked the unmanned Mars missions.
    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MarsFaker&aq=f
     
  7. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Just out of curiosity; what would it take to convince you that we went to the moon? What evidence would prove it to you?
     
  8. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So not only were people in on it in the US but people were also in on it in Australia and have said nothing?
     
  9. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Look at the info in post #5. The press is controlled so if anyone were to try to come forward, we'd never hear about it.

    I'll know it when I see it. So far I haven't seen any evidence that they went and I've seen a mountain of evidence that they didn't go. Why doesn't someone who thinks they went post some proof that they went and we can talk about whether it's really proof.
     
  10. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Because you'll say, "they", "it", "them", "all of them", "they are", "it is", either "lying", "faked", "fabricated", "not real". You're what they call an omnibus doubter.

    Why would the astronauts who say they went to the moon lie?

    What does that mean? Give an example of what would convince you.
     
  11. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    So that people wouldn't know the truth.

    Footage with no anomalies would help.

    If something has been faked, all the evidence is going to point to its having been faked. If something really happened, all the evidence is going to point to its having happened. There's no way that there can be clear evidence of its having been faked and its having really happened at the same time.

    The footage is full of anomalies. If they'd really gone to the moon, there would be zero anomalies. Therefore, they faked it.

    If you think they really went, post something you consider to be proof that they went and we can discuss whether it's really proof.
     
  12. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So how many of the astronauts are lying? All of them since 1960? Or just the Apollo Astronauts? Apollo, Gemini, Mercury? All of the engineers, flight directors, PR people, administrators?. Who, as specific as you can be, is lying?

    Are you an Astrophysicist?
    Have you ever been in outer space?
    Are you an expert on the equipment the astronauts used?

    You're talking about anomalies without any real knowledge of 3 key aspects. As you did on 9/11 with your silly "take a ruler and measure your screen" argument.




    I fully believe the testimonials. I see no reason for them to lie. Why do you think they lie--and remember you need to define they.
     
  13. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    At least the astronauts from Apollo 11 through 17 and a lot of the higher level people in the space program are lying. I can only speculate about the rest. Here's something from post #5.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    http://theconspiracyzone.podcastpeople.com/posts/28159
    (excerpts)
    ---------------------------------------------
    Q: Why do prominent astronomers like Sir Bernard Lovell and Patrick Moore support the Moon landings if they were faked?

    A: Scientists and astronomers around the globe know full well that the Moon missions were faked, but rely on NASA to gain access to the vital data beamed back to Earth from the Hubble space telescope. They cannot slag off NASA otherwise NASA would deprive them of this essential information, which they so much require.
    ---------------------------------------------
    Q: What about the vast number of people involved in Apollo, wouldn’t someone have spoken out.

    A: Pan’s claim there were half a million people involved in the Apollo program, but that includes all the humble engineers working on machine parts in many companies around the globe. So if someone is making a part in some engineering factory in Seattle, and his boss tells him it’s for the Apollo spacecraft, is that engineer proof the landings took place? No of course it is not proof, and even if that engineer knew they never made it to the Moon, he would still brag to his friends that he made a part that went to the Moon just to make him feel proud in some way or other. Parts for the Apollo program were made at many different factories around the globe. For example the laser reflector supposedly left on the Moon was manufactured in France. NASA collected the unit from the French company, and that was the last they saw of it. It’s probably stashed away in some archive at Langley, but one things for certain it’s not on the Moon. Are those French engineers proof they landed on the Moon? No of course not, as very few, (probably less than 200 people), were actually involved in bringing the whole lot together, so as to minimize what was actually taking place. No need for any of them to speak out because (A) They are 100% patriotic to the USA, and would say nothing that would go against America, even if it were true. (B) They do not need millions of dollars to safeguard their future, as they have already received substantial amounts from NASA just to “keep mum”. Read comments from people who worked on the Apollo program in the APOLLO FEEDBACK section.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

    One doesn't have to be an astrophysicist to see those clear anomalies in the footage. Look at the one in post #1. An eight-year-old could see that the movement of Collins' jacket is consistent with strong gravity at a time when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.

    If they were telling the truth and they really had gone to the moon, there wouldn't be any anomalies in the footage. Therefore, they're lying. Physical evidence trumps testimony.
     
  14. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And why would these 21 men lie again? Many, if not most, have been in space already so that couldn't be the hook. Again, why would they lie?

    What about Apollo 8 and 10?

    So now you're basing your "they're lying" nonsense on the actions of a jacket that you "think" is supposed to be acting differently based on zero space flight time, zero knowledge of what fabric does in the vacuum of space, and zero knowledge of the condition of material at the time.



    And your thinking there are anomalies is "proof"? Forgive me for laughing at your admitted lack of any expertise juxtaposed to the blanket statement.
     
  15. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
  16. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Good day to you Scott (aka Cosmored).

    I have decided to take you up on your offer of debate, since you have repeatedly spammed your link on my youtube channel (betamax101).

    Please point me towards some physical evidence that you have presented on any matter, so that I may examine it. I presume you meant circumstantial evidence, which I shall start to dismantle as I go.

    I suspect that were anybody remotely connected to the space program, to offer any evidence to support your claims, you would change your mind on what a "trump card" is.


    My first refutation of your claims is to highlight what you call an "anomaly" with Michael Collins' Jacket.

    Firstly, I have seen numerous claims where you compare the motion of his jacket to ISS footage and make associations that any differences in inertial movement are indicative of gravity. That in itself is a self supporting argument, since your assessment is wrong in the first place.

    I am now presenting a video series I put on youtube to specifically debunk your argument, with descriptions of what each video demonstrates.

    Video 1
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NkijOFUnu0"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 11 - Michael Collins' Jacket‬‏[/ame]

    In this video, I show the footage in question. The major part of the movement of his jacket is caused by a semi rigid plastic hose holding an attachment (with mass) at waist height, being moved away from and back towards him. The contact causes the jacket to naturally ripple and flex.

    The video also highlights a bulging of his jacket, at the back and on his shoulder area. In itself a clear sign that the jacket's Earth weight does not pull the air out, but rather, a lack of weight holds it in place.

    His arms are vertical and against the bulkhead above him, to counter his natural upwards motion in zero-g whilst jogging. This is effectively transferring his inertial motion from one direction to another in a short space of time and repeatedly.

    I highlight the flexing of his body, his laterally twisting torso, and the upward and downward motion of his legs.

    All of this activity creates air movement, though slight, that also has a contributary effect.

    Video 2
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ogk218Qt24"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 11 - Michael Collins' Jacket part 2‬‏[/ame]

    In this video, I concentrate on the motion in zero-g of Collins' identification tags (dogtags). The video highlights a very fleeting glimpse of the tags, shows them hovering in front of his neck, and moving side to side along with the lateral motion of his shoulders and neck. I have also slowed the footage down.

    Video 3
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs_u4iNfaGk"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 11 - Michael Collins' Jacket part 3‬‏[/ame]

    In this video, I address the issue of the cuffs supposedly always resting on his wrist. There are clearly instances, when the opposite is true. That is, the sleeves are puffed up with air and floating as they would in zero-g.

    Video 4
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BQQyG8XDlA"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 11 - Michael Collins' Jacket part 4‬‏[/ame]

    In this video, I show again the dogtags clearly floating, numerous times, zoomed in, and with a frame extract of all frames in the sequence. I demonstrate with back to back repeats, the sideways motion.

    Video 5
    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK0cleCpmfM"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 11 - Michael Collins' Jacket part 5‬‏[/ame]

    In this last video, I concentrate on isolating the signs of weightlessness and showing the numerous comments made on the videos. The comments in themselves, demonstrate a complete non-understanding of science, they contradict each other and quite frankly are absurd.


    I will leave you with just the two comments from my videos made by the user cosmored, who is in fact the same person that created this thread:-

    "Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"

    Then in reply to my video showing the puffed up back and shoulders of his jacket:-

    "In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

    To anybody with rationale, logical thought, with even mild powers of discernement, I would say that fairly conclusively closes the door on that little piece of the "mountain of evidence".
     
    Falena and (deleted member) like this.
  17. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Look at the jacket corner in the first video and the straps in the second video.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc
    (00:50 time mark)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ofwzby1c7o
    (3:17 time mark)

    Does it look to you like both movements are in the same environment?

    Does the movment of these jacket corners look different from the movement of Collins' jacket corner?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTNGNW5Evs4

    Does this look to you like the same environment that Collins is in.
    http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

    This is such a clear anomaly that it closes the whole case by itself.
     
  18. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    No. This may be your idea of a debate, but it's not mine.

    Now answer fully the post I just made.
     
  19. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There's nothing here that directly affects the movement of the jacket corner.

    The hose is too far above the corner to cause it to go back down when it stops going up.

    The bulge would not be caused by zero-G. There seems to be something holding his jacket down in the back. It's pulling the back of his jacket and causing wrinkles. I don't see anything that I would attribute to zero-G. The main evidence is the corner and there's no identifiable force making the jacket corner stop going up and go back down except for gravity.

    There's nothing his arms are doing that would cause the corner of the jacket to stop and go back down. The same goes for his torso and his legs. The movement from them doesn't arrive to the jacket corner except when it is pulled upward. The material is too loose to push it back down.

    Anyone who looks at the dogtags can see that they don't float in front of him. They go up, stop, and go back down the way they would in gravity.
    YouTube - ‪Apollo_11__The_TV_Transmission_Conspiracy_Theorists_Hate_.mp4‬‏
    (1:00 time mark)

    I was able to duplicate the movement of the dogtags with some keys around my neck. I jogged in place and added a little extra forward movement to my upper body. I also duplicated the movement of the jacket corner by putting a light jacket on a hanger and bouncing it up and down.

    As soon as all movement stops, the cuffs immediately rest on their upper wrists. I don't see anything that looks like zero-G cuff-wise.

    Please address my last post.
     
  20. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    http://spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4805592&postcount=1593

    Loved it!
     
  21. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    That is profoundly wrong.

    The whole scenario affects the corner. You seem to be somewhat obsessed with the corner itself as though it has some sort of independent movement. It is part of his jacket.

    When the jacket moves, the corner moves. When rippling occurs, the tendency of a fabric would be to unripple, since it is not it's natural state.

    When contact occurs from an object it will cause inertial motion to the jacket, when the object swings away, it pulls the fabric back. The swinging object will cause gentle air currents which will have a minor effect. The movement of the jacket in and out will also produce small air currents.

    In addition to the swinging object, we have the lateral motion of his torso as each knee comes up alternately. We have the upward motion it induces, followed by immediate downforce as he pushes with his arms on the bulkhead above.

    We have even more lateral and vertical rotation in his shoulders as his knees come up and arms push down.

    Every single thing involved in his movement causes inertial forces that affect his jacket.

    That is a completely irrelevant point. The semi-rigid hose is what is causing the attachment to impact his lower jacket, as it pulls on it. It also flexes with his body motion and causes it to swing inwards and outwards.

    Making a blanket statement of opinion. The jacket has clearly air buffered at the back, because of earlier movement in the cabin with it unfastened.

    Jackets do not puff up and billow like that in gravity. Weight will pull the fabric downwards and much tighter against a body.

    Now, I suggest you stop and think about what you are saying, because in addition to contradicting yourself and trying to wriggle out of it, you now suggest that the trapped air in his back is under some sort of pressure?

    Air does not magically pressurise when it is trapped. Higher pressure only occurs with something to compress it, and in an enclosed environment. May i suggest that his jacket has no magic compressor attached to it, nor is it enclosed. The jacket clearly billows as he jogs up and down.

    Question: Why do you assert that a loose jacket will bounce up and down in zero-g, but a corner attached to the jacket will not perform this same thing?

    Question: What is causing the jacket to be puffed up with air?

    Please think carefully before answering those questions.


    That is your opinion, and I fail to see what you base it upon. I don't also see how it has any relevance. Most jackets of that type would have a fold and stitched area at the base to give it shape. So what?

    You are suggesting that something that is holding his jacket is in fact pulling it and causing wrinkles? Seriously?

    And there lies your main problem. You are simply denying something, because it destroys your contention. With Collins clearly in space and weightless, your argument no longer holds water.

    Since you have been making this same argument for many years on several forums, I believe you do not have the integrity to finally admit, that after all those comments and assertions you are completely wrong.

    To anybody watching those videos, there are clearly signs of zero-g.

    The dogtags you allege are bouncing:- Video 2 and 4 shows them floating in front of his upper chest/ neck area. Video 4 repeats the passage over and over and clearly shows them making no contact with his chest at all, and moving side to side. Impossible with gravity in play.

    The cuffs you insisted were resting on wrists:- Video 3 and 5 shows them floating with minimal arm movement, not in contact with any part of his wrist.
    Impossible with gravity in play.

    The back and shoulder area:- Demonstrated unequivocably to be puffed up, billowing with movement and under no downward pull.
    Impossible with gravity in play.

    He rises off of the floor:- This occurs twice, and each time he makes no discernible pushing motion with his legs, rises slowly, then gently descends.
    Impossible with gravity in play.

    I keep seeing you say this. The forces have been identified above. Since we have clear signs of zero-g, your argument is baseless. Repetitive opinion, does not represent proof.

    Here is my opinion. You have confessed to having no scientific qualifications, you clearly do not understand inertial motion, you consistently ignore stunningly obvious signs of zero-g, you make assertions that are groundless and parrot the same nonsense over and over. The idea never occurs to you that you are way beyond hopelessly wrong, as I believe you would see it as a weakness to admit that.

    The corner never does that. It never stops and goes back down. It is in constant motion.

    So you contend that lateral and vertical motion of his torso and legs makes no difference to the dynamics of his overall motion? That is just daft.

    Technically there is no "upward". The corner has numerous forces making it move continuously.

    No idea what you mean. Rippling fabric will tend to straighten to its natural state.

    I do not believe you. I am making a video about this, as soon as my nephew can get around here for me to film doing this. I have performed this very thing myself, and have not managed at any time to keep the items in the air for more than a split second, and only side to side with extremely exaggerated neck movement.

    There is a very easy way to resolve this, film it, or ask somebody to film it, and put it up for all to see.

    You are in denial. The film clearly shows the sleeves loosely floating, not touching his wrist at all, with very little arm movement.


    Video 1:
    The lady in question is tethered by a device to stop her lifting. Collins was not.
    The lady in question is actually running on a treadmill, Collins was jogging on the spot.

    The tags are changing direction, moving with her body. There is no object striking them.

    In short, no comparison at all.

    Video 2:

    The motion of his jacket is predominatly in a horizontal direction until he starts to run. There are similarities in the motion of his jacket and Collins', as you would expect since his jacket is connected to his body and moving about.

    No object is impacting his jacket.

    Video 3:

    The lady is moving extremely slowly, just floating. She has a waist pouch just above her backside, which assists in allowing air into the lower part of her jacket. She is not jogging and has no object impacting her.



    Now a final question.

    Question: What did you mean by this statement.

    "If it turns out that there really is some floating, it can be explained by their being in a diving plane faking zero-G."
     
  22. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Now, the next item in this "Mountain of crushing evidence".

    The Apollo 15 flag movement.

    I have uploaded 7 videos on youtube analysing this subject. There are two main issues to deal with, namely the initial movement, and the subsequent movement after Dave Scott has passed by the flag.

    Video 1:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kalT4NGdDsk"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery‬‏[/ame]

    This video simply highlights the initial movement.

    Video 2:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uhMQXRegc"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 2‬‏[/ame]

    In this video, I demonstrate that Jarrah White is self debunking his own claims. He runs past his own badly hung flag, yet fails to move it until he is level with it. He is considerably closer than Dave Scott was to the Apollo 15 flag. There is the barest of movements as he draws level.

    Video 3:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0RsDqmPa_s"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 3‬‏[/ame]

    In this video I show the original Apollo 15 flag moving for 30 seconds. Using Jarrah's 66% slowed down footage theory, that equates to 20 seconds.
    JW then proceeds to run past his own flag several times, yet is only able to move his flag for 4-5 seconds. That equates to 6-7.5 seconds adjusted up 150%.
    With White's flag, there is a totally different billowing movement, a rapid stop, and indeed a much more aggresive motion. No gentle back and forth prolonged swaying as per Apollo 15 flag.

    Video 4:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJyv4TYpTKo"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 4‬‏[/ame]

    This video shows a wide book being dropped from 1 metre and failing to move a plastic bag until it is a few inches away from it.

    Video 5:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 5‬‏[/ame]

    In this video, I isolate several frames and show the flag with movement and Dave Scott at least four feet away. I show several color filtered shots that highlight the actual flagpole itself moving, that is clearly impossible. This one video debunks the "wall of air" contention completely, since air will only be pushed a few inches in front of a body in motion. The plastic bag demonstrated this.

    Video 6:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ888vXaKNM"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 6‬‏[/ame]

    In this video I take it a step further. Using frame grabs, I show Dave Scott about 6 feet away from the flag, with clear movement.

    Video 7:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JixGapxKURc"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 7‬‏[/ame]

    This final video is my personal favorite. If you watch no other video, watch this one.

    I show JW debunking himself in the most totally conclusive way. Simpler if you just watch it.


    Summary:
    There are two possible explanations for the initial movement.

    The movement is a camera blooming effect, caused by Dave Scott entering the frame and the camera blooming with CRT effect to compensate.
    It is consistent with the whole flag shifting right, including the flagpole itself, and also consistent with slightly more movement to the edge caused by the wide angle lens' natural distortion to objects at its edge.

    The movement could also be caused by ground vibration, since the flagpole is seated into the regolith, which has a consistency similar to sandstone just below it's surface.

    I tend to favor the former of these two, but I am open to the other.

    What I am not open to, is a mystery wall of air pushing against a nylon flag from 6 feet away, 4 feet away, or even 2 feet away.


    The movement of the flag as the astronaut passes, is simply caused by his arm brushing it. I am aware of two debunking videos explaining it perfectly, but would rather just rely on Mr Debunkhimself for the final say.


    From the spurs forum:-
    [​IMG]




    Question: How can air move a flag from 6 feet away?

    Question: Do you dispute that the astronaut brushed the flag with his arm as he ran past?
     
  23. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Before I continue with the "mountain of evidence"


    I made this short simple video to demonstrate some of the basic steps needed to carry out this preposterous hoax. It speaks volumes, yet barely scratches the surface of what would be involved:-

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q"]YouTube - ‪If the Moon landings were hoaxed, then all this is necessary.....‬‏[/ame]
     
  24. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,863
    Likes Received:
    171
    Trophy Points:
    63
    YouTube - ‪Apollo_11__The_TV_Transmission_Conspiracy_Theorists_Hate_.mp4‬‏
    (00:50 time mark)

    YouTube - ‪Our World: Exercise Equipment‬‏
    (3:17 time mark)

    The point is that the straps have no tendency to go downward the way Collins' jacket corner does. When the woman's straps are pulled upward, they continue going upward until they are pulled back downward by her downward movement. When Collins' jacket corner is pulled upward, it goes up, stops, and goes back down When there's nothing pulling it back down. The upper part of the jacket is too loose to push it back down. It goes down at the precise point where gravity would make it go down.

    YouTube - ‪ISS space station treadmill running‬‏

    When he starts to run, there is clear up and down movement. The corners want to stay in a hanging position just like Collins' does.

    YouTube - ‪Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station‬‏

    The corners of her jacket have no tendency to go down the way the corner of Collins' jacket does. There's clearly no up or down.

    In this link there are some comparisons of hair moving in both zero-G and in gravity.
    http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-62.html#post3319015

    It's very clear when something is moving in gravity or zero-gravity. In gravity, when the movement stops, all objects want to go to a hanging position. In zero-G, when the moving stops, things just float where they are.

    Collins' jacket corner is clearly in gravity. This one piece of evidence is so clear that it closes the whole case by itself.
     
  25. Betamax101

    Betamax101 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2011
    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You have failed to answer my post again, and ignored the questions posed. You may get away with this with other people, but not with me.

    Answer the questions I asked.


    There is no tendency at all for Collins' jacket corner to go down, it moves in line with the inertial motions imparted on it.

    As for closing the case, you haven't the remotest idea what you are talking about. Outright denial of clear weightless evidence amounts to a definite sign of cognitive dysfunction.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page