9 thoughts on “Moon Landing Hoax | Rubber Baby Buggy Bumpers

  • August 16, 2016 at 10:18 am
    Permalink

    Have you looked at the Google pics of the Rover? They show the mudflaps.

    Reply
    • August 16, 2016 at 11:02 am
      Permalink

      I have and you’re right. This particular Moon landing video isn’t my strongest evidence. The mudflap thing looking so odd is the result of something I figured out later. You should really take a look at this one and give me your critique.

      Reply
  • July 27, 2016 at 12:41 am
    Permalink

    The best evidence for me is the total lack of moving camera footage of the earth during the moon. Most of still pictures have been proven to be edited. If you went to the moon with motion cameras, there should be a huge wealth of earth footage? The buggy is a model. Finally it would be easy to send astronauts now, we had the rockets to lift the payload and flyby to the moon should be a tourist attraction if it were possible. My guess is the VARB are the issue.

    Reply
    • July 28, 2016 at 12:05 am
      Permalink

      David, this reply from me will be deleted soon by ‘you know who’ because he doesn’t like people to disagree with him (in contrast to his claim of ‘I promise to be honest with you’), but you’ll still receive this as an email, so here’s my reply 🙂

      – Earth was captured a number of times from the lunar surface, for example from Apollo 17;
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZFrL9Tgs14 (go to 0:30)
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMfNmsm56ig (go to 3:40)
      Besides, they were there to film the moon, not the earth.
      – If Apollo photos were proven to be edited, then photographic experts WORLDWIDE would have come to that same conclusion, not just one with books and DVDs to sell and randoms guys on on the internet.
      – The buggy is not a model. Physicists analyzing the buggy footage concluded that it could only be on the moon due to the lack of air and the 1/6th earth gravity shown in the thrown up dust and buggy movement. Physicists are not idiots.
      – The USA and USSR/Russia first launched men into space (low earth orbit) in 1961, and then it took 42 YEARS before another nation could do the same, i.e. China (with help from Russia). No other nation has achieved that! So today, ONLY the USA, Russia and China can send people into space, and there’s clearly no tourist industry in low earth orbit. So how could the moon be a tourist attraction today when we haven’t even achieved that in low earth orbit yet?
      – Getting people to the moon requires building the largest and most powerful rockets in history, where the Saturn V was such a rocket. No rocket today (or since Apollo) comes anywhere near the size and power of the Saturn V. You can’t get people to the moon without such a rocket, hence we will return to the moon with NASA’s massive SLS rocket in 2021-2023 (where it’s debut launch will be in 2018).
      – The Van Allen belts are easy to pass through in two hours, as they did during Apollo. Dr Van Allen and astrophysicists all confirm that a spacecraft would need to remain in the region of the belts with the most intensive radiation for one WEEK before astronauts would receive a fatal dose.

      I hope that information helps.

      Reply
      • July 28, 2016 at 2:27 pm
        Permalink

        It’s true that it hurts my feelings when people disagree with me, but I don’t think you really do. I think you’re either misguided or deliberately trying to mislead people. As long as you don’t continue to be irrational and keep using good punctuation, I don’t mind having you around at all.

        Reply
        • July 28, 2016 at 3:45 pm
          Permalink

          It is a very interesting subject to me. I find it strange that we had the technology in 1969 and no longer have it? Why? If the Saturn v was so successful why retire it? I think there is something odd about the whole Apollo project. Very undecided! And if you think the truth can’t be hidden for years, just look at the weapons of mass destruction and the hills borough cover up. It’s little things like the quality of the LRO photos that make me more suspicious, as they are pathetic if it’s the best NASA can do.

          Reply
          • July 29, 2016 at 2:13 am
            Permalink

            Thank you ‘lifttheveil’, much appreciated.

            Hi David,

            As mentioned, the ONLY technology we don’t have today (until the SLS in 2018) is a large enough rocket to get us to the moon, where there are very very few hoax believers who actually believe that the absolutely massive Saturn V rocket that stood on the launch pad and lifted off in the full glare of the public (unlike USSR’s rockets) was a hoax.

            The Saturn V served it’s purpose in getting men to the moon. It was retired because Congress cancelled the Apollo program after mission 17, and therefore the Saturn V became redundant with it. They cancelled Apollo because the program had achieved it’s political aim of beating the USSR to the moon (who were more unlucky not to land men on the moon than the vast majority of people realize, where it could have easily been the USSR succeeding and the USA failing).

            In other words, landing men to the moon was about politics, not science. Politics was the number one reason, science was secondary, so with the political aims met, there was nothing left to justify continuing with the massive costs.

            The LRO photos are as good as photos taken of earth’s surface from a satellite (don’t say Google Earth please :-)) or the Martian surface taken from orbit, all with a resolution of about 0.5 meters per pixel.

            What most people don’t realize is that the LRO photos of the landing sites are just a *very* tiny zoomed in section of the huge LRO’s scan of the lunar surface from orbit.

            For example, look at the Apollo craft and landing site in this LRO photo;

            http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites/lroc_features/Apollo%2017/feature_highlights/116

            Now, use your mouse wheel (or click on the ‘-‘ and ‘+’ boxes on that page) to zoom out and zoom in, and then scroll around to the see detail captured. Zoom right out to see the full scale, i.e. see where the landing site is within the photo (works better in Chrome on my PC).

            You can see similar images of the Apollo landings sites and those of other craft on the following page;

            http://www.lroc.asu.edu/featured_sites

            Therefore I don’t think the argument that the quality of the LRO photos are ‘pathetic’ holds up, since they are are good as any photos taken or the Earth and Mars from orbit (albeit not as colourful, since the moon’s surface is a lot more than 50 shades of grey :)).

  • June 18, 2016 at 10:25 am
    Permalink

    I know something isnt right with the buggy but I think you are off on some things. I build cars from scratch and have a vast knowledge of them. (my dad also ran Ratheons engineering during Apollo and is responsible for the Apollo Guidance computer and the Amplitron microwave amplifier) Your Jeep theory has issues. The jeep has a solid rear axle and the buggy is independent 4 wheel suspension. The wheel base is off, and the Honda Prelude had 4 wheel steering in 1987. It also goes back as far as 1913 with many versions tried throughout the years. It has been used on off road vehicles before the Prelude. All Monster trucks use them. The Joy stick is not complicated at all it is actually more simple than a steering box or rack and pinion. It was the first steering ever used, I.E. 1901 Ford and 1903 Olds. Both the joy stick “tiller” and 4 wheel steering are great on slow speed vehicles. I think the moon buggy is a real prototype but the footage is a scale model.

    Reply
  • May 13, 2016 at 11:05 am
    Permalink

    Don’t forget the screen quality was nothing like computers are now…and that footage was not available to the average person. These moments flew by the average watcher.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *