The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: observer on December 09, 2016, 05:26:37 PM

Title: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on December 09, 2016, 05:26:37 PM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:


So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Cartog on December 09, 2016, 06:39:45 PM
Despite all the talk about faking it, there are a few reasons why I know (yes, KNOW, not "believe", KNOW) that the moon landing was real.

First, the radio frequencies.  The radio/video frequencies of the moon capsule was being heard and viewed by labs and receivers in many countries - but not by conventional shortwave enthusiasts but only by those equipped with special ultra high frequency receivers.  Regular shortwave is reflected back by the ionosphere and bounces back to Earth so it can be heard in distant countries, but ultra high frequency cuts through the ionosphere so it can be used for outer space radio signals - however it won't bounce around on Earth, it is received straight from space or not at all.  That the various observatories and labs were able to pick up the transmissions from the moon capsule proves that the signals were coming from outer space.

Second, the retroflector.  This is a special, fragile, parabolic reflector which, when precisely set up on the moon, will reflect back a laser or maser (micro-wave) beam to the very spot from which it originated.  In other words, a lab pointing a laser beam at the retroflector on the moon would get its own laser signal back a few seconds later.  This had to be set up by human astronauts at the moon landing because it required very precise positioning that robots of 1969 simply couldn't be relied to do.  Observatories had been flashing laser beams at the landing site and started getting them reflected back the minute that the astronauts finished setting up the retroflector.  Subsequent moon landings set up other retroflectors and I think these are the only moon equipment still functioning after all these years.

Third, the demonstrations.  Yes, Hollywood can do a lot, but the astronauts made a point of doing stuff on the moon that even Hollywood could not convincingly fake (at least not back in the early 1970s).  Like hitting a golf ball a mile, or jumping twenty feet.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 10, 2016, 01:59:38 AM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available

Where? How big was it? Who put the studio sets together, ordered the equipment, ran the lighting, cut together the footage, managed to do that with images of Earth that matched weather satellite images? Who disposed of it afterwards?

Quote
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available

Where is the bit that looked exactly like the moon landing sites? Did they have sand in it that didn't billow in an atmosphere? Is it fullof rocks that are in exactly the same place as the US, Chinese, Japanese and Indian orbital images? Where are these areas of impossible to find desert that look exactly like Taurus-Littrow? Hadley Rille?

Quote
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available

The cameras for Apollo were available, because they developed them specifically for Apollo. Smart Hollywood producers still can't fake lunar gravity and zero atmosphere condition properly. Kubrick made basic errors in 2001/

Quote
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available

They didn't have full control over the media being broadcast back from the moon, it could be (and was) intercepted by anyone with the right equipment. The missions were broadcast live in full to hundreds of bored journalists in the press room.

Quote
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available

They did not have the capability to control camera speeds in live TV for hours at a time, or do real time editing. The time and date specific images of Earth shown in the broadcasts prove they were done when they said they were done.

Quote
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

The difficult part is getting to Earth orbit, the rest is pretty straightforward - the spacecraft is just a point and shoot object. Getting that spacecraft off the ground is the hard bit.

You cant broadcast images of the whole Earth from Earth orbit. Broadcasts from Earth orbit required them to change receiving stations every 10 or 15 minutes, whereas in Apollo they changed every couple of hours as it rotated beneath them.

Apollos visual record shows details that were not known about before those images were made - you can't fake things you don't know about.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on December 10, 2016, 02:19:34 AM
Apollos visual record shows details that were not known about before those images were made - you can't fake things you don't know about.

LOL!!!

Logic's not your strong suit is it?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on December 10, 2016, 05:39:34 AM
Can't be faked.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Kami on December 10, 2016, 03:23:48 PM
For me the strongest argument is that the soviet union did not cry "FAKE" at the top of their lungs. They would have, if they had the slightest piece of evidence. After all they ruined half their country with this space-race.

Instead, they tracked the lunar capsule, verified the landing and sent their congratulations to the americans.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on December 10, 2016, 04:20:49 PM
You're assuming that the Russians weren't in on it too.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on December 10, 2016, 06:20:12 PM
Where? How big was it? Who put the studio sets together, ordered the equipment, ran the lighting, cut together the footage, managed to do that with images of Earth that matched weather satellite images? Who disposed of it afterwards?
I'm sure that damning information is publicly available lol. Was it impossible to do the above in 1969? How does stating "who" prove it was IMPOSSIBLE? Read the thread title please.

Where is the bit that looked exactly like the moon landing sites? Did they have sand in it that didn't billow in an atmosphere? Is it fullof rocks that are in exactly the same place as the US, Chinese, Japanese and Indian orbital images? Where are these areas of impossible to find desert that look exactly like Taurus-Littrow? Hadley Rille?
Again, I'm sure the location of the replica is visible 50 years later. Is it impossible to stage a replica on earth from photos taken in 1968?

The cameras for Apollo were available, because they developed them specifically for Apollo. Smart Hollywood producers still can't fake lunar gravity and zero atmosphere condition properly. Kubrick made basic errors in 2001/
How does this disprove video camera being unavailable? Stick to topic

They didn't have full control over the media being broadcast back from the moon, it could be (and was) intercepted by anyone with the right equipment. The missions were broadcast live in full to hundreds of bored journalists in the press room.
It's already well documented that TV signals were sent to NASA and then distributed. Again, how does your statement prove it's IMPOSSIBLE to control the live feed?

They did not have the capability to control camera speeds in live TV for hours at a time, or do real time editing. The time and date specific images of Earth shown in the broadcasts prove they were done when they said they were done.
Who said anything about speed control on live feed? I didn't. Please re-read the opening post again. I stated the ability to control video speed aka editing. Nothing about live.

The difficult part is getting to Earth orbit, the rest is pretty straightforward - the spacecraft is just a point and shoot object. Getting that spacecraft off the ground is the hard bit.

You cant broadcast images of the whole Earth from Earth orbit. Broadcasts from Earth orbit required them to change receiving stations every 10 or 15 minutes, whereas in Apollo they changed every couple of hours as it rotated beneath them.

Apollos visual record shows details that were not known about before those images were made - you can't fake things you don't know about.
Again, again, again.... was it IMPOSSIBLE to reach and return from orbit in 1969?

You've seriously misunderstood the entire purpose of thread.

If you think it's impossible to fake moon landing then provide some information. That's all
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on December 10, 2016, 07:02:20 PM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • ...
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available

Wait... what?? In 1969?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on December 10, 2016, 09:38:47 PM
Can't be faked.





Embedded.

Any ideas on how they could have photoshopped this?

Genuinely curious, this video, in my opinion is very strong evidence.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Kami on December 11, 2016, 12:28:05 AM
If you are willing to believe that tens of thousands of people worked together to fake this stuff you could believe in
a) actors who were trained to make very abrupt, fast movements (those movements look unnaturally fast, but not impossibly fast)
b) building a giant vacuum chamber

Landing on the moon would be easier, though :D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on December 11, 2016, 02:25:30 AM
They didn't have full control over the media being broadcast back from the moon, it could be (and was) intercepted by anyone with the right equipment. The missions were broadcast live in full to hundreds of bored journalists in the press room.
It's already well documented that TV signals were sent to NASA and then distributed. Again, how does your statement prove it's IMPOSSIBLE to control the live feed?[/quote]

It's well documented that TV signals were sent to Earth from cislunar space and the moon. Those signals were sent to receiving stations around the world and then to NASA. You can't control signals that are broadcast from space because they are being sent to anyone who can intercept them. This is why early spy satellites returned their photographs by parachute drop.

They did not have the capability to control camera speeds in live TV for hours at a time, or do real time editing. The time and date specific images of Earth shown in the broadcasts prove they were done when they said they were done.

Who said anything about speed control on live feed? I didn't. Please re-read the opening post again. I stated the ability to control video speed aka editing. Nothing about live.

You can't ignore the live footage just because it blows your argument out of the water.

The difficult part is getting to Earth orbit, the rest is pretty straightforward - the spacecraft is just a point and shoot object. Getting that spacecraft off the ground is the hard bit.

You cant broadcast images of the whole Earth from Earth orbit. Broadcasts from Earth orbit required them to change receiving stations every 10 or 15 minutes, whereas in Apollo they changed every couple of hours as it rotated beneath them.

Apollos visual record shows details that were not known about before those images were made - you can't fake things you don't know about.

Again, again, again.... was it IMPOSSIBLE to reach and return from orbit in 1969?

Again again again, it is clearly not impossible to reach orbit, but it is impossible to broadcast images of the entire Earth from Earth orbit, just as it is impossible to show details of the lunar surface that you could not know about without actually being there.

Quote
You've seriously misunderstood the entire purpose of thread.

If you think it's impossible to fake moon landing then provide some information. That's all

I have, you have just seriously misunderstood the information I gave you.

Yes indeed you could hire a studio and film stuff in it with a top director, but you don't just need a director, you need an army of technical staff and a whole bunch of other operations going on to buy and construct the studio, then get rid of it, and then edit the footage. Yes, video cameras did exist, but the Apollo cameras were built specifically for the missions. You can't conclude that something was faked just because the technology to film it existed. A lot of the technology to fake it did not exist.

What you could not fake is the continuous live TV broadcast from the moon with zero atmosphere and low gravity conditions because that (even now) is impossible.

Have some more explanation:

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on December 11, 2016, 02:52:29 AM
They would have needed a giant vacuum studio, so the crew managing the live, 70mm and 16mm footage would need to wear pressure suits too.

We know the 16mm, live and 70mm images were all taken at the same time. Faking all of that without showing anything like studio lights would be difficult. Since you have shots of many angles.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on December 11, 2016, 03:06:21 AM
They didn't have full control over the media being broadcast back from the moon, it could be (and was) intercepted by anyone with the right equipment. The missions were broadcast live in full to hundreds of bored journalists in the press room.
It's already well documented that TV signals were sent to NASA and then distributed. Again, how does your statement prove it's IMPOSSIBLE to control the live feed?

It's well documented that TV signals were sent to Earth from cislunar space and the moon. Those signals were sent to receiving stations around the world and then to NASA. You can't control signals that are broadcast from space because they are being sent to anyone who can intercept them. This is why early spy satellites returned their photographs by parachute drop.

They did not have the capability to control camera speeds in live TV for hours at a time, or do real time editing. The time and date specific images of Earth shown in the broadcasts prove they were done when they said they were done.

Who said anything about speed control on live feed? I didn't. Please re-read the opening post again. I stated the ability to control video speed aka editing. Nothing about live.

You can't ignore the live footage just because it blows your argument out of the water.

The difficult part is getting to Earth orbit, the rest is pretty straightforward - the spacecraft is just a point and shoot object. Getting that spacecraft off the ground is the hard bit.

You cant broadcast images of the whole Earth from Earth orbit. Broadcasts from Earth orbit required them to change receiving stations every 10 or 15 minutes, whereas in Apollo they changed every couple of hours as it rotated beneath them.

Apollos visual record shows details that were not known about before those images were made - you can't fake things you don't know about.

Again, again, again.... was it IMPOSSIBLE to reach and return from orbit in 1969?

Again again again, it is clearly not impossible to reach orbit, but it is impossible to broadcast images of the entire Earth from Earth orbit, just as it is impossible to show details of the lunar surface that you could not know about without actually being there.

Quote
You've seriously misunderstood the entire purpose of thread.

If you think it's impossible to fake moon landing then provide some information. That's all

I have, you have just seriously misunderstood the information I gave you.

Yes indeed you could hire a studio and film stuff in it with a top director, but you don't just need a director, you need an army of technical staff and a whole bunch of other operations going on to buy and construct the studio, then get rid of it, and then edit the footage. Yes, video cameras did exist, but the Apollo cameras were built specifically for the missions. You can't conclude that something was faked just because the technology to film it existed. A lot of the technology to fake it did not exist.

What you could not fake is the continuous live TV broadcast from the moon with zero atmosphere and low gravity conditions because that (even now) is impossible.

Have some more explanation:



Might want to check the code in that post.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 13, 2017, 07:19:36 PM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

1969 - computer - size of a house
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore
::)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on January 13, 2017, 07:37:06 PM

;D ;D ;D And I suppose rockets can't work in a vacuum?  ;D ;D ;D
Had a nice vacation?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 13, 2017, 07:37:37 PM
We are saying it's impossible because it couldn't have been faked as the videos showed.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 13, 2017, 07:41:59 PM
We are saying it's impossible because it couldn't have been faked

Sokashill, Circular Reasoning Champion 2017. Congrats.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 13, 2017, 07:43:46 PM
We are saying it's impossible because it couldn't have been faked

Sokashill, Circular Reasoning Champion 2017. Congrats.
Except the video right above is the one that shows film technology wasn't good enough. And I posted the accidental experiment videos where one shows a pendulum that couldn't have been filmed on earth.

Nice try though.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 13, 2017, 07:53:25 PM
We are saying it's impossible because it couldn't have been faked

Sokashill, Circular Reasoning Champion 2017. Congrats.
Except the video right above is the one that shows film technology wasn't good enough. And I posted the accidental experiment videos where one shows a pendulum that couldn't have been filmed on earth.

Nice try though.
"Film technology wasn't good enough [in 1969] to film in the well-known controlled safe comfy environment of a film studio"
"Film technology [in 1969] was good enough to film in an unknown uncontrolled extreme in all aspects unsafe uncomfortable environment of the Moon at 380,000 km from home"

Funny.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 13, 2017, 07:55:09 PM
Watch the videos and then bring an argument with evidence. Until then you are just spouting uneducated opinions.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on January 13, 2017, 08:08:30 PM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

1969 - computer - size of a house
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore
::)
the computer power necessary is not much.  The calculations can be done on a sliderule.
Kubrick was provably in England, afraid of flying, and busy with other projects.  His space films look nothing like Apollo.
Nixon?  Apollo 8 orbited the Moon before Nixon was in office.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 13, 2017, 08:19:24 PM
Apollo 8 at most orbited the head of Uncle Walt. Kubrick is just 1 director out of a cesspool of others. "You don't need computers to travel 380,000 km and back, safe, secure, precise and comfortable" :D

Anything that man can make, man can fake.
Things that man cannot make, man can fake.
There are no things that man can make, but cannot fake.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Twerp on January 13, 2017, 08:23:48 PM
Anything that man can make, man can fake.
Things that man cannot make, man can fake.
There are no things that man can make, but cannot fake.

I am "somehow pretty sure" that this must be the case.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 13, 2017, 08:27:46 PM
So many posts full of nothing. Where is all the evidence?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 13, 2017, 10:44:27 PM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c118/FromVegaButNotVegan/FallaciesAsExplainedByNFL/NonSequitur_zpsb9on97lx.jpg)

Quote
1969 - computer - size of a house

Also rare, expensive, difficult to use, and, compared to what many people routinely carry in their pocket today, not powerful at all. This is strong evidence against the "CGI" some claim was used to fake the moon landings, but was still more than adequate to do the calculations necessary for a moon landing.

Who cares if an IBM System/360 was the size of a house if you had a large building to keep it in?

Quote
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available

No. They were rare, expensive, and limited in capabilities compared to modern CGI, which wasn't available at the time.

Quote
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Quote
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Quote
The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

The "moon-landing hoax" arguments seem to have stalled a couple of decades ago after being thoroughly debunked. Ignorance is apparently endless, however, since some still claim to believe them.

Quote
Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore
::)

Sadly, this may come to pass. There seems to be no compelling short-term economic or political reason to put in the money and effort, or take the risk - and it is expensive, difficult, and risky. All of that is needed to make a manned moon landing possible.

The best chance of it happening again? China may press to attempt manned moon landing(s) for prestige and to hone technical capabilities. If they do so, the US may decide that it's worth it again, too, because there is still a lot to learn, but mostly we won't want to be upstaged by China. We can hope!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 13, 2017, 11:30:53 PM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

1969 - computer - size of a house

The ones on Earth yes, the ones they used in the SCM/LM, size of a small box - that's all they needed to be.

Quote
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available

Go ahead, name one that could have housed a vacuum chamber big enough, then let everyone know who crewed it, when they equipped it, how they got live images of Earth beamed in there.

Quote
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

Apart from the Apollo 8 mission in 1968? Apart from the dozens of lunar probes that had been sent there to test things? I've never been to the USA - is it impossible for me to get there?

Quote
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

That one film full of technical errors that took him him years to make and involved some of the most complex film techniques devised at the time? The one he was working on while Apollo 8 was being prepared? Kubrick couldn't even get the view of Earth right from the moon.

Quote
The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

The list doesn't even get started.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on January 14, 2017, 06:30:39 AM
Apollo 8 at most orbited the head of Uncle Walt. Kubrick is just 1 director out of a cesspool of others. "You don't need computers to travel 380,000 km and back, safe, secure, precise and comfortable" :D

Anything that man can make, man can fake.
Things that man cannot make, man can fake.
There are no things that man can make, but cannot fake.
Apollo 8 and others were observed leaving Earth orbit.  Signals were received from them on the way there, while orbiting the Moon and on the way back.  The idea of Kubrick being involved is laughable.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 14, 2017, 06:33:06 AM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

[Non sequitur meme]
Indeed, the idea that staging moon landings is insanely impossible but making moon landings is perfectly possible is a non sequitur.


Quote
1969 - computer - size of a house

Also rare, expensive, difficult to use, and, compared to what many people routinely carry in their pocket today, not powerful at all.[/quote]
Indeed. So the idea that a small flimsy LM could house that is ridiculous.

Quote
This is strong evidence against the "CGI" some claim was used to fake the moon landings, but was still more than adequate to do the calculations necessary for a moon landing.

:D CGI didn't exist in 1969-1972. Front screen projection did. And that's what they used obviously. Your non sequitur is getting boring.

Quote
Who cares if an IBM System/360 was the size of a house if you had a large building to keep it in?

People who think some steps further than just accepting a lie.

Quote
Quote
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available

No. They were rare, expensive, and limited in capabilities compared to modern CGI, which wasn't available at the time.

Film studios were rare, expensive and limited in capabilities.
Going on a journey into the craziness of space was not rare, not expensive and not limited.


You see, your non sequitur is dooming your position, not mine.

Quote
Quote
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Apollo 8 did not leave System Earth, just as Apollo 11-17 didn't.

And even taking that as true; 1 journey to the Moon (without landing) was enough to perform 7 successful (6 with landing) journeys afterwards. Sure, then it wasn't difficult. Controlling the LEM in the well-known desert of the US was too hard for Clumsy Neil, but two weeks later a perfect landing on a celestial body, never done before was no problem. Your non sequiturs are dropping like micrometeorites.

Quote
Quote
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Of course, the deal was to make 2001 not too perfect, so the film stage hoax wouldn't be too obvious. The technical details of the "Moon landings" were even greater, pointed out by many reviewers, from Kaysing to McGowan, Sibrel and White (2 of them). And back.

Quote
Quote
The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

The "moon-landing hoax" arguments seem to have stalled a couple of decades ago after being thoroughly debunked. Ignorance is apparently endless, however, since some still claim to believe them.

The problem of believers is, that they think they "debunk" something just by quoting the same liars who staged the whole thang.

Ignorance indeed is apparently endless, good you acknowledge your failures. That's the first step, now you have to take the big leap.

Quote
Quote
Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore
::)

Sadly, this may come to pass. There seems to be no compelling short-term economic or political reason to put in the money and effort,

There are more motives than just economic and political. Scientific investigation is one of them.

"There seems to be" is just regurgitating the lies of the ones who have proven to lie all the time. Doesn't impress.

Quote
or take the risk - and it is expensive, difficult, and risky. All of that is needed to make a manned moon landing possible.

Apparently it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972. So today it would be even less difficult and risky.

The Wright brothers had a difficult and risky task at hand and they made it happen for a few seconds. That's why now you can fly almost anywhere on the planet. The summer holidays on the Moon will not. 44.5 years and counting.

Quote
The best chance of it happening again? China may press to attempt manned moon landing(s) for prestige and to hone technical capabilities. If they do so, the US may decide that it's worth it again, too, because there is still a lot to learn, but mostly we won't want to be upstaged by China. We can hope!
You name "prestige" and "still a lot to learn", which are good points, and then mask them again by pouring the sauce of the liars over it.

The Chinese government! :D Those commies can be trusted of course. Just like the Soviets could be trusted.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on January 14, 2017, 06:54:20 AM


:D CGI didn't exist in 1969-1972. Front screen projection did. And that's what they used obviously. Your non sequitur is getting boring.
Front screen projection doesn't work with bright reflective objects in the foreground like bright reflective spacesuits.


Quote
Quote
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Apollo 8 did not leave System Earth, just as Apollo 11-17 didn't.

And even taking that as true; 1 journey to the Moon (without landing) was enough to perform 7 successful (6 with landing) journeys afterwards. Sure, then it wasn't difficult.
Plus the training they had on the Gemini program and the many hours in the simulators.

Controlling the LEM in the well-known desert of the US was too hard for Clumsy Neil, but two weeks later a perfect landing on a celestial body, never done before was no problem. Your non sequiturs are dropping like micrometeorites.
Two weeks?  Better check your reference.  Hoaxie sites like to claim two weeks but the crash of the LLRV (NOT a LEM) happened over a year before Apollo 11 and the problem was NOT due to Neil's control but a technical issue with the prototype vehicle.  The LLTVs and LLRVs had hundreds of successful landings otherwise.  And they had landed multiple unmanned probes on the Moon before as well.




Quote
Quote
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Of course, the deal was to make 2001 not too perfect, so the film stage hoax wouldn't be too obvious. The technical details of the "Moon landings" were even greater, pointed out by many reviewers, from Kaysing to McGowan, Sibrel and White (2 of them). And back.
How convenient, not too perfect.   ::)
Kaysing was nut that lived in a trailer in the desert convinced the CIA were going to off him. McGowan's contributions consist of pages of begging the question and arguments from incredulity.  Sibrel is a stalker and a liar.  His best known "evidence" consists of a film he had to cut out parts of because they prove his assertion wrong.  Jack White repeatedly couldn't identify one side of the LM from another and had serious issues with perspective.  Jarrah White only "debates" where he can control the discussion like on Youtube.  On one notable occasion he tried discussing the "hoax" with people who actually knew what they were talking about on a forum on IMDB.com.  When it became clear he couldn't google the answers he needed he started spewing obscenities and got all his posts deleted.

NONE of the hoax arguments stand up to scrutiny. 


Apparently it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972. So today it would be even less difficult and risky.
Who said it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972?  Why should it be less difficult and risky now?

The Wright brothers had a difficult and risky task at hand and they made it happen for a few seconds. That's why now you can fly almost anywhere on the planet. The summer holidays on the Moon will not. 44.5 years and counting.
Flying doesn't cost millions of dollars per pound to accomplish.  Flying has a tremendous commercial benefit outweighing its relatively small cost.  Rockets are still expensive and the payoff is not yet there.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 14, 2017, 07:15:51 AM


:D CGI didn't exist in 1969-1972. Front screen projection did. And that's what they used obviously. Your non sequitur is getting boring.
Front screen projection doesn't work

It works all the time. That's why they used it in Hollywood and the other film studios on Earth.

Quote
with bright reflective objects in the foreground like bright reflective spacesuits.

Indeed, hence the many flaws analysed in the "Moon landings".

Quote
Quote
Quote
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Apollo 8 did not leave System Earth, just as Apollo 11-17 didn't.

And even taking that as true; 1 journey to the Moon (without landing) was enough to perform 7 successful (6 with landing) journeys afterwards. Sure, then it wasn't difficult.
Plus the training they had on the Gemini program and the many hours in the simulators.

You're using lie B to back up lie A. That's FE behaviour.

Quote
Controlling the LEM in the well-known desert of the US was too hard for Clumsy Neil, but two weeks later a perfect landing on a celestial body, never done before was no problem. Your non sequiturs are dropping like micrometeorites.
Two weeks?  Better check your reference.  Hoaxie sites like to claim two weeks but the crash of the LLRV (NOT a LEM) happened over a year before Apollo 11 and the problem was NOT due to Neil's control but a technical issue with the prototype vehicle.  The LLTVs and LLRVs had hundreds of successful landings otherwise.  And they had landed multiple unmanned probes on the Moon before as well.

That they moved the alleged date of Neil's clumsy handling a year back because they realised their insane lie, doesn't impress.

Nor that they acquit Neil and make it a "technical problem".

No "technical problems" when going to the Moon in 1969. Twice within 4 months. Pretty amazing, isn't it? Separating the Red Sea and turning water into wine is more believable.

Quote
Quote
Quote
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Of course, the deal was to make 2001 not too perfect, so the film stage hoax wouldn't be too obvious. The technical details of the "Moon landings" were even greater, pointed out by many reviewers, from Kaysing to McGowan, Sibrel and White (2 of them). And back.
How convenient, not too perfect.   ::)
Kaysing was nut that lived in a trailer in the desert convinced the CIA were going to off him.

Kaysing was far from a "nut" and where he lived is irrelevant. Also his fears about the CIA that may or may not have been true are irrelevant.

Quote
McGowan's contributions consist of pages of begging the question and arguments from incredulity.

McGowan was a witty writer who pointed out the pathetic lies in his own way.

Quote
Sibrel is a stalker and a liar.

The stalking doesn't make his arguments disappear.

And if you have a problem with liars, take a look at your NASA c.s. buddies.  :D

Quote
  His best known "evidence" consists of a film he had to cut out parts of because they prove his assertion wrong.
  Jack White repeatedly couldn't identify one side of the LM from another and had serious issues with perspective.  Jarrah White only "debates" where he can control the discussion like on Youtube.  On one notable occasion he tried discussing the "hoax" with people who actually knew what they were talking about on a forum on IMDB.com.  When it became clear he couldn't google the answers he needed he started spewing obscenities and got all his posts deleted.[/quote]

Jarrah White has made the most comprehensive set of arguments against the silly Moon hoax. Deleting his posts (also the ones without "obscenities") shows how desperate the liars were to bury his arguments.

Quote
NONE of the hoax arguments stand up to scrutiny. 

You may believe that.

Quote
Apparently it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972. So today it would be even less difficult and risky.
Who said it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972?  Why should it be less difficult and risky now?

It wasn't difficult as a two-time travel in just 4 months showed. Or that's what they claim.

Because of the development of engineering and technology. Making a video call in 1969 was more difficult than now, using Skype or any other program.

Things that were possible in a medieval computer era are much easier in a well-developed computer era.

Quote
The Wright brothers had a difficult and risky task at hand and they made it happen for a few seconds. That's why now you can fly almost anywhere on the planet. The summer holidays on the Moon will not. 44.5 years and counting.
Flying doesn't cost millions of dollars per pound to accomplish.  Flying has a tremendous commercial benefit outweighing its relatively small cost.  Rockets are still expensive and the payoff is not yet there.

The first jet engines were also extremely expensive. But development and R&E makes them less expensive later. That's how mankind has progressed. The Moon "landings" were a piece of cake (100% success in the first 2 attempts within 4 months) back in 1969. Even after the faked Apollo 13 they did it again, 4 times with 100% success ratio. And then... silence.

Development doesn't work that way.

And what you consider "beneficial" is your opinion. There is an enormous selenological benefit in exploring the Moon. Mapping the unknown backside too.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on January 14, 2017, 07:27:56 AM


:D CGI didn't exist in 1969-1972. Front screen projection did. And that's what they used obviously. Your non sequitur is getting boring.
Front screen projection doesn't work

It works all the time. That's why they used it in Hollywood and the other film studios on Earth.
Cherry picking now?

Quote
with bright reflective objects in the foreground like bright reflective spacesuits.

Indeed, hence the many flaws analysed in the "Moon landings".
::)
None like would be observed if front screen projection were actually used.


Quote
Quote
Quote
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Apollo 8 did not leave System Earth, just as Apollo 11-17 didn't.

And even taking that as true; 1 journey to the Moon (without landing) was enough to perform 7 successful (6 with landing) journeys afterwards. Sure, then it wasn't difficult.
Plus the training they had on the Gemini program and the many hours in the simulators.

You're using lie B to back up lie A. That's FE behaviour.
::)
Quote
Controlling the LEM in the well-known desert of the US was too hard for Clumsy Neil, but two weeks later a perfect landing on a celestial body, never done before was no problem. Your non sequiturs are dropping like micrometeorites.
Two weeks?  Better check your reference.  Hoaxie sites like to claim two weeks but the crash of the LLRV (NOT a LEM) happened over a year before Apollo 11 and the problem was NOT due to Neil's control but a technical issue with the prototype vehicle.  The LLTVs and LLRVs had hundreds of successful landings otherwise.  And they had landed multiple unmanned probes on the Moon before as well.

That they moved the alleged date of Neil's clumsy handling a year back because they realised their insane lie, doesn't impress.
Can't just admit the hoaxie site you cribbed it from was wrong, can you?

Nor that they acquit Neil and make it a "technical problem".
ALWAYS was a technical problem.  Had nothing to do with his handling.

No "technical problems" when going to the Moon in 1969. Twice within 4 months. Pretty amazing, isn't it? Separating the Red Sea and turning water into wine is more believable.
If you believe there were no problems on the Apollo missions then it only proves you haven't really looked.  Each mission had its share of issues.

Quote
Quote
Quote
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Of course, the deal was to make 2001 not too perfect, so the film stage hoax wouldn't be too obvious. The technical details of the "Moon landings" were even greater, pointed out by many reviewers, from Kaysing to McGowan, Sibrel and White (2 of them). And back.
How convenient, not too perfect.   ::)
Kaysing was nut that lived in a trailer in the desert convinced the CIA were going to off him.

Kaysing was far from a "nut" and where he lived is irrelevant. Also his fears about the CIA that may or may not have been true are irrelevant.
No, he was a nut.  Look at his actual interviews.

Quote
McGowan's contributions consist of pages of begging the question and arguments from incredulity.

McGowan was a witty writer who pointed out the pathetic lies in his own way.
Logical fallacies and lack of facts prove nothing.

Quote
Sibrel is a stalker and a liar.

The stalking doesn't make his arguments disappear.

And if you have a problem with liars, take a look at your NASA c.s. buddies.  :D[/quote]
the stalking shows he's a creepy person.  And he was a PROVEN liar.  Would you not agree it is deceptive to cut out part of footage that proves your argument wrong?
Quote
  Jack White repeatedly couldn't identify one side of the LM from another and had serious issues with perspective.  Jarrah White only "debates" where he can control the discussion like on Youtube.  On one notable occasion he tried discussing the "hoax" with people who actually knew what they were talking about on a forum on IMDB.com.  When it became clear he couldn't google the answers he needed he started spewing obscenities and got all his posts deleted.

Jarrah White has made the most comprehensive set of arguments against the silly Moon hoax. Deleting his posts (also the ones without "obscenities") shows how desperate the liars were to bury his arguments.
Jarrah deleted his own posts to cover up his failures.5
Quote
NONE of the hoax arguments stand up to scrutiny. 

You may believe that.
Because it is true.

Quote
Apparently it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972. So today it would be even less difficult and risky.
Who said it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972?  Why should it be less difficult and risky now?

It wasn't difficult as a two-time travel in just 4 months showed. Or that's what they claim.
Nobody actually involved claimed it wasn't difficult.  Nice attempt at a strawman though.

Because of the development of engineering and technology. Making a video call in 1969 was more difficult than now, using Skype or any other program.

Things that were possible in a medieval computer era are much easier in a well-developed computer era.
So computers are better.  Again, the necessary calculations aren't that difficult.  A faster computer isn't going to help that much.

Quote
The Wright brothers had a difficult and risky task at hand and they made it happen for a few seconds. That's why now you can fly almost anywhere on the planet. The summer holidays on the Moon will not. 44.5 years and counting.
Flying doesn't cost millions of dollars per pound to accomplish.  Flying has a tremendous commercial benefit outweighing its relatively small cost.  Rockets are still expensive and the payoff is not yet there.

The first jet engines were also extremely expensive.
Not anywhere near the millions of dollars per pound to get something there.

But development and R&E makes them less expensive later. That's how mankind has progressed. The Moon "landings" were a piece of cake Still only your unevidenced assertion (100% success in the first 2 attempts within 4 months) back in 1969. Even after the faked Apollo 13 they did it again, 4 times with 100% success ratio. And then... silence.

Development doesn't work that way.
Who has wanted to pay for it since then? Who were we competing against after that?  What kind of payoff makes up for the cost of millions of dollars per pound to get there?

And what you consider "beneficial" is your opinion. There is an enormous selenological benefit in exploring the Moon. Mapping the unknown backside too.
Which is far cheaper and easier to do with unmanned probes, like they have been.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 14, 2017, 07:36:49 AM
The character of the people involved in exposing the Moon hoax lies is irrelevant. Just as it's irrelevant Buzz Lightyear is a despicable man. It's the arguments that count.

No unmanned probes have ever left the Earth's atmosphere. They can't.

The "issues" of the Apollo "missions" did not prevent them from bringing 12 people to the surface of the Moon and back, safe, not dying from cancer or any other problems. Compare that to the first flights, New World exploration travels and climbing the Everest. All in known to slightly unknown conditions, where the alleged Moon "landings" were completely new. Oh no, not completely, there was Apollo 8.  ;D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on January 14, 2017, 08:56:33 AM
You're using lie B to back up lie A. That's FE behaviour.
QFT
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 14, 2017, 09:25:30 AM
Quote
That they moved the alleged date of Neil's clumsy handling a year back because they realised their insane lie, doesn't impress.

Nor that they acquit Neil and make it a "technical problem".


This is completely false. The accident was reported at the time, and the cause. Here are the in-house journals covering both:

https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/roundups/issues/68-05-10.pdf

https://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/roundups/issues/68-10-25.pdf

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 14, 2017, 09:30:31 AM
The character of the people involved in exposing the Moon hoax lies is irrelevant. Just as it's irrelevant Buzz Lightyear is a despicable man. It's the arguments that count.

Very true. I am quite happy to ignore the violent criminal history of Bart Sibrel, just not his dishonesty and lying.

Quote
No unmanned probes have ever left the Earth's atmosphere. They can't.

False. Not true. Prove otherwise. Japan, ESA, India, the USSR and the USA all disagree with you.

Quote
The "issues" of the Apollo "missions" did not prevent them from bringing 12 people to the surface of the Moon and back, safe, not dying from cancer or any other problems. Compare that to the first flights, New World exploration travels and climbing the Everest. All in known to slightly unknown conditions, where the alleged Moon "landings" were completely new. Oh no, not completely, there was Apollo 8.  ;D

The moon landings were planned thoroughly and every aspect tested, including those needed for Apollo 8. Before anyone climbed Everest no-one had climbed it. Before the New World was discovered no-one had discovered it. Someone has to be first.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 14, 2017, 09:30:43 AM
We are saying it's impossible because it couldn't have been faked

Sokashill, Circular Reasoning Champion 2017. Congrats.
Except the video right above is the one that shows film technology wasn't good enough. And I posted the accidental experiment videos where one shows a pendulum that couldn't have been filmed on earth.

Nice try though.
"Film technology wasn't good enough [in 1969] to film in the well-known controlled safe comfy environment of a film studio"
"Film technology [in 1969] was good enough to film in an unknown uncontrolled extreme in all aspects unsafe uncomfortable environment of the Moon at 380,000 km from home"

Funny.
  ;D Brilliant
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 14, 2017, 08:35:27 PM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.
[Non sequitur meme]
Indeed, the idea that staging moon landings is insanely impossible but making moon landings is perfectly possible is a non sequitur.

Why do you think it's a non sequitur? Do you know what a non sequitur is?

Quote
Quote
Quote
1969 - computer - size of a house

Also rare, expensive, difficult to use, and, compared to what many people routinely carry in their pocket today, not powerful at all.
Indeed. So the idea that a small flimsy LM could house that is ridiculous.

Who says it did? You? Other conspiracy theorists? Anyone else?

Quote
Quote
This is strong evidence against the "CGI" some claim was used to fake the moon landings, but was still more than adequate to do the calculations necessary for a moon landing.

:D CGI didn't exist in 1969-1972. Front screen projection did. And that's what they used obviously. Your non sequitur is getting boring.

You're right about CGI not existing then. That doesn't stop some Apollo-hoax theorists from claiming that's how it was done, though, so thanks for the clarification. Front screen projection? Is that supposed to be better than CGI? How did they create the footage you claim they're projecting? How do you simulate an airless, one-sixth g environment on earth? A large studio with all the air evacuated? Any evidence for this?

Quote
Quote
Who cares if an IBM System/360 was the size of a house if you had a large building to keep it in?

People who think some steps further than just accepting a lie.

Are you saying that:

'60s mainframe computers being as big as houses are a lie? Why the change?

Or are you saying that buildings large enough to house them are a lie?

Or are you saying their existence is a lie?

Where's the lie?
 
Quote
Quote
Quote
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available

No. They were rare, expensive, and limited in capabilities compared to modern CGI, which wasn't available at the time.

Film studios were rare, expensive and limited in capabilities.
Going on a journey into the craziness of space was not rare, not expensive and not limited.


Actually, space is quite predictable, but very difficult to operate in. Sending people there was indeed rare, expensive, and quite limited. Still is. Has any knowledgeable person said otherwise?

Quote
You see, your non sequitur is dooming your position, not mine.

You really don't have any idea what a non sequitur is.

Not having film studios that are able to fake an Apollo landing means an actual landing isn't possible? That doesn't follow. There's the non sequitur; it's yours.

Quote
Quote
Quote
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Apollo 8 did not leave System Earth, just as Apollo 11-17 didn't.

Saying it doesn't make it true. There are too many independent witnesses to its flight to fake.

Quote
And even taking that as true

OK, good. We're getting somewhere now!

Quote
1 journey to the Moon (without landing) was enough to perform 7 successful (6 with landing) journeys afterwards.

It helped by proving the orbital insertions and extractions could be done as planned. Note that there were two journeys to the moon (Apollo 8 & 10) before the first landing attempt (which was successful, as you know). That second journey to the moon included practice maneuvering the LM in lunar orbit without an actual landing attempt. After the first landing, there were five more successful landings in six attempts (Apollo 13, as you know, journeyed to the moon, but returned immediately due to serious technical problems).

Quote
Sure, then it wasn't difficult.

Only Apollo deniers have claimed this.
 
Quote
Controlling the LEM in the well-known desert of the US was too hard for Clumsy Neil, but two weeks later a perfect landing on a celestial body, never done before was no problem. Your non sequiturs are dropping like micrometeorites.

Armstrong was piloting a Lunar Landing Research Vehicle (LLRV), not a LEM [sic], that crashed, and that was in 1968, more than a year before the first lunar landing, not two weeks. The crash was due to a malfunction of the LLRV that caused the flight controls to fail (http://www.airspacemag.com/videos/armstrongs-close-call/). Armstrong piloted the successor Lunar Landing Training Vehicle (LLTV) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Landing_Research_Vehicle#Lunar_Landing_Training_Vehicle) to more than 50 test landings without a mishap, the last of these successful test landings were less than 16 days before the Apollo 11 launch. But don't let any facts get in the way of what you want to believe.

Quote
Quote
Quote
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Of course, the deal was to make 2001 not too perfect, so the film stage hoax wouldn't be too obvious. The technical details of the "Moon landings" were even greater, pointed out by many reviewers, from Kaysing to McGowan, Sibrel and White (2 of them). And back.

Of course. How convenient. Do you have any evidence?

Quote
Quote
Quote
The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

The "moon-landing hoax" arguments seem to have stalled a couple of decades ago after being thoroughly debunked. Ignorance is apparently endless, however, since some still claim to believe them.

The problem of believers is, that they think they "debunk" something just by quoting the same liars who staged the whole thang.

Actually, no. Most of the "hoax theories" are simple misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of physics which are easy to see through by many reasonably educated people familiar with science, materials, optics, and reality in general.

Quote
Ignorance indeed is apparently endless, good you acknowledge your failures. That's the first step, now you have to take the big leap.

You should start immediately. There might be hope.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore
::)

Sadly, this may come to pass. There seems to be no compelling short-term economic or political reason to put in the money and effort,

There are more motives than just economic and political. Scientific investigation is one of them.

"There seems to be" is just regurgitating the lies of the ones who have proven to lie all the time. Doesn't impress.

Yes, scientific investigation is ultimately the best reason to return to the moon. The cost is high enough, however, that without a concerted national or international effort, it is just too costly. Sad, but true.

Quote
Quote
or take the risk - and it is expensive, difficult, and risky. All of that is needed to make a manned moon landing possible.

Apparently it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972.

Now, that's funny! Any references to back that bold statement up?

Quote
So today it would be even less difficult and risky.

Because it's been done before, we know it can be done and how to do it successfully, so that does reduce the difficulty and risk somewhat. Even so, it's still expensive, difficult, and risky. If it were easy, cheap and safe, we would already be going back.

Quote
The Wright brothers had a difficult and risky task at hand and they made it happen for a few seconds. That's why now you can fly almost anywhere on the planet. The summer holidays on the Moon will not. 44.5 years and counting.

Yes, they did. Once they showed it was possible and proved the principles necessary to make it work, reasonably competent people were able to replicate and improve on their feat, with fairly modest investments, quite quickly. Unfortunately, even primitive manned spaceflight is much more difficult than primitive manned heavier-than-air flight, so much more than entrepreneurs and enthusiasts in backyard shops are needed to make it possible.

WWI and WWII prompted enormous advances in aeronautical development because it was militarily valuable. A side effect of this rapid development of long-range and high-speed flight is the revolution in travel we see today. Comparatively, manned spaceflight has limited military value - unmanned spaceflight is much more useful. The 44 years after the first Wright Brothers flight saw the two largest wars in history and the beginning of an uneasy peace. Spaceflight advanced rapidly during the early years of that peace, with less than 12 years separating the first artificial satellite and the first manned moon landing. Fortunately, in the 48 years since Apollo 11, there have been no upheavals remotely approaching the magnitude of what happened before, and tensions have been generally easing. All this is a good thing, but it does remove some of the will to demonstrate technical prowess among the developed countries, so expensive projects that push technical barriers with no obvious and immediate economic or military benefit aren't pursued with urgency.

Quote
Quote
The best chance of it happening again? China may press to attempt manned moon landing(s) for prestige and to hone technical capabilities. If they do so, the US may decide that it's worth it again, too, because there is still a lot to learn, but mostly we won't want to be upstaged by China. We can hope!
You name "prestige" and "still a lot to learn", which are good points, and then mask them again by pouring the sauce of the liars over it.

"Sauce of the liars." Lol! At least that's something original. Well done!

Quote

The Chinese government! :D Those commies can be trusted of course. Just like the Soviets could be trusted.

Who cares if they can be trusted or not? The question is do they have enough technical ability, resources, and resolve? We will be able to tell if they actually go, and succeed, if they claim to. Even private citizens with reasonable technical skills and readily-available equipment will be able to tell whether they are on or near the moon. Even now it would be pretty hard to perfectly fake the photography and videography, especially live feeds, which can be verified as coming from the moon, and exactly where on the moon with sufficiently good equipment that many countries have. In addition, monitoring by non-Chinese satellites in lunar orbit could verify their presence on the surface.

Of course, you can simply choose not to believe it, like you do for many other things that are obviously true, for whatever reason suits you, and there's really nothing anyone but you can do about it. Fortunately, what you believe or refuse to believe doesn't greatly matter.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 15, 2017, 12:21:32 PM
Getting back to topic somewhat, was it impossible to fake 1/6th gravity?

Harnesses to support 1/5th weight, slow motion, prerecorded and aired as live later. Was this all impossible as some claim? Why does it have to be a vacuum?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 15, 2017, 12:50:02 PM
Getting back to topic somewhat, was it impossible to fake 1/6th gravity?
Apparently, because the footage makes no sense.

It was the Eureka moment for me; "that cannot be on the Moon!?". From there a lot more became clear.

Only stupid shills defend Apollo.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Twerp on January 15, 2017, 01:09:23 PM
If you disagree with me, then you are stupid.

And you're probably being paid off.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 15, 2017, 01:28:25 PM
Getting back to topic somewhat, was it impossible to fake 1/6th gravity?
Apparently, because the footage makes no sense.

It does, because it's on 1/6G on the moon.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 15, 2017, 01:32:14 PM
Getting back to topic somewhat, was it impossible to fake 1/6th gravity?
Apparently, because the footage makes no sense.

It does, because it's on 1/6G on the moon.
In theory indeed it's 1/6th gravity on the Moon.

Which makes the footage so fake. What they presented to us doesn't show 1/6th gravity. Understandable that people in the 60s and 70s fell for it. Now it looks so fake, it's the reason why they avoid showcasing the "biggest achievement of mankind". It's painful to watch those clowns bunnyhopping on whacky wires.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 15, 2017, 01:35:40 PM
Getting back to topic somewhat, was it impossible to fake 1/6th gravity?
Apparently, because the footage makes no sense.

It does, because it's on 1/6G on the moon.
In theory indeed it's 1/6th gravity on the Moon.

Which makes the footage so fake. What they presented to us doesn't show 1/6th gravity. Understandable that people in the 60s and 70s fell for it. Now it looks so fake, it's the reason why they avoid showcasing the "biggest achievement of mankind". It's painful to watch those clowns bunnyhopping on whacky wires.

Oh dear oh dear we really are galloping through every tired old hoaxer bollocks in quick smart fashion aren't.

There are no wires. There are ample demonstrations of the lunar gravity on the hours of continuous live TV that were broadcast, but seeing as you've only ever seen nice bite-sized chunks you were spoon fed by some con merchant on a hoax loving youtube site that would be beyond your comprehension.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 15, 2017, 01:41:24 PM
Of course there were wires. They didn't have CGI in the 1960s.

And no, the first time I saw it was not on the Moon was in a movie released by NASA, only after that seeing other analyses that made a lot clear. And my own investigation into this hoax added many more points that others missed.

The funny bunnies didn't confirm 1/6th gravity, far from it; they debunked their own "Moon landings" with their ridiculous releases.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 15, 2017, 01:48:51 PM
Of course there were wires. They didn't have CGI in the 1960s.

Precisely, they didn't have CGI. However there are no wires. Kindly point some out to us. Explain where they were attached. Explain who operated the harnesses, and how they managed not to get them tangled up when the astronauts crossed paths so many times.

Quote
And no, the first time I saw it was not on the Moon was in a movie released by NASA, only after that seeing other analyses that made a lot clear. And my own investigation into this hoax added many more points that others missed.

The funny bunnies didn't confirm 1/6th gravity, far from it; they debunked their own "Moon landings" with their ridiculous releases.

Oh do please enlighten us with your in-depth analyses. Which movie was it? Why not what the hours of live EVA TV footage?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 01:55:23 PM
Pretty simple to see what's going on.
Even a man in a t-shirt and shorts couldn't get up from that position, never mind a blown up stiff with a back pack on, supposedly.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on January 15, 2017, 01:58:46 PM
Pretty simple to see what's going on.
Even a man in a t-shirt and shorts couldn't get up from that position, never mind a blown up stiff with a back pack on, supposedly.



So you've tried it then?  Because I have and it isn't that hard.  The stiffness of the suit should help too once he gets his knees under him.  Better question is though, if they used wires, why would they ever fall?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 02:01:58 PM
Pretty simple to see what's going on.
Even a man in a t-shirt and shorts couldn't get up from that position, never mind a blown up stiff with a back pack on, supposedly.



So you've tried it then?  Because I have and it isn't that hard.  The stiffness of the suit should help too once he gets his knees under him.  Better question is though, if they used wires, why would they ever fall?
You haven't tried anything.
And also the reason they fall is because they are under the leash effect, like a dog under tension who tries to alter motion. The tension upsets the balance.

Any honest person can see this garbage for what it is.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on January 15, 2017, 02:05:55 PM
Pretty simple to see what's going on.
Even a man in a t-shirt and shorts couldn't get up from that position, never mind a blown up stiff with a back pack on, supposedly.



So you've tried it then?  Because I have and it isn't that hard.  The stiffness of the suit should help too once he gets his knees under him.  Better question is though, if they used wires, why would they ever fall?
You haven't tried anything.
Yes, I did.  It is very clear you made a statement without trying it yourself though.


And also the reason they fall is because they are under the leash effect, like a dog under tension who tries to alter motion. The tension upsets the balance.
Doesn't actually explain why a supposed harness supposedly imitating low gravity would let out enough to let them fall.

Any honest person can see this garbage for what it is.
Yes, we easily see your garbage.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 15, 2017, 02:08:37 PM
Pretty simple to see what's going on.
Even a man in a t-shirt and shorts couldn't get up from that position, never mind a blown up stiff with a back pack on, supposedly.



So you've tried it then?  Because I have and it isn't that hard.  The stiffness of the suit should help too once he gets his knees under him.  Better question is though, if they used wires, why would they ever fall?
You haven't tried anything.
And also the reason they fall is because they are under the leash effect, like a dog under tension who tries to alter motion. The tension upsets the balance.

Any honest person can see this garbage for what it is.

Very true. And not to mention the Lunar Rover in the non-existing lunar "sand" (another grand error of the clowns). Really, I don't blame propagandised 60s and 70s folk. But anyone defending those liars now, is pushing a big failed agenda.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 02:19:24 PM
Pretty simple to see what's going on.
Even a man in a t-shirt and shorts couldn't get up from that position, never mind a blown up stiff with a back pack on, supposedly.



So you've tried it then?  Because I have and it isn't that hard.  The stiffness of the suit should help too once he gets his knees under him.  Better question is though, if they used wires, why would they ever fall?
You haven't tried anything.
And also the reason they fall is because they are under the leash effect, like a dog under tension who tries to alter motion. The tension upsets the balance.

Any honest person can see this garbage for what it is.

Very true. And not to mention the Lunar Rover in the non-existing lunar "sand" (another grand error of the clowns). Really, I don't blame propagandised 60s and 70s folk. But anyone defending those liars now, is pushing a big failed agenda.
I don 't blame anyone from that time for believing it all. I don't blame anyone today for doing so, if they haven't seen any footage.

People defending it in the manner that many on here do goes way beyond sickening.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 15, 2017, 02:23:54 PM
Exactly how I see it.

Up until a few years ago I just thought it was true. Pure ignorance, never seen the actual footage. After watching "For All Mankind" it was unbearable to hold those landings "happened".

Quite some people still believe in Space Travel but at least acknowledge Apollo is fake as hell. Anyone defending Apollo (so after seen the actual footage and/or the objections against it) is a clear shill.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on January 15, 2017, 02:35:03 PM
Pretty simple to see what's going on.
Even a man in a t-shirt and shorts couldn't get up from that position, never mind a blown up stiff with a back pack on, supposedly.


And I suppose Mr SmartAlec Sceptimatic has tried that himself under normal gravity and under lunar gravity.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 15, 2017, 02:39:36 PM
lol Just posting the video again.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 02:48:08 PM
I think this one nails it once and for all. There really shouldn't be any rational person denying the fakery. It's so blatant that it's only missing the forehead fakery branding.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FlatOrange on January 15, 2017, 02:55:51 PM
You guys give Stanley Kubrick WAY too much credit

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FlatOrange on January 15, 2017, 02:57:39 PM
I think this one nails it once and for all. There really shouldn't be any rational person denying the fakery. It's so blatant that it's only missing the forehead fakery branding.


Unnatural because nature by definition is what we experience on earth. Nature is Mother Earth. Their environment is unnatural, they're on a freaking rock of dust that has no atmosphere. EDIT: no atmosphere and 1/6th the gravity!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 15, 2017, 03:02:47 PM
That dust was a huge mistake too. Anyone who has actually observed the Moon through a telescope knows this.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 15, 2017, 03:05:36 PM
Wat?
You think moon videos shouldn't show dust because you cant see it in a telescope?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 15, 2017, 03:13:43 PM
Don't wrap your head around it, sokashill. There's no way you'll ever see the light.

That's why sceptimatic was specific about "honest persons".
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on January 15, 2017, 03:14:26 PM
I think this one nails it once and for all. There really shouldn't be any rational person denying the fakery. It's so blatant that it's only missing the forehead fakery branding.


Why would any wires be necessary when you can SEE the fallen astronaut's left arm on the other astronauts as he is being helped up?

The first part looks like a jump.  The second part you can see the fallen astronaut put his left hand on the right arm of the other astronaut.  The video LIES to you claiming the other astronaut does not assist.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 15, 2017, 03:21:55 PM
Don't wrap your head around it, sokashill. There's no way you'll ever see the light.

That's why sceptimatic was specific about "honest persons".
Lol

Make less dumb posts.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 15, 2017, 10:57:31 PM
Well so far all I see from the hoax proponents is "gee that kinda looks funny" and "you believe something different different to me therefore you are being told to believe it".  ::)

Still no actual evidence of wires, no explanation of the evidence of lunar gravity and zero atmosphere, no identification of the filming location, the methodology, the crews, and how it was possible (as the OP video points out) for hours of live TV containing time and date specific images of Earth to be broadcast from the place where everyone had their dishes pointed. No explanation as to how it was possible for those broadcasts to show details that were not known about prior to the landing but now confirmed by probes from many countries.

The hoax claim has absolutely nothing.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on January 15, 2017, 11:45:25 PM
Well so far all I see from the hoax proponents is "gee that kinda looks funny" and "you believe something different different to me therefore you are being told to believe it".  ::)

Still no actual evidence of wires, no explanation of the evidence of lunar gravity and zero atmosphere, no identification of the filming location, the methodology, the crews, and how it was possible (as the OP video points out) for hours of live TV containing time and date specific images of Earth to be broadcast from the place where everyone had their dishes pointed. No explanation as to how it was possible for those broadcasts to show details that were not known about prior to the landing but now confirmed by probes from many countries.

The hoax claim has absolutely nothing.
Confirmed by many probes from other countries?  ::)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 16, 2017, 02:44:28 AM
Again, no NASA/Apollo defender is confirming whether or not it was possible to fake the videos?

They claim it was "easier" and "cheaper" to actually go to space. And this is probably based on the BBC comedy sketch.

Who is willing to defend their claim about it being impossible to fake? I've still seen nothing concrete from you in the replies.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 16, 2017, 11:25:23 AM
Well so far all I see from the hoax proponents is "gee that kinda looks funny" and "you believe something different different to me therefore you are being told to believe it".  ::)

Still no actual evidence of wires, no explanation of the evidence of lunar gravity and zero atmosphere, no identification of the filming location, the methodology, the crews, and how it was possible (as the OP video points out) for hours of live TV containing time and date specific images of Earth to be broadcast from the place where everyone had their dishes pointed. No explanation as to how it was possible for those broadcasts to show details that were not known about prior to the landing but now confirmed by probes from many countries.

The hoax claim has absolutely nothing.
Confirmed by many probes from other countries?  ::)

Yep. Your lack of belief in it doesn't stop it being true.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 16, 2017, 11:30:35 AM
Again, no NASA/Apollo defender is confirming whether or not it was possible to fake the videos?

I suggest you read the thread: I am stating as a fact that it was not possible then, and would be extremely difficult now, to produce anything that would allow hours of live broadcast to simulate conditions on the moon. See the video in the OP for a start. The Apollo photos, TV and 16mm all contain details, including time and date specific images of Earth, that could not have been done prior to the missions. The broadcasts that show Earth did not have the relevant information available to them that would have allowed them to reproduce the weather patterns on there. The Apollo missions took photos, film, and live TV that showed surface details not known about prior to the missions - images from India, Japan, China and the former USSR confirm this.

Quote
They claim it was "easier" and "cheaper" to actually go to space. And this is probably based on the BBC comedy sketch.

No, it's based on researching an understanding the subject. You do realise they are mocking hoax crowd, right?

Quote
Who is willing to defend their claim about it being impossible to fake? I've still seen nothing concrete from you in the replies.

See above, and the link in my sig.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 16, 2017, 08:14:09 PM
I suggest you read the thread: I am stating as a fact that it was not possible then, and would be extremely difficult now, to produce anything that would allow hours of live broadcast to simulate conditions on the moon. See the video in the OP for a start. The Apollo photos, TV and 16mm all contain details, including time and date specific images of Earth, that could not have been done prior to the missions. The broadcasts that show Earth did not have the relevant information available to them that would have allowed them to reproduce the weather patterns on there. The Apollo missions took photos, film, and live TV that showed surface details not known about prior to the missions - images from India, Japan, China and the former USSR confirm this.

What are you on about? They had information and pictures years before the moon landing. You do know they just didn't wake up and decide to go to the moon right? There were many unmanned missions with cameras.

Also, since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast with an overlay text that says "LIVE" - why was that impossible and why would that cost billions?

Research based on an agenda is not research, it's a cover up. Where's the actual research showing that a huge indoor film studio with a backdrop they used for different locations on the moon was impossible to do on Earth and it was easier to just go to the moon?

This thread is not about whether man went to the moon or not, it's simply about the claim that it was impossible to fake.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on January 16, 2017, 10:09:46 PM
This topic can not be concluded here. All flat earth proponents believe that there is a conspiricy to cover up the fact that the world is round. This is a task that will have more people involved IN the conspiracy than people being conspired against.
If they believe that conspiracies like that can exist, then convincing them that the moon landing was fake is not relavant.

Everyone has another agenda they are arguing. Gaia for example does not believe access to space is possible, so agruging the moon landings with her is pointless. A flat earther does allow for space travel either, ext, ext

The question then starts with what they consider to be truthfull. Why do they believe one guy over the next?

So a question to the moon hoax proponents (who believe it is possible, but never accomplished), why are the few revealers of the conspiracy more believable than the hundreds of thousands of people directly and indirectly involved with the moon landings?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 16, 2017, 10:31:44 PM
I suggest you read the thread: I am stating as a fact that it was not possible then, and would be extremely difficult now, to produce anything that would allow hours of live broadcast to simulate conditions on the moon. See the video in the OP for a start. The Apollo photos, TV and 16mm all contain details, including time and date specific images of Earth, that could not have been done prior to the missions. The broadcasts that show Earth did not have the relevant information available to them that would have allowed them to reproduce the weather patterns on there. The Apollo missions took photos, film, and live TV that showed surface details not known about prior to the missions - images from India, Japan, China and the former USSR confirm this.

What are you on about? They had information and pictures years before the moon landing. You do know they just didn't wake up and decide to go to the moon right?

Good question. I wonder if Kennedy did wake up one morning and decide that going to the moon was a challenging but worthwhile goal. We'll probably never know.

Quote
There were many unmanned missions with cameras.

There were some. Some of those were successful, and some of the successful ones provided fairly high quality photographic data from the surface. What's your definition of 'many'?

What's your point? Interestingly, the only manned landing at the same location as a previous unmanned landing, Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3, was the only manned landing that had no live video due to camera failure. Why not? That one would have been the one easiest to have the most realistic "backdrop" for the site, since a lander had already been there.

Quote
Also, since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast with an overlay text that says "LIVE" - why was that impossible and why would that cost billions?

Not true. In the earliest days of TV, it was not possible to pre-record video.

It might surprise you, but recording video was not as easy even in the 1960s and early '70s as it is now. Recording as much video as was broadcast, seamlessly, would have been difficult, and if attempted, would require a large number of technicians and other people to be "in on the plot". What happened to all of them? Why have none ever spilled the beans in almost 50 years? Where is the evidence for a sufficiently large, evacuated, studio where your supposed recordings were made? There's just too much conspiracy woo here to be convincing.

Quote
Research based on an agenda is not research, it's a cover up.

This is what all Apollo hoax "research" is. Your agenda is to deny the accomplishment of the manned moon landings, so you'll simply concoct whatever story, no matter how implausible, and without any actual evidence, you think advances that.

Quote
Where's the actual research showing that a huge indoor film studio with a backdrop they used for different locations on the moon was impossible to do on Earth and it was easier to just go to the moon?

Where's any evidence there ever was such a huge studio that could have been used for such?

It was claimed that Kubrick could fake a realistic moon landing, but didn't: "look at 2001." Followed by "he must have been 'sandbagging' those scenes because the effects, while good, weren't convincing in the details." So the claim becomes "we say he could do it, but we have no actual evidence because what we can show you isn't good enough."

Quote
This thread is not about whether man went to the moon or not, it's simply about the claim that it was impossible to fake.

Can you show how the technology at the time was even remotely sufficient to fake all the details convincingly? Until you can at least show that it's possible, there is no need to 'prove' it couldn't. Claims that it might have been possible, without anything to back them up, are meaningless.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 17, 2017, 01:15:26 AM
There were some. Some of those were successful, and some of the successful ones provided fairly high quality photographic data from the surface. What's your definition of 'many'?

What's your point?
[/quote[
My point is that information was available. Pay attention.

Many, some, same difference. Who cares when the point is about availability of information.

Quote
Also, since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast with an overlay text that says "LIVE" - why was that impossible and why would that cost billions?

Not true. In the earliest days of TV, it was not possible to pre-record video.
So according to you this movie was broadcast live from the set? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/ since it wasn't possible to prerecord?

Quote
It might surprise you, but recording video was not as easy even in the 1960s and early '70s as it is now. Recording as much video as was broadcast, seamlessly, would have been difficult, and if attempted, would require a large number of technicians and other people to be "in on the plot". What happened to all of them? Why have none ever spilled the beans in almost 50 years? Where is the evidence for a sufficiently large, evacuated, studio where your supposed recordings were made? There's just too much conspiracy woo here to be convincing.
It might surprise you how well hollywood was actually doing back then.

Quote
Quote
Research based on an agenda is not research, it's a cover up.

This is what all Apollo hoax "research" is. Your agenda is to deny the accomplishment of the manned moon landings, so you'll simply concoct whatever story, no matter how implausible, and without any actual evidence, you think advances that.
And you're wrong again. My statement is still true. Our agenda is not to deny an accomplishment but to expose a lie. Politics makes government do the most bizarre things. The bigger the lie....right?

Quote
Where's the actual research showing that a huge indoor film studio with a backdrop they used for different locations on the moon was impossible to do on Earth and it was easier to just go to the moon?

Where's any evidence there ever was such a huge studio that could have been used for such?

You're quite dunce I'm sorry to say. It's not about proof of it existing or not, it's about it being impossible to have one (whether there was or wasn't) Do you get it? Here's an example of a film studio in the 60's

Quote
Can you show how the technology at the time was even remotely sufficient to fake all the details convincingly? Until you can at least show that it's possible, there is no need to 'prove' it couldn't. Claims that it might have been possible, without anything to back them up, are meaningless.
Check the first post
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on January 17, 2017, 03:55:19 AM
Quote
And you're wrong again. My statement is still true. Our agenda is not to deny an accomplishment but to expose a lie. Politics makes government do the most bizarre things. The bigger the lie....right?

And in the time frame of the Apollo missions, why would Russia, a nation that was close to starting a nuclear war with the USA, acknowledge that the Americans have indeed landed on the moon?

If it was a lie, the Russians would have been the first to expose it. That is what the politics of the day would have done. Also what the politics of (Just before Trump becomes president) would do too.

But for some reason they dont, they would rather risk complete and utter annihilation of both themselves and the USA than point out that the USA did not land on the moon for . . . . . reasons?

The moon conspiracy makes zero sense.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on January 17, 2017, 05:31:28 AM
That dust was a huge mistake too. Anyone who has actually observed the Moon through a telescope knows this.
Have you ever noticed that no matter how much dust the astronauts kick up, there are never any dust clouds (or any other kind of clouds for that matter) in any of the moon videos?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 17, 2017, 06:01:06 AM
Quote
And you're wrong again. My statement is still true. Our agenda is not to deny an accomplishment but to expose a lie. Politics makes government do the most bizarre things. The bigger the lie....right?

And in the time frame of the Apollo missions, why would Russia, a nation that was close to starting a nuclear war with the USA, acknowledge that the Americans have indeed landed on the moon?

If it was a lie, the Russians would have been the first to expose it. That is what the politics of the day would have done. Also what the politics of (Just before Trump becomes president) would do too.

But for some reason they dont, they would rather risk complete and utter annihilation of both themselves and the USA than point out that the USA did not land on the moon for . . . . . reasons?

The moon conspiracy makes zero sense.
It's the piles of video and photo evidence backed by political gains as stated in many articles. And the regular cover up videos trying to explain it just makes it worse. I hope everyone realises how obsessed I used to be about the moon landings and the amazing feat for mankind but then the more I studied it the worse it got. I'm still blown away by Nasa's achievements and follow everything. The Mars rover landing and the mechanics and science behind it made me watch every video possible on Youtube and their site. With this general space obsession and interest, you have to think a little why I have so many questions on just the Apollo manned landings on the moon.

As for Russia admitting defeat I haven't found anything about Russia admitting anything until the late 80's??? Please point me in the right direction if you have anything. In fact, as far I have read Russia didn't have primary plans of a manned mission to the moon. It was more about the space race (different aspects).

Besides, again.. please start a new thread on this as this thread is simple about it being "impossible" to fake it. Till now, I've still not been given anything remotely stable on the case for the pretty far fetched claim that it was impossible to fake. And for those with short spans, please check the first post where I've listed all the things I think is required to fake a moon landing and it was all available in the 60's.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 17, 2017, 06:22:26 AM
That dust was a huge mistake too. Anyone who has actually observed the Moon through a telescope knows this.
Have you ever noticed that no matter how much dust the astronauts kick up, there are never any dust clouds (or any other kind of clouds for that matter) in any of the moon videos?

Dust are very fine (micron-sized) particles. Sediment is the general term.

Apart from the mistake of putting sediment on the "Moon landing" sets, that the real Moon doesn't have, those "dust clouds" A) indeed weren't there because the sediment used as "regolith" was coarse enough not to form clouds. Visit a volcanic beach. B) the sediment that was scooped up in the air (watch the "Lunar" Rover ridiculous footage) didn't behave as it would be on the real Moon.

Hence the impossibility of faking the set well; many things can be replicated in a film studio, but that 1/6th gravity was impossible to fake well. Indeed what we see in the footage; not only the wired bunny hopping that doesn't make sense, above all the behaviour of the sediment behind the "Lunar" Rover.

Like observer, interested in space from an early age, once I saw the actual film allegedly shot on the Moon, I screamed at the screen "that cannot be on the Moon!".

So indeed; real Moon landings are impossible to fake (because of 1/6th gravity), so the Apollo movie was a poor attempt in reality but good enough to fool the world in 1969-72.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on January 17, 2017, 07:11:47 AM
That dust was a huge mistake too. Anyone who has actually observed the Moon through a telescope knows this.
Have you ever noticed that no matter how much dust the astronauts kick up, there are never any dust clouds (or any other kind of clouds for that matter) in any of the moon videos?

Dust are very fine (micron-sized) particles. Sediment is the general term.

Apart from the mistake of putting sediment on the "Moon landing" sets, that the real Moon doesn't have, those "dust clouds" A) indeed weren't there because the sediment used as "regolith" was coarse enough not to form clouds.

Incorrect.  Lunar regolith contains a good bit of very fine powder comparable to talcum powder. 
Quote from: http://www.moondaily.com/reports/NASA_Dirty_Secret_Moon_Dust_999.html
The Apollo Moon missions of 1969-1972 all share a dirty secret. "The major issue the Apollo astronauts pointed out was dust, dust, dust," says Professor Larry Taylor, Director of the Planetary Geosciences Institute at the University of Tennessee.

Fine as flour and rough as sandpaper, Moon dust caused 'lunar hay fever,' problems with space suits, and dust storms in the crew cabin upon returning to space.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 07:14:41 AM
That dust was a huge mistake too. Anyone who has actually observed the Moon through a telescope knows this.
Have you ever noticed that no matter how much dust the astronauts kick up, there are never any dust clouds (or any other kind of clouds for that matter) in any of the moon videos?

Dust are very fine (micron-sized) particles. Sediment is the general term.

No it isn't. Sediment covers a wide range of particle sizes and is material that has settled in a liquid. Silt & clay sized particles have very specific definitions. The lunar regolith has a much wider particle size distribution than just silts and clays.

Quote
Apart from the mistake of putting sediment on the "Moon landing" sets, that the real Moon doesn't have, those "dust clouds" A) indeed weren't there because the sediment used as "regolith" was coarse enough not to form clouds. Visit a volcanic beach. B) the sediment that was scooped up in the air (watch the "Lunar" Rover ridiculous footage) didn't behave as it would be on the real Moon.

Ah we're into the idiotic 'it's a specific size range' kind of dust on the film set. If you'd spent as much time sieving soil as I have during my degree and PhD you'd know just how much effort was involved in grading soil. You'd have to ask yourself where this was done, by whom, where was the material sourced, how was it moved into your non-existent film set.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever that all of the material seen on screen during the Apollo missions was a specific size, and indeed if you look at all the evidence (including the photographs) you can see that this is false. Nor do you have any idea as to how material ought to behave on the moon. Every scientist who has ever examined Apollo material knows how it ought to behave, and they have no problem with it.

Quote
Hence the impossibility of faking the set well; many things can be replicated in a film studio, but that 1/6th gravity was impossible to fake well. Indeed what we see in the footage; not only the wired bunny hopping that doesn't make sense, above all the behaviour of the sediment behind the "Lunar" Rover.

Do tell us how it should behave. Do point out where the wires are. The bunny hopping makes perfect sense when you are moving a large amount of mass in a low gravity environment. The only thing you have correct there is that it was impossible to fake.

Quote
Like observer, interested in space from an early age, once I saw the actual film allegedly shot on the Moon, I screamed at the screen "that cannot be on the Moon!".

I bet you didn't. I bet you're just stating that for dramatic effect because you think it makes you sound cool.

Quote
So indeed; real Moon landings are impossible to fake (because of 1/6th gravity), so the Apollo movie was a poor attempt in reality but good enough to fool the world in 1969-72.

The real moon landings happened as described. Prove otherwise. Just screaming at a TV set doesn't cut it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 17, 2017, 07:40:20 AM
The real moon landings happened as described. Prove otherwise. Just screaming at a TV set doesn't cut it.
Wrong thread
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 08:03:39 AM
Like observer, interested in space from an early age, once I saw the actual film allegedly shot on the Moon, I screamed at the screen "that cannot be on the Moon!".

Let's just go back to this for a second. I have also watched many films of the Apollo missions. I also watched them as a child live on TV. I have seen all of the footage out there. Literally all of it. Every photo too.

When I see the actual film shot on the moon I scream at the screen "That's fucking amazing!". Why is my reaction, which nowadays is based on informed opinion and many years of thorough, detailed and painstaking research into the missions, somehow less valid than your reaction seemingly based on pretty much "that don't look right mister"?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: 4pir2 on January 17, 2017, 08:11:36 AM
That dust was a huge mistake too. Anyone who has actually observed the Moon through a telescope knows this.
Have you ever noticed that no matter how much dust the astronauts kick up, there are never any dust clouds (or any other kind of clouds for that matter) in any of the moon videos?

according to one of the theories here, denspressure, in the close vacuum of the moon, everything would weight more because of less buoyancy. Hence, no dust clouds.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 17, 2017, 08:46:29 AM
Like observer, interested in space from an early age, once I saw the actual film allegedly shot on the Moon, I screamed at the screen "that cannot be on the Moon!".

Let's just go back to this for a second. I have also watched many films of the Apollo missions. I also watched them as a child live on TV. I have seen all of the footage out there. Literally all of it. Every photo too.

When I see the actual film shot on the moon I scream at the screen "That's fucking amazing!". Why is my reaction, which nowadays is based on informed opinion and many years of thorough, detailed and painstaking research into the missions, somehow less valid than your reaction seemingly based on pretty much "that don't look right mister"?
You think my reaction is based on "that don't look right?" stop pulling things out of your arse.

It's based on many things which have answers but there's a few that just aren't answered on-topic. So much effort is put on tiny little details when there's many more obvious things. And NO I will not list it on this thread. Start another thread for that topic. This is about "faking impossible" claim/theory/joke
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on January 17, 2017, 08:58:11 AM
Like observer, interested in space from an early age, once I saw the actual film allegedly shot on the Moon, I screamed at the screen "that cannot be on the Moon!".

Let's just go back to this for a second. I have also watched many films of the Apollo missions. I also watched them as a child live on TV. I have seen all of the footage out there. Literally all of it. Every photo too.

When I see the actual film shot on the moon I scream at the screen "That's fucking amazing!". Why is my reaction, which nowadays is based on informed opinion and many years of thorough, detailed and painstaking research into the missions, somehow less valid than your reaction seemingly based on pretty much "that don't look right mister"?
You've spent years painstakingly trying to master how to make dishonesty appear like honesty and you still fail miserably.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on January 17, 2017, 09:18:12 AM
That dust was a huge mistake too. Anyone who has actually observed the Moon through a telescope knows this.
Have you ever noticed that no matter how much dust the astronauts kick up, there are never any dust clouds (or any other kind of clouds for that matter) in any of the moon videos?

according to one of the theories here, denspressure, in the close vacuum of the moon, everything would weight more because of less buoyancy. Hence, no dust clouds.
Its called 'Denpressure' not 'Denspressure' you idiot. Learn your flat earth terms for cyring out loud!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on January 17, 2017, 09:19:38 AM
Like observer, interested in space from an early age, once I saw the actual film allegedly shot on the Moon, I screamed at the screen "that cannot be on the Moon!".

Let's just go back to this for a second. I have also watched many films of the Apollo missions. I also watched them as a child live on TV. I have seen all of the footage out there. Literally all of it. Every photo too.

When I see the actual film shot on the moon I scream at the screen "That's fucking amazing!". Why is my reaction, which nowadays is based on informed opinion and many years of thorough, detailed and painstaking research into the missions, somehow less valid than your reaction seemingly based on pretty much "that don't look right mister"?
You've spent years painstakingly trying to master how to make dishonesty appear like honesty and you still fail miserably.
Yeah! hit them where it hurts the most daddy Sceppi!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 09:53:18 AM
Like observer, interested in space from an early age, once I saw the actual film allegedly shot on the Moon, I screamed at the screen "that cannot be on the Moon!".

Let's just go back to this for a second. I have also watched many films of the Apollo missions. I also watched them as a child live on TV. I have seen all of the footage out there. Literally all of it. Every photo too.

When I see the actual film shot on the moon I scream at the screen "That's fucking amazing!". Why is my reaction, which nowadays is based on informed opinion and many years of thorough, detailed and painstaking research into the missions, somehow less valid than your reaction seemingly based on pretty much "that don't look right mister"?
You think my reaction is based on "that don't look right?" stop pulling things out of your arse.

You already said it did.

Quote
It's based on many things which have answers but there's a few that just aren't answered on-topic. So much effort is put on tiny little details when there's many more obvious things. And NO I will not list it on this thread. Start another thread for that topic. This is about "faking impossible" claim/theory/joke

There already is a thread for that. I'll decide what I post and where thanks.

You want impossible to fake? Suck on this:

(http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/wpimages/wp07c3c0d4_06.png)

It's my own, dated, press image taken during the outward journey of Apollo 11 taken from a TV broadcast. It is dated the day of the broadcast. It features a weather system that only appeared in that configuration on that day. That image appeared in the next day's newspapers. The view of Earth exactly matches what it should have been at the time of the broadcast. The clouds and weather systems are confirmed by two separate weather satellites that did not have the same coverage as is shown there at the time of the transmission.

That picture alone was impossible to fake.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 17, 2017, 10:39:13 AM
Quote
No it isn't. Sediment covers a wide range of particle sizes and is material that has settled in a liquid.

Quote
If you'd spent as much time sieving soil as I have during my """degree and PhD""" you'd know just how much effort was involved in grading soil.

Ouch. ::)

Which just shows how much "credibility" the rest of your bullshit has.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 17, 2017, 10:44:38 AM
This is about "faking impossible" claim/theory/joke

Indeed, it's a ridiculous joke.

- the footage of the Moon fails to prove it was on the Moon on thousands of details
- the claim that "something is impossible to fake, but possible to make" cannot be correct in any case

Still mildly funny to see the clumsy clowns here spastically defending this.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on January 17, 2017, 11:30:01 AM
Apart from the mistake of putting sediment on the "Moon landing" sets, that the real Moon doesn't have, those "dust clouds" A) indeed weren't there because the sediment used as "regolith" was coarse enough not to form clouds. Visit a volcanic beach. B) the sediment that was scooped up in the air (watch the "Lunar" Rover ridiculous footage) didn't behave as it would be on the real Moon.
Are you suggesting that the lunar regolith in the NASA pictures and videos looks like coarse sand? ???
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 17, 2017, 12:04:31 PM
Apart from the mistake of putting sediment on the "Moon landing" sets, that the real Moon doesn't have, those "dust clouds" A) indeed weren't there because the sediment used as "regolith" was coarse enough not to form clouds. Visit a volcanic beach. B) the sediment that was scooped up in the air (watch the "Lunar" Rover ridiculous footage) didn't behave as it would be on the real Moon.
Are you suggesting that the lunar regolith in the NASA pictures and videos looks like coarse sand? ???

They've used various types of "regolith" that contradict each other, each for maximum Hollywood effect:
A - for the infamous "footprint photo" they used a compactable clayey fine sediment mix to get the imprint showing nicely
B - for the even more infamous "Lunar-Rover-driving-in-the-sand" scenes, they used a loose sediment

A:
(http://ep.yimg.com/ay/skyimage/apollo-11-lunar-footprint-9.jpg)

B:
(https://media.giphy.com/media/55QvA65MAMKWY/giphy.gif)

But, the whole sediment thing is fake. There shouldn't be loose sediment on the Moon, as is visible when one observes the lunar surface using a telescope.

Before "Apollo", the Moon was pictured/imagined as a hard surface:

(http://pre05.deviantart.net/3557/th/pre/i/2012/045/0/0/tintin_fan_art_by_lubruz-d4ppd40.jpg)
(https://yesteryeargazette.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/moon2.jpg)
(http://www.umbella.com/heinlein/cine/destination_moon/poster_esp.jpg)

Those images come closer to the theoretical reality of the Moon (crisp, hard, dense, black-and-white, harsh, rigid) than the curvy smooth cuddly-soft sand pit fake hills of Apollo. ::)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Kami on January 17, 2017, 01:12:35 PM
Those images come closer to the theoretical reality of the Moon (crisp, hard, dense, black-and-white, harsh, rigid) than the curvy smooth cuddly-soft sand pit fake hills of Apollo. ::)
And you know that, because...?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 17, 2017, 02:57:08 PM
Apart from the mistake of putting sediment on the "Moon landing" sets, that the real Moon doesn't have, those "dust clouds" A) indeed weren't there because the sediment used as "regolith" was coarse enough not to form clouds. Visit a volcanic beach. B) the sediment that was scooped up in the air (watch the "Lunar" Rover ridiculous footage) didn't behave as it would be on the real Moon.
Are you suggesting that the lunar regolith in the NASA pictures and videos looks like coarse sand? ???

They've used various types of "regolith" that contradict each other, each for maximum Hollywood effect:
A - for the infamous "footprint photo" they used a compactable clayey fine sediment mix to get the imprint showing nicely

Nope, they used the surface of the moon.

Quote
B - for the even more infamous "Lunar-Rover-driving-in-the-sand" scenes, they used a loose sediment

Nope. It was the lunar surface. You still don't know what sediment is. You also need to make up your mind how many film sets there were.

Quote
But, the whole sediment thing is fake. There shouldn't be loose sediment on the Moon, as is visible when one observes the lunar surface using a telescope.

Bullshit. There is not a telescope out there with the resolving power to determine whether the lunar surface is dust free.

Quote

Before "Apollo", the Moon was pictured/imagined as a hard surface:

<snip pictures>

Those images come closer to the theoretical reality of the Moon (crisp, hard, dense, black-and-white, harsh, rigid) than the curvy smooth cuddly-soft sand pit fake hills of Apollo. ::)

Seriously, really?

You're taking film posters and Tin Tin as accurate depictions of the lunar surface? Have you actually seen Destination Moon? Any reason why there should be desiccation polygons under the rocket?

When planning the landings they had no definite idea whether the lunar surface was solid or feet deep in dust that would swallow up anything that landed. It wasn't until the Surveyor missions that they got a real idea of what was on the surface.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on January 17, 2017, 03:20:11 PM
Those images come closer to the theoretical reality of the Moon (crisp, hard, dense, black-and-white, harsh, rigid) than the curvy smooth cuddly-soft sand pit fake hills of Apollo. ::)
And you know that, because...?

Because some people just like to make stuff up. You may have noticed but devoid of facts some people just invent stuff out of thin sir....denpressure, genetically modified penguins, the ether, Antartic ice wall, ......it's a long list.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 17, 2017, 04:54:42 PM
There were some. Some of those were successful, and some of the successful ones provided fairly high quality photographic data from the surface. What's your definition of 'many'?

What's your point?
My point is that information was available. Pay attention.

Many, some, same difference. Who cares when the point is about availability of information.

Many, a few? When you're making up stuff wholesale, who cares about being accurate?

How much relevant information was available? The Surveyor craft provided some, giving a surface-level view. There were 7 Surveyors launched, and 5 successfully soft landed and returned pictures and other data. A few orbiters and some of the Ranger impactors gave "bird's-eye" views; 3 Rangers (7, 8, and 9) returned pictures until impact; Ranger 9 was broadcast live until it hit the moon as intended. Question: what value would the vertical views be for faking a manned landing? We can get vertical views, albeit lower-resolution, using earthbound telescopes; without the probes, those details revealed by the probes wouldn't have been known, anyway, so where's the win?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast with an overlay text that says "LIVE" - why was that impossible and why would that cost billions?

Not true. In the earliest days of TV, it was not possible to pre-record video.
So according to you this movie was broadcast live from the set? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/ since it wasn't possible to prerecord?

No. Why would you think that?

From your IMDB link: Spartacus (1960), 3 hr 4 min (184 min) (premiere), Super Technirama 70 (Technicolor).

That was a movie, shot on 70 mm film, with many scenes, shot at different times, not even shot in order, then spliced together to make a feature-length production and copied to 35 mm and 70 mm prints (later to video); various releases were different lengths, meaning they must have omitted and/or added different clips.

It's not a three-hour live video with a single uninterrupted scene. See the difference? I'm not sure why you think this is relevant. Was it because Stanley Kubrick was the director? Did you think Sparticus was supposed to be taking place on the moon so Kubrick could practice?

Films can be converted to video, of course, typically using a telecine system (television cinema, get it? :D), but there are always artifacts unique to film (scratches and spots on the film, for instance, and grain) that come through the conversion, and the telecine system introduces its own artifacts because of the different frame rates; these make it possible to identify when that conversion has been done.

Quote
Quote
It might surprise you, but recording video was not as easy even in the 1960s and early '70s as it is now. Recording as much video as was broadcast, seamlessly, would have been difficult, and if attempted, would require a large number of technicians and other people to be "in on the plot". What happened to all of them? Why have none ever spilled the beans in almost 50 years? Where is the evidence for a sufficiently large, evacuated, studio where your supposed recordings were made? There's just too much conspiracy woo here to be convincing.
It might surprise you how well hollywood was actually doing back then.

You apparently didn't realize that Hollywood was using photographic film, not videotape, back then. Even so, they could produce scenes of only limited length. In a live TV production, on the other hand, a single shot could be indefinitely long.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Research based on an agenda is not research, it's a cover up.

This is what all Apollo hoax "research" is. Your agenda is to deny the accomplishment of the manned moon landings, so you'll simply concoct whatever story, no matter how implausible, and without any actual evidence, you think advances that.
And you're wrong again. My statement is still true. Our agenda is not to deny an accomplishment but to expose a lie. Politics makes government do the most bizarre things. The bigger the lie....right?

Huh? Are you saying the Apollo missions really happened ("not to deny an accomplishment")? What lie are you "exposing", then? The missions happened as claimed, but the live video was faked? That makes no sense at all.

Quote
Quote
Where's the actual research showing that a huge indoor film studio with a backdrop they used for different locations on the moon was impossible to do on Earth and it was easier to just go to the moon?

Where's any evidence there ever was such a huge studio that could have been used for such?

You're quite dunce I'm sorry to say. [Nice ad-hom. You must be getting worried about the strength of your argument. I can't say I blame you.] It's not about proof of it existing or not, it's about it being impossible to have one (whether there was or wasn't) Do you get it?

I think we can agree that if it's impossible, there wasn't one. Right?

So, are there any requirements that would not be possible to meet on earth? You could take a stab at 1/6 gravity by overcranking the cameras by a factor of about 2.5 or so and playing the scenes back at standard speed, yielding slow motion; that simulates low gravity in some ways but introduces other anomalies that might be compensated for with very careful scripting, rehearsal, and production. So let's agree, for the sake of argument, that that is at least potentially doable. Behavior of fine particles and light items with large surface area, on the other hand, is not nearly so easy. As far as I know, they simply won't behave like they're in a vacuum unless they're in a vacuum. If you have any reasonably credible evidence to the contrary, please, let's see it. That means the entire studio must be at least a pretty hard vacuum. It might be possible to create a small studio that could be effectively evacuated, but even you suggest a large studio would be needed to create a convincing fake. Currently, the world's largest vacuum chamber, still under construction (by who else but NASA) is 100 feet in diameter and 132 feet tall. It has a floor area of 7,854 ft2. Note that the span of the LM landing gear was 31 ft X 31 ft, so the LM occupied (or at least straddled) an area of 961 ft2, about 1/8 the available floor space. Your proposed studio would have to be much larger.

Do you really think such a structure as the current one would be possible to build before 1969? How about the vastly larger one actually needed?

I'm still waiting to see evidence that something even remotely suitable was (or, for that matter, is) possible. Until then, my money's on impossible.

Quote
Here's an example of a film studio in the 60's 7 1/2-minute video (http://)

Very nice. I notice that all of the sets were simulating scenes on earth. Some of the sets were even outdoors. Simulating scenes on earth in a studio on earth avoids a lot of the problems of accurately simulating scenes on the moon in a studio on earth.

Quote
Quote
Can you show how the technology at the time was even remotely sufficient to fake all the details convincingly? Until you can at least show that it's possible, there is no need to 'prove' it couldn't. Claims that it might have been possible, without anything to back them up, are meaningless.
Check the first post

Check the replies to the first post.

"Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available" Really?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: hoppy on January 17, 2017, 04:58:48 PM
The means to fake the landings was readily available in the 60's. They built huge lunar mockups for "training".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237819/NASAs-ingenious-moon-simulator-helped-prepare-Apollo-astronauts-land-gone-before.html
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 18, 2017, 12:48:49 AM
The means to fake the landings was readily available in the 60's. They built huge lunar mockups for "training".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2237819/NASAs-ingenious-moon-simulator-helped-prepare-Apollo-astronauts-land-gone-before.html
But according to these lot that set didn't exist in the 60's. Prerecording wasn't possible. Simulation wasn't possible. It was impossible to fake according to them. Technology to fake it didn't exist according to them.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 18, 2017, 01:35:49 AM
Many, a few? When you're making up stuff wholesale, who cares about being accurate?
You clearly don't

How much relevant information was available? The Surveyor craft provided some, giving a surface-level view. There were 7 Surveyors launched, and 5 successfully soft landed and returned pictures and other data. A few orbiters and some of the Ranger impactors gave "bird's-eye" views; 3 Rangers (7, 8, and 9) returned pictures until impact; Ranger 9 was broadcast live until it hit the moon as intended. Question: what value would the vertical views be for faking a manned landing? We can get vertical views, albeit lower-resolution, using earthbound telescopes; without the probes, those details revealed by the probes wouldn't have been known, anyway, so where's the win?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast with an overlay text that says "LIVE" - why was that impossible and why would that cost billions?

 
So according to you this movie was broadcast live from the set? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/ since it wasn't possible to prerecord?

Quote
No. Why would you think that?
Because you said:
Quote
In the earliest days of TV, it was not possible to pre-record video.

Quote
You apparently didn't realize that Hollywood was using photographic film, not videotape, back then. Even so, they could produce scenes of only limited length. In a live TV production, on the other hand, a single shot could be indefinitely long.

You just don't get it do you? Ok here's another perspective that might help you. You say the moon footage is real which means the video camera that shot the moon footage is real? Following so far?

And while that real live footage from the moon is available today 2017, it means they recorded the live footage correct? Otherwise it wouldn't be available today.

So if the camera is real, and the footage is real then WHY is it impossible to use that same real camera that existed back then to shoot the footage at an earlier date and broadcast it on the day? Why was that "IMPOSSIBLE" beyond a shadow of doubt?

Quote
Huh? Are you saying the Apollo missions really happened ("not to deny an accomplishment")? What lie are you "exposing", then? The missions happened as claimed, but the live video was faked? That makes no sense at all.

What are you on about? How are you added 2 + 2 and reaching -100?
Who said "not to deny without context" automatically means "accept"? If you ask, then I deny otherwise why would I bring it up when then questions need to be asked about bold claims?

What lie am I exposing? What thread are you reading?

"The missions happened as claimed but the live video was faked?" Seriously how much can you possibly pull out of of your arse lol.

Quote
makes no sense at all
Go figure!


Quote
As far as I know, they simply won't behave like they're in a vacuum unless they're in a vacuum. If you have any reasonably credible evidence to the contrary, please, let's see it. That means the entire studio must be at least a pretty hard vacuum.
..........
Do you really think such a structure as the current one would be possible to build before 1969? How about the vastly larger one actually needed?

I'm still waiting to see evidence that something even remotely suitable was (or, for that matter, is) possible. Until then, my money's on impossible.

Why are you asking for evidence of a large vacuum chamber? Who is even claiming this? The dust argument has been debunked in this thread, other threads, videos and articles. Since the only evidence of observable live behaviour of the lunar surface is from the faked apollo missions it cannot be used as evidence as that's the one under scrutiny. If you have any other video that confirms the bahaviour of dust on the lunar surface to be impossible to fake on Earth then let us know.

Quote
"Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available" Really?
Yep, really. Otherwise how did Apollo reach the moon to play golf right?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on January 18, 2017, 09:14:48 AM
You may have noticed but devoid of facts some people just invent stuff out of thin sir....

Why are you still so mental?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on January 18, 2017, 09:56:54 AM
Did none of you notice the crap falling out the actor's backpack around 1:30 - 1:35 in this shitty movie?



Any of you think that crap's falling at 'one sixth gravity'?

Meh...

You're all blind as bats & dumb as dogshit & all you ever do is bark like dogs...

Legba sees every single one of you - KABISA!

Toodle-pip, Losers!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 18, 2017, 10:37:56 AM
Many, a few? When you're making up stuff wholesale, who cares about being accurate?
You clearly don't

How much relevant information was available? The Surveyor craft provided some, giving a surface-level view. There were 7 Surveyors launched, and 5 successfully soft landed and returned pictures and other data. A few orbiters and some of the Ranger impactors gave "bird's-eye" views; 3 Rangers (7, 8, and 9) returned pictures until impact; Ranger 9 was broadcast live until it hit the moon as intended. Question: what value would the vertical views be for faking a manned landing? We can get vertical views, albeit lower-resolution, using earthbound telescopes; without the probes, those details revealed by the probes wouldn't have been known, anyway, so where's the win?

The Apollo missions had the benefit of the lunar orbiter probes, which took photographs with extremely good resolution, just not good enough to show the same level of detail in the modern probes that show the details taken in the Apollo surface video and TV.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast with an overlay text that says "LIVE" - why was that impossible and why would that cost billions?

 
So according to you this movie was broadcast live from the set? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/ since it wasn't possible to prerecord?

Quote
No. Why would you think that?
Because you said:
Quote
In the earliest days of TV, it was not possible to pre-record video.

Quote
You apparently didn't realize that Hollywood was using photographic film, not videotape, back then. Even so, they could produce scenes of only limited length. In a live TV production, on the other hand, a single shot could be indefinitely long.

You just don't get it do you? Ok here's another perspective that might help you. You say the moon footage is real which means the video camera that shot the moon footage is real? Following so far?

And while that real live footage from the moon is available today 2017, it means they recorded the live footage correct? Otherwise it wouldn't be available today.

So if the camera is real, and the footage is real then WHY is it impossible to use that same real camera that existed back then to shoot the footage at an earlier date and broadcast it on the day? Why was that "IMPOSSIBLE" beyond a shadow of doubt?

But what they couldn't do is insert images of Earth into that recording that showed the right weather. What they couldn't do is have the TV signals come from the moon. They couldn't have broadcast details they didn't know about but are confirmed by later probes.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Huh? Are you saying the Apollo missions really happened ("not to deny an accomplishment")? What lie are you "exposing", then? The missions happened as claimed, but the live video was faked? That makes no sense at all.

What are you on about? How are you added 2 + 2 and reaching -100?
Who said "not to deny without context" automatically means "accept"? If you ask, then I deny otherwise why would I bring it up when then questions need to be asked about bold claims?

What lie am I exposing? What thread are you reading?

"The missions happened as claimed but the live video was faked?" Seriously how much can you possibly pull out of of your arse lol.

Quote
makes no sense at all
Go figure!


Quote
As far as I know, they simply won't behave like they're in a vacuum unless they're in a vacuum. If you have any reasonably credible evidence to the contrary, please, let's see it. That means the entire studio must be at least a pretty hard vacuum.
..........
Do you really think such a structure as the current one would be possible to build before 1969? How about the vastly larger one actually needed?

I'm still waiting to see evidence that something even remotely suitable was (or, for that matter, is) possible. Until then, my money's on impossible.

Why are you asking for evidence of a large vacuum chamber? Who is even claiming this? The dust argument has been debunked in this thread, other threads, videos and articles. Since the only evidence of observable live behaviour of the lunar surface is from the faked apollo missions it cannot be used as evidence as that's the one under scrutiny. If you have any other video that confirms the bahaviour of dust on the lunar surface to be impossible to fake on Earth then let us know.

Compare the behaviour of dust from the Chang'e-3 landing with the footage taken during the Apollo landings.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 18, 2017, 10:42:38 AM
Did none of you notice the crap falling out the actor's backpack around 1:30 - 1:35 in this shitty movie?



Any of you think that crap's falling at 'one sixth gravity'?

Meh...

You're all blind as bats & dumb as dogshit & all you ever do is bark like dogs...

Legba sees every single one of you - KABISA!

Toodle-pip, Losers!

Welcome back, Papa Legba.

The straw grasping and air gasping of the silly shills doesn't seem to stop.

They had the choice between spending 130 billion 2015 dollars on an impossible journey or faking it, what would they do?  :-\
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on January 18, 2017, 11:28:59 AM
They had the choice between spending 130 billion 2015 dollars on an impossible journey or faking it, what would they do?  :-\

I just gave you incontrovertible evidence that the Apollo videos are NOT filmed in 1/6th gravity...

And you swerved it, then spammed up a crappy rhetorical question that amounts to 'do thieves like thieving?'.

Thing is, I just searched for a recent post on 'cluesforum', pertaining to yourself...

And it has been hurriedly deleted.

LOTS of hurried deletions going on now Legba's back in town...

LOTS of panic in the shill-osphere!

Meh...

I'll be banned again soon anyway, so fuck it.

Just remember:

Legba SEES you...

Legba sees ALL voodoo...

So knock that shit off eh?

Toodle-pip, Losers!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 18, 2017, 11:34:52 AM
They had the choice between spending 130 billion 2015 dollars on an impossible journey or faking it, what would they do?  :-\

I just gave you incontrovertible evidence that the Apollo videos are NOT filmed in 1/6th gravity...

And I have elaborated on that before.

Quote
And you swerved it, then spammed up a crappy rhetorical question that amounts to 'do thieves like thieving?'.

No, I didn't "spam" anything. Are you drunk?

Quote
Thing is, I just searched for a recent post on 'cluesforum', pertaining to yourself...

That seems highly unlikely.

Quote
And it has been hurriedly deleted.

LOTS of hurried deletions going on now Legba's back in town...

LOTS of panic in the shill-osphere!

Meh...

I'll be banned again soon anyway, so fuck it.

Just remember:

Legba SEES you...

Legba sees ALL voodoo...

So knock that shit off eh?

Toodle-pip, Losers!

Knock which "shit" off exactly?  ???
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on January 18, 2017, 12:23:53 PM
Knock which "shit" off exactly?

The same shit you're doing now that I just pointed out you were doing before...

You know; avoiding the point & spamming rhetorical bullshit instead.

Why are you so mental?

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on January 18, 2017, 12:51:27 PM
Knock which "shit" off exactly?

The same shit you're doing now that I just pointed out you were doing before...

You know; avoiding the point & spamming rhetorical bullshit instead.

Why are you so mental?
It wasn't his normal dreamless sleep, the demon of his mind having control of his unconscious psyche. The demon must've been asleep itself, or dormant for once. Whatever the case, Papa Legba was thrashing in his sleep. The combination of the dark magic he practiced and his natural born disabilities made things very interesting in terms of how he spent his unconscious hours. Which is why he kept those to an absolute minimum.

But this night wasn't one he could stave off the sleep with a glass of alcohol laced with caffeine. Instead, he was lost.

Lost in a land of darkness, a featureless nothingness around Papa Legba. He was traveling somewhere, and he wasn't sure where exactly that was. But he knew it was urgent. His walking turned to running, and his running into sprinting. He had to get there fast, wherever 'there' was.

Slowly a darkened and dimmed still-life of New York would come into view, and he would stand outside of his old home.

The house exploded into flames, and he heard the same familiar bloodcurdling scream of his former love and wife once more, as she started the very fire that killed her, her own mental state having gone south... thanks to digging into his own.

Papa Legba still blamed himself for it. He wished he could've done something about it, and he couldn't. All he could do was save their daughter, and Heart would not budge. She was stalwart in her ground, unwavering in her resolve to destroy herself and everything around her if it stayed in her wake.

He screamed out into silence. Try as he might, his tears and his screams brought forth nothing. No reactions from her, and he was reliving her death one more. He would never see it down. Papa Legba would always blame himself for her death, for allowing her to try and help him combat his demon, and for allowing her to be plunged into her own hell.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on January 18, 2017, 12:52:14 PM
They had the choice between spending 130 billion 2015 dollars on an impossible journey or faking it, what would they do?  :-\

I just gave you incontrovertible evidence that the Apollo videos are NOT filmed in 1/6th gravity...

And you swerved it, then spammed up a crappy rhetorical question that amounts to 'do thieves like thieving?'.

Thing is, I just searched for a recent post on 'cluesforum', pertaining to yourself...

And it has been hurriedly deleted.

LOTS of hurried deletions going on now Legba's back in town...

LOTS of panic in the shill-osphere!

Meh...

I'll be banned again soon anyway, so fuck it.

Just remember:

Legba SEES you...

Legba sees ALL voodoo...

So knock that shit off eh?

Toodle-pip, Losers!

That's you papa stil pedalling your bullshit. Looks like the pills ain't working! Have the voices returned?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: totallackey on January 18, 2017, 12:54:15 PM
For me the strongest argument is that the soviet union did not cry "FAKE" at the top of their lungs. They would have, if they had the slightest piece of evidence. After all they ruined half their country with this space-race.

Instead, they tracked the lunar capsule, verified the landing and sent their congratulations to the americans.

Horse feathers.

Believes "The Cold War," was actually real and not just a fear mongering propin order to keep the masses under control.

When are you going to stop buying governmental crap?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 18, 2017, 01:04:01 PM
For me the strongest argument is that the soviet union did not cry "FAKE" at the top of their lungs. They would have, if they had the slightest piece of evidence. After all they ruined half their country with this space-race.

Instead, they tracked the lunar capsule, verified the landing and sent their congratulations to the americans.

Horse feathers.

Believes "The Cold War," was actually real and not just a fear mongering propin order to keep the masses under control.

When are you going to stop buying governmental crap?

On top of that the argument that if the SU would cry "FAKE" about Apollo, the US would have cried "FAKE" about Sputnik, Luna and all the other fake "space travels".

But apparently the Soviet freakin' Union has become the standard for the desperate demons and silly shills.  ::)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 18, 2017, 01:15:31 PM
Many, a few? When you're making up stuff wholesale, who cares about being accurate?
You clearly don't

You were the one claiming "many" and "some" were no different, even when the correct description was "a few", not me.
 
Quote
How much relevant information was available? The Surveyor craft provided some, giving a surface-level view. There were 7 Surveyors launched, and 5 successfully soft landed and returned pictures and other data. A few orbiters and some of the Ranger impactors gave "bird's-eye" views; 3 Rangers (7, 8, and 9) returned pictures until impact; Ranger 9 was broadcast live until it hit the moon as intended. Question: what value would the vertical views be for faking a manned landing? We can get vertical views, albeit lower-resolution, using earthbound telescopes; without the probes, those details revealed by the probes wouldn't have been known, anyway, so where's the win?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast with an overlay text that says "LIVE" - why was that impossible and why would that cost billions?

So according to you this movie was broadcast live from the set? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/ since it wasn't possible to prerecord?

Quote
No. Why would you think that?
Because you said:
Quote
In the earliest days of TV, it was not possible to pre-record video.

And I stand by that. The earliest days of television were more than ten years before Sparticus was released in 1960, so I don't see the relevance. Your claim that "since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast..." is wrong. Live TV became widespread between soon after the end of WWII and the mid-1950s[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_set#History[/nb][Note: footnotes are wonky in the presence of nested quotes on this site. Click the superscripted item to the left and it will take you to the footnote]. The first practical video recorders became available in 1956[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_tape_recorder#History[/nb], meaning that until almost a decade after the introduction of live TV broadcasting, it couldn't be recorded as video. It was possible to convert film to video and vice-versa, but that film chain always produces telltale artifacts. There were even earlier experimental television systems, and a few thousand electronic television sets using more-or-less modern (for the '50s) standards predated the war, but that does the opposite of supporting your hyperbole since none of that could be recorded as video, either (although, again, film intermediate was possible). Sometimes television shows were filmed by focusing a synchronized movie camera at a monitor for preservation or even distribution to other television stations for later broadcast, but those came with a noticeable drop in quality from the original live production.

So, realistically, no.
 
Quote
Quote
You apparently didn't realize that Hollywood was using photographic film, not videotape, back then. Even so, they could produce scenes of only limited length. In a live TV production, on the other hand, a single shot could be indefinitely long.

You just don't get it do you? Ok here's another perspective that might help you. You say the moon footage is real which means the video camera that shot the moon footage is real? Following so far?

And while that real live footage from the moon is available today 2017, it means they recorded the live footage correct? Otherwise it wouldn't be available today.

Is the whole live TV feed of all of those missions available without interruptions to this day? We find various snippets (usually the most interesting parts) all over the Internet now, but the live feeds sometimes lasted for hours.

Quote
So if the camera is real, and the footage is real then WHY is it impossible to use that same real camera that existed back then to shoot the footage at an earlier date and broadcast it on the day?

Because the recording technology of the day would have required breaks.

Quote
Why was that "IMPOSSIBLE" beyond a shadow of doubt?

Because they didn't have the capability to record sufficiently long video at the time.

Quote
Quote
Huh? Are you saying the Apollo missions really happened ("not to deny an accomplishment")? What lie are you "exposing", then? The missions happened as claimed, but the live video was faked? That makes no sense at all.

What are you on about? How are you added 2 + 2 and reaching -100?
Who said "not to deny without context" automatically means "accept"? If you ask, then I deny otherwise why would I bring it up when then questions need to be asked about bold claims?
Quote
I don't remember anyone saying "not to deny without context". What I was asking about was this statement:

Our agenda is not to deny an accomplishment but to expose a lie.

What lie am I exposing? What thread are you reading?

Which thread? I would think the quotes should make that clear enough, but in case it's not clear, it's this thread.

Now that that's cleared up, and since you are trying to evade answering the question, I'll presume you have no answer. On the off chance you were just confused yourself about my question, I'll try once more.

What lie are you trying to expose? Is it that you think the manned moon missions were all fake, but some conspiracy (or some group, for some reason) is claiming it's real? Yes or no?

If you answer yes, doesn't that mean you're denying they happened at all, which would be saying an accomplishment never happened, right? How is that different than denying the accomplishment?

If you answer no, does that mean you believe the manned moon landings are not a lie, and did take place? If so, then what lie are you trying to expose?
 
Quote
"The missions happened as claimed but the live video was faked?" Seriously how much can you possibly pull out of of your arse lol.

It's difficult to follow what you were trying to say. No denial of [the] accomplishment, but something is a lie. That was a guess. So what did you mean?
 
Quote
Quote
makes no sense at all
Go figure!

Are you admitting that "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with bullshit" is your approach to the topic? That would explain a lot.

Quote
Quote
As far as I know, they simply won't behave like they're in a vacuum unless they're in a vacuum. If you have any reasonably credible evidence to the contrary, please, let's see it. That means the entire studio must be at least a pretty hard vacuum.
..........
Do you really think such a structure as the current one would be possible to build before 1969? How about the vastly larger one actually needed?

I'm still waiting to see evidence that something even remotely suitable was (or, for that matter, is) possible. Until then, my money's on impossible.

Why are you asking for evidence of a large vacuum chamber?

Because it would be needed, as explained in the embedded quote above.

Quote
Who is even claiming this?

The ones claiming it was faked in a large studio on earth.

Quote
The dust argument has been debunked in this thread, other threads, videos and articles. [not successfully; if you believe otherwise, citation needed] Since the only evidence of observable live behaviour of the lunar surface is from the faked apollo missions it cannot be used as evidence as that's the one under scrutiny. If you have any other video that confirms the bahaviour of dust on the lunar surface to be impossible to fake on Earth then let us know.

We know the moon has no atmosphere, most directly based on observations of stellar occultations, as well as others. We know how fine particles (and items with little mass but large surface area) behave in the presence of an atmosphere by observation, and we know the behavior of fine particles (etc.) in a vacuum through understanding of fluid mechanics backed by experiments. None of this is particularly exotic. The behavior of this material as shown in the moon-landing films and videos requires a vacuum.

Quote
Quote
"Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available" Really?
Yep, really. Otherwise how did Apollo reach the moon to play golf right?

Saturn V, Apollo Command/Service Module, and Lunar Module. The Space Shuttle didn't exist at the time.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on January 18, 2017, 02:31:00 PM
Many, a few? When you're making up stuff wholesale, who cares about being accurate?
You clearly don't

You were the one claiming "many" and "some" were no different, even when the correct description was "a few", not me.
 
Quote
How much relevant information was available? The Surveyor craft provided some, giving a surface-level view. There were 7 Surveyors launched, and 5 successfully soft landed and returned pictures and other data. A few orbiters and some of the Ranger impactors gave "bird's-eye" views; 3 Rangers (7, 8, and 9) returned pictures until impact; Ranger 9 was broadcast live until it hit the moon as intended. Question: what value would the vertical views be for faking a manned landing? We can get vertical views, albeit lower-resolution, using earthbound telescopes; without the probes, those details revealed by the probes wouldn't have been known, anyway, so where's the win?

Quote
Quote
Quote
Also, since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast with an overlay text that says "LIVE" - why was that impossible and why would that cost billions?

So according to you this movie was broadcast live from the set? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054331/ since it wasn't possible to prerecord?

Quote
No. Why would you think that?
Because you said:
Quote
In the earliest days of TV, it was not possible to pre-record video.

And I stand by that. The earliest days of television were more than ten years before Sparticus was released in 1960, so I don't see the relevance. Your claim that "since live TV, it's always been possible to fake live footage. It's simply pre-recorded and broadcast..." is wrong. Live TV became widespread between soon after the end of WWII and the mid-1950s[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_set#History[/nb][Note: footnotes are wonky in the presence of nested quotes on this site. Click the superscripted item to the left and it will take you to the footnote]. The first practical video recorders became available in 1956[nb]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_tape_recorder#History[/nb], meaning that until almost a decade after the introduction of live TV broadcasting, it couldn't be recorded as video. It was possible to convert film to video and vice-versa, but that film chain always produces telltale artifacts. There were even earlier experimental television systems, and a few thousand electronic television sets using more-or-less modern (for the '50s) standards predated the war, but that does the opposite of supporting your hyperbole since none of that could be recorded as video, either (although, again, film intermediate was possible). Sometimes television shows were filmed by focusing a synchronized movie camera at a monitor for preservation or even distribution to other television stations for later broadcast, but those came with a noticeable drop in quality from the original live production.

So, realistically, no.
 
Quote
Quote
You apparently didn't realize that Hollywood was using photographic film, not videotape, back then. Even so, they could produce scenes of only limited length. In a live TV production, on the other hand, a single shot could be indefinitely long.

You just don't get it do you? Ok here's another perspective that might help you. You say the moon footage is real which means the video camera that shot the moon footage is real? Following so far?

And while that real live footage from the moon is available today 2017, it means they recorded the live footage correct? Otherwise it wouldn't be available today.

Is the whole live TV feed of all of those missions available without interruptions to this day? We find various snippets (usually the most interesting parts) all over the Internet now, but the live feeds sometimes lasted for hours.

Quote
So if the camera is real, and the footage is real then WHY is it impossible to use that same real camera that existed back then to shoot the footage at an earlier date and broadcast it on the day?

Because the recording technology of the day would have required breaks.

Quote
Why was that "IMPOSSIBLE" beyond a shadow of doubt?

Because they didn't have the capability to record sufficiently long video at the time.

Quote
Quote
Huh? Are you saying the Apollo missions really happened ("not to deny an accomplishment")? What lie are you "exposing", then? The missions happened as claimed, but the live video was faked? That makes no sense at all.

What are you on about? How are you added 2 + 2 and reaching -100?
Who said "not to deny without context" automatically means "accept"? If you ask, then I deny otherwise why would I bring it up when then questions need to be asked about bold claims?
Quote
I don't remember anyone saying "not to deny without context". What I was asking about was this statement:

Our agenda is not to deny an accomplishment but to expose a lie.

What lie am I exposing? What thread are you reading?

Which thread? I would think the quotes should make that clear enough, but in case it's not clear, it's this thread.

Now that that's cleared up, and since you are trying to evade answering the question, I'll presume you have no answer. On the off chance you were just confused yourself about my question, I'll try once more.

What lie are you trying to expose? Is it that you think the manned moon missions were all fake, but some conspiracy (or some group, for some reason) is claiming it's real? Yes or no?

If you answer yes, doesn't that mean you're denying they happened at all, which would be saying an accomplishment never happened, right? How is that different than denying the accomplishment?

If you answer no, does that mean you believe the manned moon landings are not a lie, and did take place? If so, then what lie are you trying to expose?
 
Quote
"The missions happened as claimed but the live video was faked?" Seriously how much can you possibly pull out of of your arse lol.

It's difficult to follow what you were trying to say. No denial of [the] accomplishment, but something is a lie. That was a guess. So what did you mean?
 
Quote
Quote
makes no sense at all
Go figure!

Are you admitting that "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with bullshit" is your approach to the topic? That would explain a lot.

Quote
Quote
As far as I know, they simply won't behave like they're in a vacuum unless they're in a vacuum. If you have any reasonably credible evidence to the contrary, please, let's see it. That means the entire studio must be at least a pretty hard vacuum.
..........
Do you really think such a structure as the current one would be possible to build before 1969? How about the vastly larger one actually needed?

I'm still waiting to see evidence that something even remotely suitable was (or, for that matter, is) possible. Until then, my money's on impossible.

Why are you asking for evidence of a large vacuum chamber?

Because it would be needed, as explained in the embedded quote above.

Quote
Who is even claiming this?

The ones claiming it was faked in a large studio on earth.

Quote
The dust argument has been debunked in this thread, other threads, videos and articles. [not successfully; if you believe otherwise, citation needed] Since the only evidence of observable live behaviour of the lunar surface is from the faked apollo missions it cannot be used as evidence as that's the one under scrutiny. If you have any other video that confirms the bahaviour of dust on the lunar surface to be impossible to fake on Earth then let us know.

We know the moon has no atmosphere, most directly based on observations of stellar occultations, as well as others. We know how fine particles (and items with little mass but large surface area) behave in the presence of an atmosphere by observation, and we know the behavior of fine particles (etc.) in a vacuum through understanding of fluid mechanics backed by experiments. None of this is particularly exotic. The behavior of this material as shown in the moon-landing films and videos requires a vacuum.

Quote
Quote
"Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available" Really?
Yep, really. Otherwise how did Apollo reach the moon to play golf right?

Saturn V, Apollo Command/Service Module, and Lunar Module. The Space Shuttle didn't exist at the time.

Nice post, very well presented.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 18, 2017, 07:08:32 PM
You were the one claiming "many" and "some" were no different, even when the correct description was "a few", not me.
What does that have to do with anything? "You clearly don't" was the answer to "who cares about being accurate?" as that was the question. Why ask a question, then use the answer to it for something only remotely related to the question itself? And you expect to defend the moon landing when you can't get basic discussion right? Good luck.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 18, 2017, 07:49:30 PM
So, realistically, no.
Yet you're still not proving it was "IMPOSSIBLE" and it was easier and cheaper to "simply" go to the moon.
 
Quote
Is the whole live TV feed of all of those missions available without interruptions to this day? We find various snippets (usually the most interesting parts) all over the Internet now, but the live feeds sometimes lasted for hours.
It would be available today if the moon landing was real. There'd be hundreds of official recordings as well as unofficial and they would have edited together every live recording for a seamless digital rendering of the GREATEST achievement in history. But they haven't because they didn't go to the moon. It really is that simple.

Quote
Quote
So if the camera is real, and the footage is real then WHY is it impossible to use that same real camera that existed back then to shoot the footage at an earlier date and broadcast it on the day?

Because the recording technology of the day would have required breaks.
Have you even seen the live videos? EVERY single frame looks like a break. How could you even tell? I've cut of video tape and sellotaped it from the back and I got almost perfect playback from that. Why do you pretend that "breaks" would be a lengthy bright pink screen or something that would give the fakery away?

Quote
Quote
Why was that "IMPOSSIBLE" beyond a shadow of doubt?

Because they didn't have the capability to record sufficiently long video at the time.

Whether they did or didn't, they didn't have to. That's the point

Quote
Which thread? I would think the quotes should make that clear enough, but in case it's not clear, it's this thread.

Now that that's cleared up, and since you are trying to evade answering the question, I'll presume you have no answer. On the off chance you were just confused yourself about my question, I'll try once more.
It's not about the quotes. You're a very confused person. You ask a question and then use the answer for completely unrelated or different thing.

"Evading question" is just an empty phrase from hardcore moon landing believers. There was no question really to answer. A stupid question is usually given a stupid answer unless the stupid question is out of ignorance then it's in the name of learning. Even then the answer was in the statement if you were smart enough to see it.

Quote
What lie are you trying to expose? Is it that you think the manned moon missions were all fake, but some conspiracy (or some group, for some reason) is claiming it's real? Yes or no?
Yes

Quote
If you answer yes, doesn't that mean you're denying they happened at all, which would be saying an accomplishment never happened, right? How is that different than denying the accomplishment?

Denying an accomplishment is invalidating something that happened. Exposing a lie is denying something that never happened. Do you understand the difference?

Example: Scoring a goal from 130 yards
Denying an accomplishment: Judging that the ball didn't cross the line
Exposing a lie: Proving that the video of it was staged

Quote
If you answer no....
I didn't
 
Quote
Are you admitting that "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with bullshit" is your approach to the topic? That would explain a lot.
I didn't realise that simple things would baffle you. Normally, anything beyond the understanding of a person is usually referred to as "bullshit" so thanks

Quote
Quote
Why are you asking for evidence of a large vacuum chamber?

Because it would be needed, as explained in the embedded quote above.
The embedded video doesn't prove that a vacuum would be needed. If that fools you then it's not my fault and you can't simply brush aside the question of probability based on that.

Quote
Quote
Who is even claiming this?

The ones claiming it was faked in a large studio on earth.

I claim it was a large studio. But I am not claiming that it was a large vacuum studio. So why are you making things up?

Quote
We know the moon has no atmosphere, most directly based on observations of stellar occultations, as well as others. We know how fine particles (and items with little mass but large surface area) behave in the presence of an atmosphere by observation, and we know the behavior of fine particles (etc.) in a vacuum through understanding of fluid mechanics backed by experiments. None of this is particularly exotic. The behavior of this material as shown in the moon-landing films and videos requires a vacuum.
But it doesn't. I just told you there's plenty of articles, videos, simulations that PROVES atmosphere as well as the ability to recreate the effects with very premature basic slow motion.

Quote
Quote
Quote
"Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available" Really?
Yep, really. Otherwise how did Apollo reach the moon to play golf right?

Saturn V, Apollo Command/Service Module, and Lunar Module. The Space Shuttle didn't exist at the time.
[/quote]So I got the vehicle name wrong. Yes shuttles are from the 70's. Spacecrafts are not as you've answered (your own question without realising). The "point" was that it was possible to orbit the earth. One of the things listed in the first post.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 18, 2017, 08:15:41 PM
How about instead of crying on and on, why don't you make a rebuttal to the two videos posted on the first page.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 18, 2017, 08:18:35 PM
How about instead of crying on and on, why don't you make a rebuttal to the two videos posted on the first page.
Forget the first page, how about refuting the first post with answers instead of a youtube music video with no actual information about the opening post?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 18, 2017, 08:28:08 PM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
Umm ok

Quote
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
Maybe

Quote
  • Video camera - available
Shown to not be availible to fake the footage.

Quote
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
No one would keep it a secret in this day and age.

Quote
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
Maybe

Quote
  • Camera speed control - available
As the videos show, they do not have the control they needed. They cannot slow down the footage to fake low gravity while keeping movements looking normal.

Quote
  • Editing capabilities - available
Ok terrific.

Quote
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done
Umm you may want to check with other people on that.If you can go to space you can go to the moon, this is using your logic.

Quote
So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?
As the videos show, you cannot fake the footage with the technology of the time.

Quote
This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.
"Correlation does not imply causation"
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 18, 2017, 08:40:50 PM
So, realistically, no.
Yet you're still not proving it was "IMPOSSIBLE" and it was easier and cheaper to "simply" go to the moon.
 
Quote
Is the whole live TV feed of all of those missions available without interruptions to this day? We find various snippets (usually the most interesting parts) all over the Internet now, but the live feeds sometimes lasted for hours.
It would be available today if the moon landing was real. There'd be hundreds of official recordings as well as unofficial and they would have edited together every live recording for a seamless digital rendering of the GREATEST achievement in history. But they haven't because they didn't go to the moon. It really is that simple.

Quote
Quote
So if the camera is real, and the footage is real then WHY is it impossible to use that same real camera that existed back then to shoot the footage at an earlier date and broadcast it on the day?

Because the recording technology of the day would have required breaks.
Have you even seen the live videos? EVERY single frame looks like a break. How could you even tell? I've cut of video tape and sellotaped it from the back and I got almost perfect playback from that. Why do you pretend that "breaks" would be a lengthy bright pink screen or something that would give the fakery away?

Quote
Quote
Why was that "IMPOSSIBLE" beyond a shadow of doubt?

Because they didn't have the capability to record sufficiently long video at the time.

Whether they did or didn't, they didn't have to. That's the point

Quote
Which thread? I would think the quotes should make that clear enough, but in case it's not clear, it's this thread.

Now that that's cleared up, and since you are trying to evade answering the question, I'll presume you have no answer. On the off chance you were just confused yourself about my question, I'll try once more.
It's not about the quotes. You're a very confused person. You ask a question and then use the answer for completely unrelated or different thing.

"Evading question" is just an empty phrase from hardcore moon landing believers. There was no question really to answer. A stupid question is usually given a stupid answer unless the stupid question is out of ignorance then it's in the name of learning. Even then the answer was in the statement if you were smart enough to see it.

Quote
What lie are you trying to expose? Is it that you think the manned moon missions were all fake, but some conspiracy (or some group, for some reason) is claiming it's real? Yes or no?
Yes

Quote
If you answer yes, doesn't that mean you're denying they happened at all, which would be saying an accomplishment never happened, right? How is that different than denying the accomplishment?

Denying an accomplishment is invalidating something that happened. Exposing a lie is denying something that never happened. Do you understand the difference?

Example: Scoring a goal from 130 yards
Denying an accomplishment: Judging that the ball didn't cross the line
Exposing a lie: Proving that the video of it was staged

Quote
If you answer no....
I didn't
 
Quote
Are you admitting that "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with bullshit" is your approach to the topic? That would explain a lot.
I didn't realise that simple things would baffle you. Normally, anything beyond the understanding of a person is usually referred to as "bullshit" so thanks

Quote
Quote
Why are you asking for evidence of a large vacuum chamber?

Because it would be needed, as explained in the embedded quote above.
The embedded video doesn't prove that a vacuum would be needed. If that fools you then it's not my fault and you can't simply brush aside the question of probability based on that.

Quote
Quote
Who is even claiming this?

The ones claiming it was faked in a large studio on earth.

I claim it was a large studio. But I am not claiming that it was a large vacuum studio. So why are you making things up?

Quote
We know the moon has no atmosphere, most directly based on observations of stellar occultations, as well as others. We know how fine particles (and items with little mass but large surface area) behave in the presence of an atmosphere by observation, and we know the behavior of fine particles (etc.) in a vacuum through understanding of fluid mechanics backed by experiments. None of this is particularly exotic. The behavior of this material as shown in the moon-landing films and videos requires a vacuum.
But it doesn't. I just told you there's plenty of articles, videos, simulations that PROVES atmosphere as well as the ability to recreate the effects with very premature basic slow motion.

Quote
Quote
Quote
"Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available" Really?
Yep, really. Otherwise how did Apollo reach the moon to play golf right?

Saturn V, Apollo Command/Service Module, and Lunar Module. The Space Shuttle didn't exist at the time.
So I got the vehicle name wrong. Yes shuttles are from the 70's. Spacecrafts are not as you've answered (your own question without realising). The "point" was that it was possible to orbit the earth. One of the things listed in the first post.
[/quote]
Excellent post, thank you.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 18, 2017, 09:08:23 PM
Quote
  • Video camera - available
Shown to not be availible to fake the footage.
Nothing has been shown that proves what you're saying. They stream video to Earth from the moon according to you right? And we say they pre-recorded it. Either way, the video camera WAS available according to both parties. Do you get this point now?

Quote
Quote
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
No one would keep it a secret in this day and age.
No one would? Still doesn't prove that no one "could" - it doesn't make it "impossible" - sticking to the point only. Nothing else.

Quote
Quote
  • Camera speed control - available
As the videos show, they do not have the control they needed. They cannot slow down the footage to fake low gravity while keeping movements looking normal.
And as other videos and articles show, it can. So while there's evidence it can be done, the "possibility" still remains

Quote
Quote
  • Space shuttle spacecrafts to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done
Umm you may want to check with other people on that.If you can go to space you can go to the moon, this is using your logic.
My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.

Quote
Quote
So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?
As the videos show, you cannot fake the footage with the technology of the time.
No it doesn't show that. You can keep telling yourself it does but it doesn't. Easy to say "technology not available" but without a list of technologies needed to fake it that wasn't available (as I've provided a list to fake it that was available) this claim is baseless. And the irony... no technology to fake footage but enough technology to reach the moon. Amazing.

Quote
Quote
This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.
"Correlation does not imply causation"
Invalid phrase. You might wanna read more on it.... here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 18, 2017, 11:24:22 PM
Quote from: observer link=topic=68630.msg1860658#msg1860658
Quote
Is the whole live TV feed of all of those missions available without interruptions to this day? We find various snippets (usually the most interesting parts) all over the Internet now, but the live feeds sometimes lasted for hours.
It would be available today if the moon landing was real. There'd be hundreds of official recordings as well as unofficial and they would have edited together every live recording for a seamless digital rendering of the GREATEST achievement in history. But they haven't because they didn't go to the moon. It really is that simple.

They are available. Youtube alone has the complete TV transmissions from the EVAs, and you can buy them from Spacecraft Films, which has all the TV and 16mm footage (amongst other things) for all the missions.

I have the sets from Apollo 8, 11 and 15.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 18, 2017, 11:30:48 PM
My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.

You can't film the entire Earth from LEO. You can get the entire Eath in from a geostationary orbit, but that wouldn't show you the Earth rotating over time, which the photos and TV transmissions do.

The TV transmissions from cislunar space en route to the moon could only have been broadcast from where they were said to broadcast, and could only be broadcast at the time they were broadcast, otherwise the meteorological fingerprint from the time of transmission would not match that from satellite images - satellite images that were not available during those transmissions. Everything about the images of Earth filmed, broadcast and photographed over the course of the missions is absolutely and entirely consistent with documented fact and mission timelines - right down to where the subsolar point appears.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 19, 2017, 12:41:47 AM
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Is the whole live TV feed of all of those missions available without interruptions to this day? We find various snippets (usually the most interesting parts) all over the Internet now, but the live feeds sometimes lasted for hours.

They are available. Youtube alone has the complete TV transmissions from the EVAs, and you can buy them from Spacecraft Films, which has all the TV and 16mm footage (amongst other things) for all the missions.

I have the sets from Apollo 8, 11 and 15.
Make up your minds. You two moon landing believers can battle this one out.

Conclusion: It was possible to record/edit/cut/modify large lengths of videos.. another point against the claim that it was impossible. Thanks
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 19, 2017, 12:48:18 AM
My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.

You can't film the entire Earth from LEO. You can get the entire Eath in from a geostationary orbit, but that wouldn't show you the Earth rotating over time, which the photos and TV transmissions do.

My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.
FYI:
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on January 19, 2017, 05:19:07 AM
My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.

You can't film the entire Earth from LEO. You can get the entire Eath in from a geostationary orbit, but that wouldn't show you the Earth rotating over time, which the photos and TV transmissions do.

My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.
FYI:
Sibrel tells you it is faked but he cut out part of the footage that proves him wrong and his explanation doesn't work.
there is no transparency and there is no cardboard cutout.  A transparency would not show movement over time which it does and would not show current weather patterns which it does.  A cardboard cutout would not show the entire globe or allow it to move around in the window.



http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 19, 2017, 05:22:06 AM
Quote
  • Video camera - available
Shown to not be availible to fake the footage.
Nothing has been shown that proves what you're saying. They stream video to Earth from the moon according to you right? And we say they pre-recorded it. Either way, the video camera WAS available according to both parties. Do you get this point now?
The only evidence posted in this thread showed the footage couldn't be faked. Understand?

Quote
Quote
Quote
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
No one would keep it a secret in this day and age.
No one would? Still doesn't prove that no one "could" - it doesn't make it "impossible" - sticking to the point only. Nothing else.
You have to stretch so much to try and be right.

Quote
Quote
Quote
  • Camera speed control - available
As the videos show, they do not have the control they needed. They cannot slow down the footage to fake low gravity while keeping movements looking normal.
And as other videos and articles show, it can. So while there's evidence it can be done, the "possibility" still remains

I didn't see any other videos or articles posted. Jut because "speed control" exists doesn't mean it can be used to fake something. You have to show that it can, which you haven't.


Quote
Quote
Quote
  • Space shuttle spacecrafts to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done
Umm you may want to check with other people on that.If you can go to space you can go to the moon, this is using your logic.
My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.
And as pointed out by other people, you can't get the whole earth since you would be too close.

Quote
Quote
Quote
So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?
As the videos show, you cannot fake the footage with the technology of the time.
No it doesn't show that. You can keep telling yourself it does but it doesn't. Easy to say "technology not available" but without a list of technologies needed to fake it that wasn't available (as I've provided a list to fake it that was available) this claim is baseless. And the irony... no technology to fake footage but enough technology to reach the moon. Amazing.
Once again, the only evidence presented showed it couldn't be faked. You may want to try a tackle it.

Quote
Quote
Quote
This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.
"Correlation does not imply causation"
Invalid phrase. You might wanna read more on it.... here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
[/quote]

I'm really just pointing out that because something like film editing exists, that doesn't automatically mean it can be used to fake the moon landings.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 19, 2017, 06:14:07 AM
The only evidence posted in this thread showed the footage couldn't be faked. Understand?
No evidence has been posted. Only theories and unconfirmed calculations so maybe it's time to stop claim evidence was posted until it actually is posted.

Quote
You have to stretch so much to try and be right.
Saying I'm sticking to the topic is stretching? How narrow is your reach!

Quote
I didn't see any other videos or articles posted. Jut because "speed control" exists doesn't mean it can be used to fake something. You have to show that it can, which you haven't.
1964 and you believers still think that a gigantic vacuum chamber would be needed. Also, you're not very good with reading. I didn't say it was posted. I said "as other videos and articles show" in response to your claim of videos showing it wasn't possible based on theoretical unconfirmed calculations.

Quote
And as pointed out by other people, you can't get the whole earth since you would be too close.
EXACTLY my point.. read the first post at the top on this page. I clarified and had to post it twice and you still miss the point. Pay attention or take a nap.

Quote
Once again, the only evidence presented showed it couldn't be faked. You may want to try a tackle it.
It's not evidence. When I see evidence I'll either agree or disagree based on the contents. I don't find cover up videos to be scientifically accurate and I won't start listing the holes in physics and theories here as it's already available all over the net.

Quote
I'm really just pointing out that because something like film editing exists, that doesn't automatically mean it can be used to fake the moon landings.
That's exactly what it means. It CAN be used. Give reasons why it can't be used. I'm saying it can be used because simulating gravity was possible years before, editing and camera tricks was possible decades before and don't start on it not being possible on live video because no one is claiming that. The claim is on pre-recorded to broadcast as live.


The truth of the matter is, this discussion is getting petty and nothing conclusive is being posted by these hardcore moon landing believers. Give actual replies to your claims otherwise I'm ready to conclude at this point that faking it was possible and the claim that it was "impossible" and "cheaper" to just land on the moon is grade A bogus.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 19, 2017, 09:30:41 AM
So, realistically, no.
Yet you're still not proving it was "IMPOSSIBLE" and it was easier and cheaper to "simply" go to the moon.

A sufficiently large evacuated stage simply couldn't be built. Period. 'Proving' something in an internet discussion can't be done.

Even scientific proof is not possible. It's apparently time for this ol' fellow (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof) again..

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 19, 2017, 10:50:58 AM
My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.

You can't film the entire Earth from LEO. You can get the entire Eath in from a geostationary orbit, but that wouldn't show you the Earth rotating over time, which the photos and TV transmissions do.

My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.
FYI:

It's already been explained to you that convicted thug Sibrel was (as usual) dishonest in his editing and flat out lied about the video source but there's more.

The image you see there is the same view of Earth in the press image I posted earlier in the thread, it was broadcast on TV at the time, appeared in the following day's newspapers, and was featured in books published at the time. Sibrel lied when he claimed it was secret footage that he wasn't supposed to know about. If features the time and date specific meteorological fingerprint of Hurricane Bernice, which only appeared in that formation and location on that day. It could not be faked, and was not faked.

As for unsupported claims and calculations, I hate to go all Heiwa on you but I go into considerable detail about just that one image on this page of my site

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/ch4_3_1a.html


I'll repeat it again: it is not possible to film the entire Earth from LEO. It is not possible to see Earth rotate underneath you even in geostationary orbit. The only place that the footage Sibrel lied about could have been filmed is from cislunar space on the day it was broadcast.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 19, 2017, 11:49:21 AM
1964



and you believers still think that a gigantic vacuum chamber would be needed.

That's in interesting way to reduce the effect of gravity for testing capabilities and practicing some maneuvers for low-gravity conditions, but it creates its own issues if you want to use it to make a convincing simulation of what actually happened on the moon. The first issue is that the incline necessary to reduce g to 1/6 needs to be tilted by 80°, meaning the camera is looking almost straight down. The subject in the test moved only left and right. Moving toward or away from the camera (up and down in earths gravity) would be difficult to accomplish, if it could be done at all; even if it could, the hundreds of meters of simulated horizontal "moonscape" needs to be hundreds of meters tall instead of hundreds of meters from front to back. This makes the structure far more difficult to build. It also makes things like making footprints in regolith a serious problem, since 80° is waaay beyond the angle of repose for loose material; it would simply slide off. In addition, since the people (and everything they drop or put down) need to be supported by harnesses and wires, having them walk around each other (and things like the LM, rover, deployed equipment [which would need its own support wires], etc.) would not be possible without getting the support wires fouled - even ignoring the difficulty of keeping the support wires from being seen.

There was no need for this exercise to be done in a vacuum; the behavior of fine particles or material with a lot of air resistance isn't what's being investigated, it's how mobile a person in a pressure suit could be in simulated reduced gravity. As noted, this gravity-reduction technique wouldn't work for loose particles, anyway.

Related to the other conversation about pre-recording material and convincingly playing it back as "live", did everyone notice the artifacts that immediately identify this as film, not video (live or otherwise)? Spots on the film, scratches, a bit of up-and-down wavering, and some fuzz stuck in the upper left corner for part of it are dead giveaways. That's why convincingly faking a live telecast would require a pure video chain (no film), and videotape recorders of the time were much more limited than they are now.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on January 19, 2017, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: observer link=topic=68630.msg1860658#msg1860658
Quote
Is the whole live TV feed of all of those missions available without interruptions to this day? We find various snippets (usually the most interesting parts) all over the Internet now, but the live feeds sometimes lasted for hours.
It would be available today if the moon landing was real. There'd be hundreds of official recordings as well as unofficial and they would have edited together every live recording for a seamless digital rendering of the GREATEST achievement in history. But they haven't because they didn't go to the moon. It really is that simple.

They are available. Youtube alone has the complete TV transmissions from the EVAs, and you can buy them from Spacecraft Films, which has all the TV and 16mm footage (amongst other things) for all the missions.

I have the sets from Apollo 8, 11 and 15.
But not everything, that has to be bought as Spacecraft Films.

I think its stupid. Everything from Apollo is suppose to be public domain.They have NO right to sell it!

Spacecraft Films are just assholes who somehow got access to all of it, inducing 16mm footage. Scanning everything in HD and is selling it for hundreds of dollars. If I were to buy their collection, I'd put it all on YouTube. Especially their 16mm HD scans.

NASA should have known better than to let someone scan their 16mm footage and sell it.
Question: Are their 16mm scans played back at the right speed? its utterly useless and garbage if they scan everything but play it back at 30fps. Since most was recorded at 12fps or less.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 20, 2017, 04:24:20 AM
A sufficiently large evacuated stage simply couldn't be built. Period.
Because you say so? Amazing, I guess we really did land on the moon!!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on January 20, 2017, 04:29:37 AM
My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.

You can't film the entire Earth from LEO. You can get the entire Eath in from a geostationary orbit, but that wouldn't show you the Earth rotating over time, which the photos and TV transmissions do.

My point was that it was possible to get into orbit to record the live videos of being in space and show the earth from a distance faked.
FYI:

It's already been explained to you that convicted thug Sibrel was (as usual) dishonest in his editing and flat out lied about the video source but there's more.

The image you see there is the same view of Earth in the press image I posted earlier in the thread, it was broadcast on TV at the time, appeared in the following day's newspapers, and was featured in books published at the time. Sibrel lied when he claimed it was secret footage that he wasn't supposed to know about. If features the time and date specific meteorological fingerprint of Hurricane Bernice, which only appeared in that formation and location on that day. It could not be faked, and was not faked.

As for unsupported claims and calculations, I hate to go all Heiwa on you but I go into considerable detail about just that one image on this page of my site

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/CATM/ch4/a11/ch4_3_1a.html


I'll repeat it again: it is not possible to film the entire Earth from LEO. It is not possible to see Earth rotate underneath you even in geostationary orbit. The only place that the footage Sibrel lied about could have been filmed is from cislunar space on the day it was broadcast.
I have checked your work and there's way too many issues with it.. especially the cloud formations. When I get time I'll send you one or two basic questions that will hopefully clarify my suspicions. For now, the video is sufficient proof of >>>faking<<< the earth at a distance from LEO.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 20, 2017, 05:52:29 PM
A sufficiently large evacuated stage simply couldn't be built. Period.
Because you say so? Amazing, I guess we really did land on the moon!!
Yes, we did! Now we're getting somewhere! Where's the evidence that says otherwise?

How large do you think a stage to convincingly simulate the Apollo moonwalks would have to be?

How could the behavior of materials as shown in the films and videos be simulated in air?

If that behavior can't be replicated except in a vacuum, how much pressure would there be on an evacuated structure of the requisite size.

Would it be physically possible to build a structure with sufficient strength and airtightness in the 1960s? Would it be possible even now?

Believable answers to these questions would be a good start toward a coherent and convincing rebuttal.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 20, 2017, 06:02:54 PM
How large do you think a stage to convincingly simulate the Apollo moonwalks would have to be?

Only people in the 1960s found it "convincing".

Quote
How could the behavior of materials as shown in the films and videos be simulated in air?

It didn't show 1/6th gravity, that's for sure.

Quote
If that behavior can't be replicated except in a vacuum, how much pressure would there be on an evacuated structure of the requisite size.

Vacuum has little to do with it. Gravity is much more important. Check your physics.

Quote
Would it be physically possible to build a structure with sufficient strength and airtightness in the 1960s? Would it be possible even now?

There were no limits to film studios, having a history of 50+ yeas in 1969.
Today we are fed the Big Bang Theory "ISS" clips are fake, but the NASA "International Silly Swimming pool" is real? Sure thang.

Quote
Believable answers to these questions would be a good start toward a coherent and convincing rebuttal.

Useless for shills like yourself. That people defend "space travel" is one thing. But defending the studio production of """Apollo""" is really beyond belief.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 20, 2017, 11:31:49 PM
Quote from: observer link=topic=68630.msg1860658#msg1860658
Quote
Is the whole live TV feed of all of those missions available without interruptions to this day? We find various snippets (usually the most interesting parts) all over the Internet now, but the live feeds sometimes lasted for hours.
It would be available today if the moon landing was real. There'd be hundreds of official recordings as well as unofficial and they would have edited together every live recording for a seamless digital rendering of the GREATEST achievement in history. But they haven't because they didn't go to the moon. It really is that simple.

They are available. Youtube alone has the complete TV transmissions from the EVAs, and you can buy them from Spacecraft Films, which has all the TV and 16mm footage (amongst other things) for all the missions.

I have the sets from Apollo 8, 11 and 15.
But not everything, that has to be bought as Spacecraft Films.

I think its stupid. Everything from Apollo is suppose to be public domain.They have NO right to sell it!

Spacecraft Films are just assholes who somehow got access to all of it, inducing 16mm footage. Scanning everything in HD and is selling it for hundreds of dollars. If I were to buy their collection, I'd put it all on YouTube. Especially their 16mm HD scans.

NASA should have known better than to let someone scan their 16mm footage and sell it.
Question: Are their 16mm scans played back at the right speed? its utterly useless and garbage if they scan everything but play it back at 30fps. Since most was recorded at 12fps or less.

They are available - look on youtube. The 16mm footage has been available for years. The 16mm scans are by and large played back at one speed, they used different recording speeds to maximise the information they could gather (in some cases it was almost another still camera), not to act as a source of entertainment.

The point being made was that the footage was not available, my point was that it is and always has been. Spacecraft films are just one source, there are others. Some you pay for, some you don't.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 20, 2017, 11:48:37 PM
I have checked your work and there's way too many issues with it.. especially the cloud formations. When I get time I'll send you one or two basic questions that will hopefully clarify my suspicions. For now, the video is sufficient proof of faking the earth at a distance from LEO.

There are no issues with it. If you have problems with the analysis then say so. If I've made any errors I will own up to them and correct them (I have done that several times). In the absence of your critique I stand by it: every image of Earth contains a unique time and date specific meteorological fingerprint that can be verified by up to 3 separate weather satellites whose data have been public realm for decades. That meteorological fingerprint changes in the images even over relatively short periods of time.

In addition to the meteorological data the configuration of the Earth in terms of the land masses on show, the position of the subsolar point, the receiving station of the signals, and the position of the terminator describe a view they could not possibly know about, and the mission transcripts where the astronauts all confirm the time and date that the images were taken and the location from which they were taken.

I'm not sure how much more simply I can put this: you can not film the entire Earth from LEO. It is physically impossible. Check the transcripts for the missions that did operate in LEO (Apollos 7 and 9) and see how many times they changed ground stations, compare that with the number of times that was needed in the lunar missions. The man who put that 'documentary' together to claim that this is what happened is a proven liar and fraudster. Have another page that agrees with me:

http://www.apollo-history-and-hoax.com/Apollo11/index.html

And this compilation of footage has looooooong sequences of the Earth views:

https://archive.org/details/VJSC_1425G

You can even compare the Earth at the start and end of sequences and show a change in the terminator position.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 21, 2017, 09:02:37 AM
How large do you think a stage to convincingly simulate the Apollo moonwalks would have to be?

Only people in the 1960s found it "convincing".

You didn't answer the question. I'll ask again: how large?

Quote
Quote
How could the behavior of materials as shown in the films and videos be simulated in air?

It didn't show 1/6th gravity, that's for sure.

You didn't answer the question. How can you simulate behavior in a vacuum while not in a vacuum?

Quote
Quote
If that behavior can't be replicated except in a vacuum, how much pressure would there be on an evacuated structure of the requisite size.

Vacuum has little to do with it. Gravity is much more important. Check your physics.

Physics checked. They both matter; which is more important depends on the physical characteristics of the objects. The classic demonstration of this is the feather and farthing (http://resources.yesican-science.ca/iss07/gravity_galileo.html).

You didn't answer the question. How much pressure?

Quote
Quote
Would it be physically possible to build a structure with sufficient strength and airtightness in the 1960s? Would it be possible even now?

There were no limits to film studios, having a history of 50+ yeas in 1969.
Today we are fed the Big Bang Theory "ISS" clips are fake, but the NASA "International Silly Swimming pool" is real? Sure thang.

No limits at all? Evidence, please.

Quote
Quote
Believable answers to these questions would be a good start toward a coherent and convincing rebuttal.

Useless for shills like yourself. That people defend "space travel" is one thing. But defending the studio production of """Apollo""" is really beyond belief.

No answers yet. Plenty of the usual evasion instead. Until shown otherwise the conclusion has to be that you have no answers.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on January 21, 2017, 09:11:45 AM
You didn't answer the question. I'll ask again: how large?

Apparently small, as they got away with using multiple backdrops on different "missions" and the line between the stage and the front-screen projected background is clearly close.

Quote
You didn't answer the question. How can you simulate behavior in a vacuum while not in a vacuum?

There was no "simulation of a vacuum". The suits are one key. The happily inflated tyres of the "Lunar Rover" another.

Quote
You didn't answer the question. How much pressure?

How much pressure where and what?

Quote
No limits at all? Evidence, please.

Not for the purpose they had and certainly not with that budget. Of course there were technological limits, but those were tiny compared to the technological limits of an actual moon landing.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on January 21, 2017, 10:17:45 AM
Your lack of knowledge defeats you again.

The suits you see are just the exterior shell. The real protection is in the pressurised garment underneath that you don't see.

The rover tyres were not inflated - they were a wire mesh, as can be seen very clearly in the images. There is no reason why inflated tyres would be an issue anyway - tyres on earth are inflated to considerably higher pressures than the atmosphere and manage just fine - including those on planes flying at high altitude.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on January 21, 2017, 11:31:47 AM
You didn't answer the question. I'll ask again: how large?

Apparently small, as they got away with using multiple backdrops on different "missions" and the line between the stage and the front-screen projected background is clearly close.

Speculation without evidence.

Quote
Quote
You didn't answer the question. How can you simulate behavior in a vacuum while not in a vacuum?

There was no "simulation of a vacuum". The suits are one key. The happily inflated tyres of the "Lunar Rover" another.

There was no simulation of a vacuum because they were in a vacuum. The question you still need to answer is how this was achieved on earth.

The remark about the suits and wire-mesh tires is a red herring (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=post;quote=1861755;topic=68630.120;last_msg=1861755).

Quote
Quote
You didn't answer the question. How much pressure?

How much pressure where and what?

If that behavior can't be replicated except in a vacuum, how much pressure would there be on an evacuated structure of the requisite size.

Quote
Quote
No limits at all? Evidence, please.

Not for the purpose they had and certainly not with that budget. Of course there were technological limits, but those were tiny compared to the technological limits of an actual moon landing.

So you're backing away from this hyperbole?

There were no limits to film studios, having a history of 50+ yeas in 1969.

Of course there were technological limits, but <irrelevant comparison>.

It's a start.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sokarul on January 21, 2017, 11:58:41 AM
Without checkpoints no u believe the lunar rovers tires were made out of piano wire. They were not inflated.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 09, 2017, 10:56:24 PM
Real questions. First hand investigation. Excellent

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 09, 2017, 11:30:27 PM
Real questions. First hand investigation. Excellent



Shillstoppers produces some of the most ignorant ill-informed shite out there. I'm not sure whether this is one of his own or whether he's just puked it up out of somewhere else.

It spends 5 minutes arguing from incredulity and telling us that this video won't try and force us in to thinking in a specific way, despite not very subtly using the age old Emperor's new clothes tactic to do exactly that.

He claims that the LM was never tested and crashed on Earth. Well, if it was never tested on Earth how did it crash? That aside, what crashed was actually a couple of the LLTV trainers (many flights were successful, Armstrong's high profile crash makes the headlines). All the components were tested on Earth, including in a vacuum chamber with people in it, unmanned on Apollo 5 in Earth orbit and manned in Earth orbit. And no, the paperwork has not been lost by Grumman (not 'Grummand' as he pronounces it).

He then goes on to completely misunderstand how the LM works, asking how such a shape was supposed to be aerodynamic and how the RCS thrusters would keep it stable. It was never designed to work in an atmosphere you dumb fuck.

You can stop watching it right there, it's ill-informed ignorant crap produced by someone who fundamentally doesn't have a clue what he's talking bout.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 09, 2017, 11:37:44 PM
What do you think about the UFO's we saw on the way Monkey?

There are a few things we saw during the moon missions that haven't been explained yet.

Australian Aliens.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 09, 2017, 11:41:42 PM
Real questions. First hand investigation. Excellent



Shillstoppers produces some of the most ignorant ill-informed shite out there. I'm not sure whether this is one of his own or whether he's just puked it up out of somewhere else.

It spends 5 minutes arguing from incredulity and telling us that this video won't try and force us in to thinking in a specific way, despite not very subtly using the age old Emperor's new clothes tactic to do exactly that.

He claims that the LM was never tested and crashed on Earth. Well, if it was never tested on Earth how did it crash? That aside, what crashed was actually a couple of the LLTV trainers (many flights were successful, Armstrong's high profile crash makes the headlines). All the components were tested on Earth, including in a vacuum chamber with people in it, unmanned on Apollo 5 in Earth orbit and manned in Earth orbit. And no, the paperwork has not been lost by Grumman (not 'Grummand' as he pronounces it).

He then goes on to completely misunderstand how the LM works, asking how such a shape was supposed to be aerodynamic and how the RCS thrusters would keep it stable. It was never designed to work in an atmosphere you dumb fuck.

You can stop watching it right there, it's ill-informed ignorant crap produced by someone who fundamentally doesn't have a clue what he's talking bout.
You appear utterly desperate. Calm down for crying out loud.
The whole thing was hoaxed. You know it and so does every other rational person who's seen enough of the footage.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 10, 2017, 01:41:46 AM
What do you think about the UFO's we saw on the way Monkey?

There are a few things we saw during the moon missions that haven't been explained yet.

Australian Aliens.



UNfortunately for whoever made that footage it is not from actually Apollo 7 (which stayed in Earth orbit) but from Apollo 8. It was taken after separation from the S-IVB, hence all the debris floating around. The view of Earth can be verified in images taken by weather satellites on the same day.

Check from 30:25 here:

https://archive.org/details/Apollo07And0816mmOnboardFilm
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 10, 2017, 01:45:19 AM
You appear utterly desperate. Calm down for crying out loud.

Desperate? Or astounded at how people who supposedly regard themselves as crtitical thinkers can't string enough neurons together to work out that this video is shite?

Quote
The whole thing was hoaxed.

Nope.

Quote
You know it

I know no such thing. As far as I am concerned Apollo happened as described in the history books and every piece of evidence out there supports it in a totally consistent and coherent way. The so-called 'evidence' claiming a hoax can't even get it into their thick skulls taht a vehicle designed to operate in a vacuum does not need to be aerodynamic.

Quote
so does every other rational person who's seen enough of the footage.

Anyone who has looked at all the evidence and still thinks it was hoaxed is not rational. QED.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 10, 2017, 02:30:41 AM
You appear utterly desperate. Calm down for crying out loud.

Desperate? Or astounded at how people who supposedly regard themselves as crtitical thinkers can't string enough neurons together to work out that this video is shite?

Quote
The whole thing was hoaxed.

Nope.

Quote
You know it

I know no such thing. As far as I am concerned Apollo happened as described in the history books and every piece of evidence out there supports it in a totally consistent and coherent way. The so-called 'evidence' claiming a hoax can't even get it into their thick skulls taht a vehicle designed to operate in a vacuum does not need to be aerodynamic.

Quote
so does every other rational person who's seen enough of the footage.

Anyone who has looked at all the evidence and still thinks it was hoaxed is not rational. QED.
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 10, 2017, 03:06:42 AM
Quote
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Nudge your needle on a bit, this bit of the LP is getting a little worn out and is repeating itself too much. What I have is a bookcase full of original contemporary books and reports and a shelf full of documentaries, as well as original photographs and recordings. No models. If you want to point out to anything in that shit hoax video as being 100% true go ahead.

Quote
Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?

Ah yes, this is the part of your broken record where you find it impossible to distinguish real life footage from poor quality special effects and think everyone else has the same problem. Put some effort into your debunking, your current parroting is getting tedious. Don't tar everyone with the same brush of stupid you got covered in, not everyone is as gullible as you.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 10, 2017, 04:06:56 AM
Quote
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Nudge your needle on a bit, this bit of the LP is getting a little worn out and is repeating itself too much. What I have is a bookcase full of original contemporary books and reports and a shelf full of documentaries, as well as original photographs and recordings. No models. If you want to point out to anything in that shit hoax video as being 100% true go ahead.

Quote
Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?

Ah yes, this is the part of your broken record where you find it impossible to distinguish real life footage from poor quality special effects and think everyone else has the same problem. Put some effort into your debunking, your current parroting is getting tedious. Don't tar everyone with the same brush of stupid you got covered in, not everyone is as gullible as you.
Ok, I just wanted to clarify that it was you that was the sci-fi fanatic. I fully understand why you'd want to believe in all the sci-fi of the old days of NASA and even today.
It doesn't make you a bad person or stupid or anything; seriously.

I like to watch a bit of sci-fi myself but I tend to just enjoy it for the fiction that it is.
Anyway, no bad feelings.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 10, 2017, 04:13:10 AM
What do you think about the UFO's we saw on the way Monkey?

There are a few things we saw during the moon missions that haven't been explained yet.

Australian Aliens.



UNfortunately for whoever made that footage it is not from actually Apollo 7 (which stayed in Earth orbit) but from Apollo 8. It was taken after separation from the S-IVB, hence all the debris floating around. The view of Earth can be verified in images taken by weather satellites on the same day.

Check from 30:25 here:

https://archive.org/details/Apollo07And0816mmOnboardFilm

I'm not saying it isn't real, I think it is real footage, it's just that floating debris is a bit of a stretch to explain that. Granted it's possible I guess.

It's just interesting.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 10, 2017, 04:23:03 AM
What do you think about the UFO's we saw on the way Monkey?

There are a few things we saw during the moon missions that haven't been explained yet.

Australian Aliens.



UNfortunately for whoever made that footage it is not from actually Apollo 7 (which stayed in Earth orbit) but from Apollo 8. It was taken after separation from the S-IVB, hence all the debris floating around. The view of Earth can be verified in images taken by weather satellites on the same day.

Check from 30:25 here:

https://archive.org/details/Apollo07And0816mmOnboardFilm

I'm not saying it isn't real, I think it is real footage, it's just that floating debris is a bit of a stretch to explain that. Granted it's possible I guess.

It's just interesting.

It is genuine footage, but it's from Apollo 8 (not Apollo 7) and if you watch it from the time I mentioned in the video I linked to you'll see it in its proper context, which is one where the SIV-B panels have been explosively detached from the base of the part housing the CSM engine bell, which is what all the debris is, and with the almost the entire Earth covered by the shot. There is similar footage from most of the Apollo missions, with the ones after Apollo 9 using this manoeuvre to dock with the LM. For some of the missions this process was broadcast on live TV.

e2a: Not entirely sure where the 'Australian Aliens' bit fits in here? This footage is shot from above the Atlantic.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 10, 2017, 04:24:17 AM
Quote
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Nudge your needle on a bit, this bit of the LP is getting a little worn out and is repeating itself too much. What I have is a bookcase full of original contemporary books and reports and a shelf full of documentaries, as well as original photographs and recordings. No models. If you want to point out to anything in that shit hoax video as being 100% true go ahead.

Quote
Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?

Ah yes, this is the part of your broken record where you find it impossible to distinguish real life footage from poor quality special effects and think everyone else has the same problem. Put some effort into your debunking, your current parroting is getting tedious. Don't tar everyone with the same brush of stupid you got covered in, not everyone is as gullible as you.
Ok, I just wanted to clarify that it was you that was the sci-fi fanatic. I fully understand why you'd want to believe in all the sci-fi of the old days of NASA and even today.
It doesn't make you a bad person or stupid or anything; seriously.

I like to watch a bit of sci-fi myself but I tend to just enjoy it for the fiction that it is.
Anyway, no bad feelings.

~sigh~ and here we get the return of the passive aggressive good cop bad cop routine. You are so predictable.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 10, 2017, 04:31:24 AM
Quote
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Nudge your needle on a bit, this bit of the LP is getting a little worn out and is repeating itself too much. What I have is a bookcase full of original contemporary books and reports and a shelf full of documentaries, as well as original photographs and recordings. No models. If you want to point out to anything in that shit hoax video as being 100% true go ahead.

Quote
Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?

Ah yes, this is the part of your broken record where you find it impossible to distinguish real life footage from poor quality special effects and think everyone else has the same problem. Put some effort into your debunking, your current parroting is getting tedious. Don't tar everyone with the same brush of stupid you got covered in, not everyone is as gullible as you.
Ok, I just wanted to clarify that it was you that was the sci-fi fanatic. I fully understand why you'd want to believe in all the sci-fi of the old days of NASA and even today.
It doesn't make you a bad person or stupid or anything; seriously.

I like to watch a bit of sci-fi myself but I tend to just enjoy it for the fiction that it is.
Anyway, no bad feelings.

~sigh~ and here we get the return of the passive aggressive good cop bad cop routine. You are so predictable.
I'm just saying that there's no hard feelings regardless of you believing in sci-fi as reality and me not being as dense as that.
Don't get mad or wound up over it.

One day when you're all growed up...I say growed because it's easier for you to grasp, I think. Anyway, when you're all growed up, I bet you will realise that your moon stuff was actually a badly made sci-fi.

Maybe now you're just in a type of kid like denial. One thing for sure. I'm not going to be the one to tell you that Santa isn't real, that's for sure.


OOPS  :o
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 10, 2017, 04:54:40 AM
Not entirely sure where the 'Australian Aliens' bit fits in here? This footage is shot from above the Atlantic.

Boomerang (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang)

(https://s3.postimg.org/et5cdc4s3/SU2l3wcr_KSRi0.gif)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 10, 2017, 06:07:26 AM
Quote
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Nudge your needle on a bit, this bit of the LP is getting a little worn out and is repeating itself too much. What I have is a bookcase full of original contemporary books and reports and a shelf full of documentaries, as well as original photographs and recordings. No models. If you want to point out to anything in that shit hoax video as being 100% true go ahead.

Quote
Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?

Ah yes, this is the part of your broken record where you find it impossible to distinguish real life footage from poor quality special effects and think everyone else has the same problem. Put some effort into your debunking, your current parroting is getting tedious. Don't tar everyone with the same brush of stupid you got covered in, not everyone is as gullible as you.
Ok, I just wanted to clarify that it was you that was the sci-fi fanatic. I fully understand why you'd want to believe in all the sci-fi of the old days of NASA and even today.
It doesn't make you a bad person or stupid or anything; seriously.

I like to watch a bit of sci-fi myself but I tend to just enjoy it for the fiction that it is.
Anyway, no bad feelings.

~sigh~ and here we get the return of the passive aggressive good cop bad cop routine. You are so predictable.
I'm just saying that there's no hard feelings regardless of you believing in sci-fi as reality and me not being as dense as that.
Don't get mad or wound up over it.

One day when you're all growed up...I say growed because it's easier for you to grasp, I think. Anyway, when you're all growed up, I bet you will realise that your moon stuff was actually a badly made sci-fi.

Maybe now you're just in a type of kid like denial. One thing for sure. I'm not going to be the one to tell you that Santa isn't real, that's for sure.


OOPS  :o

My grandkids have a better grasp of science than you - including the one who can't figure out when she needs to use the potty, so I'll not take lectures in maturity from you. I look forward to the day when you realise what a dumb shmuck you've been.

In the interim you can either contribute to the discussion about what constitutes evidence in support of, or against, the Apollo landings, or you can carry on with your passive aggressive shite and not actually come up with anything you're prepared to stand behind with proof that you figured out for yourself.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 10, 2017, 06:07:53 AM
Ok, I just wanted to clarify that it was you that was the sci-fi fanatic. I fully understand why you'd want to believe in all the sci-fi of the old days of NASA and even today.
What makes you think that scifi fans can't tell the difference between science fact and science fiction?  ???
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 10, 2017, 06:08:32 AM
Not entirely sure where the 'Australian Aliens' bit fits in here? This footage is shot from above the Atlantic.

Boomerang (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang)

(https://s3.postimg.org/et5cdc4s3/SU2l3wcr_KSRi0.gif)

Aaah! ;)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 10, 2017, 06:13:42 AM
My grandkids have a better grasp of science than you - including the one who can't figure out when she needs to use the potty, so I'll not take lectures in maturity from you. I look forward to the day when you realise what a dumb shmuck you've been.

In the interim you can either contribute to the discussion about what constitutes evidence in support of, or against, the Apollo landings, or you can carry on with your passive aggressive shite and not actually come up with anything you're prepared to stand behind with proof that you figured out for yourself.
Chill out and stop the whining.
Learn to be more civil and you get it all back.
Until then try not to be too offended.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 10, 2017, 06:14:53 AM
Ok, I just wanted to clarify that it was you that was the sci-fi fanatic. I fully understand why you'd want to believe in all the sci-fi of the old days of NASA and even today.
What makes you think that scifi fans can't tell the difference between science fact and science fiction?  ???
Some on here have shown it to be clearly evident.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 10, 2017, 06:17:49 AM
Ok, I just wanted to clarify that it was you that was the sci-fi fanatic. I fully understand why you'd want to believe in all the sci-fi of the old days of NASA and even today.
What makes you think that scifi fans can't tell the difference between science fact and science fiction?  ???
Some on here have shown it to be clearly evident.
Yes, you appear to be one of them.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on April 10, 2017, 08:04:54 AM
Real questions. First hand investigation. Excellent



Shillstoppers produces some of the most ignorant ill-informed shite out there. I'm not sure whether this is one of his own or whether he's just puked it up out of somewhere else.

It spends 5 minutes arguing from incredulity and telling us that this video won't try and force us in to thinking in a specific way, despite not very subtly using the age old Emperor's new clothes tactic to do exactly that.

He claims that the LM was never tested and crashed on Earth. Well, if it was never tested on Earth how did it crash? That aside, what crashed was actually a couple of the LLTV trainers (many flights were successful, Armstrong's high profile crash makes the headlines). All the components were tested on Earth, including in a vacuum chamber with people in it, unmanned on Apollo 5 in Earth orbit and manned in Earth orbit. And no, the paperwork has not been lost by Grumman (not 'Grummand' as he pronounces it).

He then goes on to completely misunderstand how the LM works, asking how such a shape was supposed to be aerodynamic and how the RCS thrusters would keep it stable. It was never designed to work in an atmosphere you dumb fuck.

You can stop watching it right there, it's ill-informed ignorant crap produced by someone who fundamentally doesn't have a clue what he's talking bout.
You appear utterly desperate. Calm down for crying out loud.
The whole thing was hoaxed. You know it and so does every other rational person who's seen enough of the footage.
The problem OBM is having with the linked video, is that it is full of misinformation. Its fine if you want to argue about something, but then you need to get your facts straight.

The maker of the video clearly does not know what he is talking about. He is wrong about some fundamental things.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 11, 2017, 12:39:40 AM
The problem OBM is having with the linked video, is that it is full of misinformation. Its fine if you want to argue about something, but then you need to get your facts straight.

The maker of the video clearly does not know what he is talking about. He is wrong about some fundamental things.

Quote
Desperate? Or astounded at how people who supposedly regard themselves as crtitical thinkers can't string enough neurons together to work out that this video is shite?

Care to highlight one of the "full of misinformation" or one of the "wrong about some fundamental things"? Or do you expect people to blindly follow what you type the way you blindly follow what American told everyone in 1969? There are huge similarities in atheists and moon believers I'm noticing.

The most ironic part is that the video was a compilation of questions posed on the moon landing claims that did not adhere to science and physics. They weren't answered and instead we have exceptional genius mastermind phd scientists here who class these genuine questions as "shite"
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 11, 2017, 12:48:20 AM
The problem OBM is having with the linked video, is that it is full of misinformation. Its fine if you want to argue about something, but then you need to get your facts straight.

The maker of the video clearly does not know what he is talking about. He is wrong about some fundamental things.

Quote
Desperate? Or astounded at how people who supposedly regard themselves as crtitical thinkers can't string enough neurons together to work out that this video is shite?

Care to highlight one of the "full of misinformation" or one of the "wrong about some fundamental things"? Or do you expect people to blindly follow what you type the way you blindly follow what American told everyone in 1969? There are huge similarities in atheists and moon believers I'm noticing.

The most ironic part is that the video was a compilation of questions posed on the moon landing claims that did not adhere to science and physics. They weren't answered and instead we have exceptional genius mastermind phd scientists here who class these genuine questions as "shite"

I already did that by pointing out that within the first few minutes the presenter lies about the LM not being tested and does not seem to realise that the LM does not need to be aerodynamic.

You can add to that the claim he repeatedly makes that it cost $30bn to land on the moon when the whole program cost $24bn, and his claim that half the people on Earth don't believe they happened, which is a flat out lie.

That's just the first five minutes - I'm not going to waste any more of my time on shite like that (and it is shite). If you want to point out something specific in that video (because obviously you've watched all of it) that you believe is concrete proof then go ahead, otherwise I'll just assume you don't know enough about it to construct a coherent argument and are just posting someone else's version of events without checking whether any of it has any veracity at all.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 11, 2017, 01:03:40 AM
The problem OBM is having with the linked video, is that it is full of misinformation. Its fine if you want to argue about something, but then you need to get your facts straight.

The maker of the video clearly does not know what he is talking about. He is wrong about some fundamental things.

Quote
Desperate? Or astounded at how people who supposedly regard themselves as crtitical thinkers can't string enough neurons together to work out that this video is shite?

Care to highlight one of the "full of misinformation" or one of the "wrong about some fundamental things"? Or do you expect people to blindly follow what you type the way you blindly follow what American told everyone in 1969? There are huge similarities in atheists and moon believers I'm noticing.

The most ironic part is that the video was a compilation of questions posed on the moon landing claims that did not adhere to science and physics. They weren't answered and instead we have exceptional genius mastermind phd scientists here who class these genuine questions as "shite"

I already did that by pointing out that within the first few minutes the presenter lies about the LM not being tested and does not seem to realise that the LM does not need to be aerodynamic.

You can add to that the claim he repeatedly makes that it cost $30bn to land on the moon when the whole program cost $24bn, and his claim that half the people on Earth don't believe they happened, which is a flat out lie.

That's just the first five minutes - I'm not going to waste any more of my time on shite like that (and it is shite). If you want to point out something specific in that video (because obviously you've watched all of it) that you believe is concrete proof then go ahead, otherwise I'll just assume you don't know enough about it to construct a coherent argument and are just posting someone else's version of events without checking whether any of it has any veracity at all.
This is onebigmonkey who has LEM models on his bedroom shelves. Books on moonwalks and mars rover excursions in his book case.
Mannequins with home made space suits on them with his favourite moon mens names on them.
The same monkey that goes to space conventions and can spend 500 dollars on a grain of sand that's said to have fallen off Armstrongs boot in the return command module.

The same monkey whose bedroom walls are a sea of space adventure posters, with his mirrored ceiling being his ultimate night time viewing looking back at himself laying on his bed that is done out to resemble the capsule at lift off on the big rocket of the 60's he was shown and made a crude mock up of, complete with shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh sound.

Monkey the expert on all things FICTION.
Flash Gordon....go to monkey for your info.
Star wars. Monkey again.
You name it and monkey will tell you all about it as well as bringing it all to life for you.

Monkey see, monkey does.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 11, 2017, 01:21:31 AM
The problem OBM is having with the linked video, is that it is full of misinformation. Its fine if you want to argue about something, but then you need to get your facts straight.

The maker of the video clearly does not know what he is talking about. He is wrong about some fundamental things.

Quote
Desperate? Or astounded at how people who supposedly regard themselves as crtitical thinkers can't string enough neurons together to work out that this video is shite?

Care to highlight one of the "full of misinformation" or one of the "wrong about some fundamental things"? Or do you expect people to blindly follow what you type the way you blindly follow what American told everyone in 1969? There are huge similarities in atheists and moon believers I'm noticing.

The most ironic part is that the video was a compilation of questions posed on the moon landing claims that did not adhere to science and physics. They weren't answered and instead we have exceptional genius mastermind phd scientists here who class these genuine questions as "shite"

I already did that by pointing out that within the first few minutes the presenter lies about the LM not being tested and does not seem to realise that the LM does not need to be aerodynamic.

You can add to that the claim he repeatedly makes that it cost $30bn to land on the moon when the whole program cost $24bn, and his claim that half the people on Earth don't believe they happened, which is a flat out lie.

That's just the first five minutes - I'm not going to waste any more of my time on shite like that (and it is shite). If you want to point out something specific in that video (because obviously you've watched all of it) that you believe is concrete proof then go ahead, otherwise I'll just assume you don't know enough about it to construct a coherent argument and are just posting someone else's version of events without checking whether any of it has any veracity at all.
This is onebigmonkey who has LEM models on his bedroom shelves. Books on moonwalks and mars rover excursions in his book case.
Mannequins with home made space suits on them with his favourite moon mens names on them.
The same monkey that goes to space conventions and can spend 500 dollars on a grain of sand that's said to have fallen off Armstrongs boot in the return command module.

The same monkey whose bedroom walls are a sea of space adventure posters, with his mirrored ceiling being his ultimate night time viewing looking back at himself laying on his bed that is done out to resemble the capsule at lift off on the big rocket of the 60's he was shown and made a crude mock up of, complete with shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh sound.

Monkey the expert on all things FICTION.
Flash Gordon....go to monkey for your info.
Star wars. Monkey again.
You name it and monkey will tell you all about it as well as bringing it all to life for you.

Monkey see, monkey does.

As big a fabrication as your usual shite. The only thing you have correct there is the books on moonwalks (nothing on the mars rover). I own no grains of sand, no posters are on my wall, no models of spacecraft. I have met several Apollo astronauts though. What effort have you put in to back up your points of view other than spend your life saying that everyone else is wrong without any proof that they are?

The onyl weapon you seem to have to pull out of your arsenal (and not all of those letters may be needed) is an immature sneer of contempt, no evidence, no alternatives, nothing. You are intellectually and emotionally stunted child screaming "Everyone shut up and pay attention to me" and you get really annoyed when no-one does. Still waiting for you to point out one concrete thing in that video that you are prepared to say is 100% true and back up with evidence. Or are you going to run away from that one as well?

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 11, 2017, 02:15:13 AM
As big a fabrication as your usual shite. The only thing you have correct there is the books on moonwalks (nothing on the mars rover).
Maybe they're hidden in your secret cupboard. Oh well. not too bad.


I own no grains of sand, no posters are on my wall, no models of spacecraft.
Oh...................ok................monkey.............I...........believe........you.....  ::)



I have met several Apollo astronauts though.
No you haven't. You possibly might have met the actors who played the Apollo astronauts.
I'm giving you the benefit here.


What effort have you put in to back up your points of view other than spend your life saying that everyone else is wrong without any proof that they are?
There's plenty for any rational person to see that it was a hoax. Not just a hoax but a laughable one at that.



The onyl weapon you seem to have to pull out of your arsenal (and not all of those letters may be needed) is an immature sneer of contempt, no evidence, no alternatives, nothing.
No alternatives?
There are no alternatives to the hoax. A hoax is a hoax.


You are intellectually and emotionally stunted child screaming "Everyone shut up and pay attention to me" and you get really annoyed when no-one does.
Just someone who is logical and can see bullshit for what it is.



Still waiting for you to point out one concrete thing in that video that you are prepared to say is 100% true and back up with evidence. Or are you going to run away from that one as well?
I've shown enough times how it's all faked. Easy for the logical minds to understand but not easy for the sci-fi buffs like yourself.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 11, 2017, 02:24:14 AM
The problem OBM is having with the linked video, is that it is full of misinformation. Its fine if you want to argue about something, but then you need to get your facts straight.

The maker of the video clearly does not know what he is talking about. He is wrong about some fundamental things.

Quote
Desperate? Or astounded at how people who supposedly regard themselves as crtitical thinkers can't string enough neurons together to work out that this video is shite?

Care to highlight one of the "full of misinformation" or one of the "wrong about some fundamental things"? Or do you expect people to blindly follow what you type the way you blindly follow what American told everyone in 1969? There are huge similarities in atheists and moon believers I'm noticing.

The most ironic part is that the video was a compilation of questions posed on the moon landing claims that did not adhere to science and physics. They weren't answered and instead we have exceptional genius mastermind phd scientists here who class these genuine questions as "shite"

I already did that by pointing out that within the first few minutes the presenter lies about the LM not being tested and does not seem to realise that the LM does not need to be aerodynamic.

You can add to that the claim he repeatedly makes that it cost $30bn to land on the moon when the whole program cost $24bn, and his claim that half the people on Earth don't believe they happened, which is a flat out lie.

That's just the first five minutes - I'm not going to waste any more of my time on shite like that (and it is shite). If you want to point out something specific in that video (because obviously you've watched all of it) that you believe is concrete proof then go ahead, otherwise I'll just assume you don't know enough about it to construct a coherent argument and are just posting someone else's version of events without checking whether any of it has any veracity at all.

So to confirm.. the misinformation and "shite" which to you renders the "questions" invalid is that you think he said LM was not tested when he clearly said it was tested and it failed and never tested to success again on Earth?

And that the huge colossal cost of 30 billion was wrong and that it was only a measly 24 Billion? FYI it is actually estimated at 30 billion by the time the Apollo program ended.

So according to your so called misinformation, all the scientific questions about the lies of moon landing in the video are invalid?

You're not doing yourself any favours are you?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 11, 2017, 02:55:26 AM
Observer can you cite what you think is a scientific argument for a faked moon landing?

I don't know enough to call it either way but I firmly believe that if the physics and engineering didn't add up we would have physicists and engineers coming out to say the official story doesn't add up.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 11, 2017, 03:14:59 AM
As big a fabrication as your usual shite. The only thing you have correct there is the books on moonwalks (nothing on the mars rover).
Maybe they're hidden in your secret cupboard. Oh well. not too bad.

I own no grains of sand, no posters are on my wall, no models of spacecraft.
Oh...................ok................monkey.............I...........believe........you.....  ::)



I have met several Apollo astronauts though.
No you haven't. You possibly might have met the actors who played the Apollo astronauts.
I'm giving you the benefit here.


What effort have you put in to back up your points of view other than spend your life saying that everyone else is wrong without any proof that they are?
There's plenty for any rational person to see that it was a hoax. Not just a hoax but a laughable one at that.



The onyl weapon you seem to have to pull out of your arsenal (and not all of those letters may be needed) is an immature sneer of contempt, no evidence, no alternatives, nothing.
No alternatives?
There are no alternatives to the hoax. A hoax is a hoax.


You are intellectually and emotionally stunted child screaming "Everyone shut up and pay attention to me" and you get really annoyed when no-one does.
Just someone who is logical and can see bullshit for what it is.



Still waiting for you to point out one concrete thing in that video that you are prepared to say is 100% true and back up with evidence. Or are you going to run away from that one as well?
I've shown enough times how it's all faked. Easy for the logical minds to understand but not easy for the sci-fi buffs like yourself.

A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 11, 2017, 03:20:40 AM
So to confirm.. the misinformation and "shite" which to you renders the "questions" invalid is that you think he said LM was not tested when he clearly said it was tested and it failed and never tested to success again on Earth?

Here are some of the things he said:

"It never flew on Earth"

"So when it crashed on Earth and never flew once"

"It should have looked like a rocket"

"This simulator flew once and blew up"

He can't seem to make his mind up whether it flew or not. The fact is that the thing that crashed was the LLTV. His claim that it flew once is a lie, it flew many times. Here's how the LM was tested on Earth

http://heroicrelics.org/space-ctr/lta-8/index.html

It also flew in Earth orbit twice, then lunar oribt before the landing mission.

Quote
And that the huge colossal cost of 30 billion was wrong and that it was only a measly 24 Billion? FYI it is actually estimated at 30 billion by the time the Apollo program ended.

That kind of shit rounding up would fail an exam.

Quote
So according to your so called misinformation, all the scientific questions about the lies of moon landing in the video are invalid?

There haven't been any scientific questions, just a lot of JAQ-ing off, lies, deliberate misrepresentations and lack of research. Asking questions means being prepared to listen to answers. If you aren't prepared to do that, don't bother asking.

Quote
You're not doing yourself any favours are you?

Still waiting for you to point to one spefic thing you can guarantee proves your point.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 11, 2017, 03:21:10 AM
Observer can you cite what you think is a scientific argument for a faked moon landing?

I don't know enough to call it either way but I firmly believe that if the physics and engineering didn't add up we would have physicists and engineers coming out to say the official story doesn't add up.

It's not exactly about the argument of faked moon landing being scientific, it's about the claim of man's moon landing that doesn't validate with questions based on scientific principals. Physics is only one of them. Besides the science questions, there's also other questions such as documents being destroyed, unavailable and no grounds for refusing to allow measuring of evidence. But all I'm getting back from the science fiction moon landing believers is that the video is "shite" with misinformation and to be honest I'm not expecting any better from them.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 11, 2017, 03:22:52 AM
Quote
And that the huge colossal cost of 30 billion was wrong and that it was only a measly 24 Billion? FYI it is actually estimated at 30 billion by the time the Apollo program ended.

That kind of shit rounding up would fail an exam.

That kind of reading observation would fail an exam
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 11, 2017, 03:35:37 AM
Observer can you cite what you think is a scientific argument for a faked moon landing?

I don't know enough to call it either way but I firmly believe that if the physics and engineering didn't add up we would have physicists and engineers coming out to say the official story doesn't add up.

It's not exactly about the argument of faked moon landing being scientific, it's about the claim of man's moon landing that doesn't validate with questions based on scientific principals. Physics is only one of them. Besides the science questions, there's also other questions such as documents being destroyed, unavailable and no grounds for refusing to allow measuring of evidence. But all I'm getting back from the science fiction moon landing believers is that the video is "shite" with misinformation and to be honest I'm not expecting any better from them.

Sure I get that. There's a bit of suspicion with the things you mentioned no doubt.

From what I have read of the Apollo missions the physics and engineering stands up, NASA was pretty open about the tech they used once the cold war ended to their credit.

If we accept the physics models we have as mostly correct, it isn't that difficult to get something to the moon, we had satellites taking pictures of the lunar surface long before the manned missions, the challenge is getting the required mass into orbital velocity then escape velocity and slowing down without an atmosphere. Plus leaving enough fuel to escape the moons orbit and land back on earth.

This is our biggest problem with Mars, it's just a nearly insurmountable engineering challenge with our current rockets to get the payload they need for a one way trip off the ground.

(Heiwa) tries to argue this point based in engineering but people like Kami and OBM have repeatedly shown him the math works.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 11, 2017, 05:47:35 AM

It's not exactly about the argument of faked moon landing being scientific, it's about the claim of man's moon landing that doesn't validate with questions based on scientific principals. Physics is only one of them.

I have yet to see a question based on scientific principles. The physics, chemistry, biology, geomorphology, whatever branch of scientific enquiry you want to look at it all stands up. Show me something where it doesn't. Ask a scientific question based on scientific principles.

Quote

Besides the science questions, there's also other questions such as documents being destroyed, unavailable and no grounds for refusing to allow measuring of evidence.

Who says they were destroyed and unavailable? A guy on youtube says so with no proof? I can find you guys on the internet who will tell you that the blueprints and design process involved in manufacturing everything to do with the Apollo missions are all still around. Unavailability on the internet does not mean it doesn't exist. A guy in youtube saying someone from a company he can't pronounce properly said something amounts to pretty much nothing but you prefer that over all the material this is actually available?

Quote
But all I'm getting back from the science fiction moon landing believers is that the video is "shite" with misinformation and to be honest I'm not expecting any better from them.

Why should I dress it up in fancy clothes for you? In a nutshell the arguments that we did not go to the moon are shite. Saves me writing paragraphs of words you won't read and certainly won't agree with. I'll repeat it again:

Every detail of the Apollo missions was recorded in meticulous detail, is available for everyone to inspect and examine, and presents a consistent and coherent narrative that exactly matches with the basic premise that we did in fact go to the moon when it was said we did and how we said we did it. No matter what sceppy says I am parroting nothing when I say that, I have years of actually researching this under my belt and know it's true. If you've put some effort into proving the opposite then let's see it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 11, 2017, 07:52:51 AM
I have yet to see a question based on scientific principles. The physics, chemistry, biology, geomorphology, whatever branch of scientific enquiry you want to look at it all stands up. Show me something where it doesn't. Ask a scientific question based on scientific principles.



Who says they were destroyed and unavailable? A guy on youtube says so with no proof? I can find you guys on the internet who will tell you that the blueprints and design process involved in manufacturing everything to do with the Apollo missions are all still around. Unavailability on the internet does not mean it doesn't exist. A guy in youtube saying someone from a company he can't pronounce properly said something amounts to pretty much nothing but you prefer that over all the material this is actually available?



PS: "A guy on youtube says so with no proof?"
He is the proof as he investigated first hand. He's not hiding behind a screen with the username of his ancestors. He's done the work but at this point of brainwashing even if Neil Armstrong stood in front of the world and admitted he never went to the moon you'd find a reason to dismiss that claim.

Just like the evolutionists, moon landing blind followers eat up what's given as science and when the lies masquerading as science comes into question then it's thrown out and ignored. Just like the video, completely dismissed without justification.

(http://i0.wp.com/www.thedailysheeple.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/like-sheeple-like-sheep.jpg?zoom=1.5&resize=210%2C168)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 11, 2017, 08:06:20 AM
The astronauts don't even turn their helmets when moving about, so how do they manage to see all around them properly.
You'd think they would be able to turn their heads and helmets so far each way.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on April 11, 2017, 08:39:14 AM
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?

Speaking of models...

How's the 12' model of The DomeTM (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62152.msg1634203#msg1634203) working out? Anything since the progress reports "I'll have the full lot in a few months time" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64014.msg1705253#msg1705253) and "A few more months and it will be ready for testing out" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64014.msg1705211#msg1705211) almost two years ago. Do you have any results other than "I like tinkering with it" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67362.msg1846437#msg1846437) yet? Is it not showing what you expected? Does it even exist?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 11, 2017, 08:46:55 AM
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?

Speaking of models...

How's the 12' model of The DomeTM (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62152.msg1634203#msg1634203) working out? Anything since the progress reports "I'll have the full lot in a few months time" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64014.msg1705253#msg1705253) and "A few more months and it will be ready for testing out" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64014.msg1705211#msg1705211) almost two years ago. Do you have any results other than "I like tinkering with it" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67362.msg1846437#msg1846437) yet? Is it not showing what you expected? Does it even exist?
All done and all tested.
6 months into the natural growth and all working like a dream.
46 tiny video cameras covering absolutely all areas.
Small mountains and water falls, plus an atmosphere.

It's fantastic.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Ising on April 11, 2017, 08:52:53 AM
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?

Speaking of models...

How's the 12' model of The DomeTM (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62152.msg1634203#msg1634203) working out? Anything since the progress reports "I'll have the full lot in a few months time" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64014.msg1705253#msg1705253) and "A few more months and it will be ready for testing out" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64014.msg1705211#msg1705211) almost two years ago. Do you have any results other than "I like tinkering with it" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67362.msg1846437#msg1846437) yet? Is it not showing what you expected? Does it even exist?
All done and all tested.
6 months into the natural growth and all working like a dream.
46 tiny video cameras covering absolutely all areas.
Small mountains and water falls, plus an atmosphere.

It's fantastic.
It just dawned on me that our world might just be a model created by another Sceptimatic in another Universe !
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Kuijiblob on April 11, 2017, 09:24:16 AM
Not entirely sure where the 'Australian Aliens' bit fits in here? This footage is shot from above the Atlantic.

Boomerang (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boomerang)

(https://s3.postimg.org/et5cdc4s3/SU2l3wcr_KSRi0.gif)

Aaah! ;)
Australia doesn't exist. Plain and simple. Have you ever talked to anyone from this mythical continent?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on April 11, 2017, 09:30:22 AM
Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

Do you also collect star wars models that stay boxed or do you play with them?

Speaking of models...

How's the 12' model of The DomeTM (http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=62152.msg1634203#msg1634203) working out? Anything since the progress reports "I'll have the full lot in a few months time" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64014.msg1705253#msg1705253) and "A few more months and it will be ready for testing out" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64014.msg1705211#msg1705211) almost two years ago. Do you have any results other than "I like tinkering with it" (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=67362.msg1846437#msg1846437) yet? Is it not showing what you expected? Does it even exist?
All done and all tested.
6 months into the natural growth and all working like a dream.
46 tiny video cameras covering absolutely all areas.
Small mountains and water falls, plus an atmosphere.

It's fantastic.

Cool. All those cameras for all that time but no pictures? Have you figured out why a central sun reflecting off the dome won't work the way you expect yet, or do you have anything that shows that it does work?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 11, 2017, 09:38:29 AM
The astronauts don't even turn their helmets when moving about, so how do they manage to see all around them properly.
You'd think they would be able to turn their heads and helmets so far each way.

They could move their heads freely inside the helmets, and if that didn't go far enough they moved themselves. The helmets were locked in place.  What's difficult?

Here's the helmet without the protective cover and visor attachments

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ARMIVGlovesuitup.jpg)

and which direction is Buzz looking here?

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11det5875BuzzFace.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 11, 2017, 09:44:28 AM
PS: "A guy on youtube says so with no proof?"
He is the proof as he investigated first hand. He's not hiding behind a screen with the username of his ancestors. He's done the work but at this point of brainwashing even if Neil Armstrong stood in front of the world and admitted he never went to the moon you'd find a reason to dismiss that claim.

He does fuck all. All he's done is argue from incredulity. He points out a lot of things he does't understand and makes no attempt to understand them. I may have adopted a username on the internet (because I can), but my real name isn't difficult to find - it's on my website. Not one astronaut has ever come forward and denied their own achievements. Not one. Ever. If the dragged you to the moon and made you step outside you'd still claim you were hypnotised. See how that argument works? Show me proof they didn't go, pick one thing. All I hear so far is bluster and the avoidance of doing any research.

Quote
Just like the evolutionists, moon landing blind followers eat up what's given as science and when the lies masquerading as science comes into question then it's thrown out and ignored. Just like the video, completely dismissed without justification.

Prove me wrong with science. Still waiting.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 11, 2017, 11:39:45 AM
The astronauts don't even turn their helmets when moving about, so how do they manage to see all around them properly.
You'd think they would be able to turn their heads and helmets so far each way.

They could move their heads freely inside the helmets, and if that didn't go far enough they moved themselves. The helmets were locked in place.  What's difficult?

Here's the helmet without the protective cover and visor attachments

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/ARMIVGlovesuitup.jpg)

and which direction is Buzz looking here?

(https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11det5875BuzzFace.jpg)
I don't see any reason why the helmets don't turn with their heads.
It seems stupid just to have a fixed helmet.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 11, 2017, 11:50:47 AM
I don't see any reason why the helmets don't turn with their heads.
It seems stupid just to have a fixed helmet.
Fixed helmets are easier to make and keep an air tight seal than movable helmets.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 11, 2017, 11:51:31 AM
He does fuck all. All he's done is argue from incredulity. He points out a lot of things he does't understand and makes no attempt to understand them.
Says you. I'd rather take my information from someone who say in front of a camera and did independent investigation with facts rather than a shill on a Flat Earth forum lol.

Prove me wrong with science. Still waiting.

4th time:

(http://thehealthbank.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/blind-and-double-blind-300x209.png)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 11, 2017, 11:58:22 AM
He does fuck all. All he's done is argue from incredulity. He points out a lot of things he does't understand and makes no attempt to understand them.
Says you. I'd rather take my information from someone who say in front of a camera and did independent investigation with facts rather than a shill on a Flat Earth forum lol.
And I'd rather take my information from people who are competent in the things that they're investigating.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 11, 2017, 12:09:50 PM
He does fuck all. All he's done is argue from incredulity. He points out a lot of things he does't understand and makes no attempt to understand them.
Says you. I'd rather take my information from someone who say in front of a camera and did independent investigation with facts rather than a shill on a Flat Earth forum lol.
And I'd rather take my information from people who are competent in the things that they're investigating.
Moon landing believers:
"I'd rather take my information from people who are competent in telling us what to believe in the things that they're investigating."

Moon landing skeptics:
"I'd rather take my information from people who are competent in the things that they're investigating" hence

If anyone moon landing believer is competent enough, how about starting a new thread to actually answer this amazing video?

Dismissal and calling it "shite" is pointless and no one is falling for that pathetic attempt.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on April 11, 2017, 12:54:29 PM
He does fuck all. All he's done is argue from incredulity. He points out a lot of things he does't understand and makes no attempt to understand them.
Says you. I'd rather take my information from someone who say in front of a camera and did independent investigation with facts rather than a shill on a Flat Earth forum lol.
And I'd rather take my information from people who are competent in the things that they're investigating.
Moon landing believers:
"I'd rather take my information from people who are competent in telling us what to believe in the things that they're investigating."

Moon landing skeptics:
"I'd rather take my information from people who are competent in the things that they're investigating" hence

If anyone moon landing believer is competent enough, how about starting a new thread to actually answer this amazing video?

Dismissal and calling it "shite" is pointless and no one is falling for that pathetic attempt.
OBM has done tonnes of independent research, have you see his website? weather patterns, stars and panoramic features are just some examples that he completely investigated himself.

As you wish.

let us talk about one of his claims and arguments:

Here are some of the things he said:

"It never flew on Earth"

"So when it crashed on Earth and never flew once"

"It should have looked like a rocket"

"This simulator flew once and blew up"

He can't seem to make his mind up whether it flew or not. The fact is that the thing that crashed was the LLTV. His claim that it flew once is a lie, it flew many times.

He claims that the LM was never tested and crashed on Earth. Well, if it was never tested on Earth how did it crash? That aside, what crashed was actually a couple of the LLTV trainers (many flights were successful, Armstrong's high profile crash makes the headlines). All the components were tested on Earth, including in a vacuum chamber with people in it, unmanned on Apollo 5 in Earth orbit and manned in Earth orbit. Apollo 9 and 10 also tested the LM in Lunar Orbit.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on April 11, 2017, 01:00:19 PM
I don't see any reason why the helmets don't turn with their heads.
It seems stupid just to have a fixed helmet.
Fixed helmets are easier to make and keep an air tight seal than movable helmets.
And the large helmets would have been very hard to move. They are made out of multiple parts, how are you going to connect all those parts to the head?

There are no fur suits with movable heads for a reason... it does not work.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 11, 2017, 10:34:01 PM
I don't see any reason why the helmets don't turn with their heads.
It seems stupid just to have a fixed helmet.
Fixed helmets are easier to make and keep an air tight seal than movable helmets.
It doesn't appear to be a problem for them in 1965.
Can you explain what's happening with this swivel helmet at 1:55?

For all those that are interested in the space and moon shenanigans...watch it all.

I'm just interested in this bit at 1:55 and wonder if there's an explanation for it that doesn't crack me up.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 11, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
I don't see any reason why the helmets don't turn with their heads.
It seems stupid just to have a fixed helmet.
Fixed helmets are easier to make and keep an air tight seal than movable helmets.
It doesn't appear to be a problem for them in 1965.
Can you explain what's happening with this swivel helmet at 1:55?

For all those that are interested in the space and moon shenanigans...watch it all.

I'm just interested in this bit at 1:55 and wonder if there's an explanation for it that doesn't crack me up.



Does Google not work where you are? Gemini helmet and Apollo helmets were designed differently.

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9296/how-do-the-movable-neck-space-suit-helmet-works

Quote
The ring had rotating bearings, allowing the astronaut to turn his head from side to side
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 11, 2017, 11:39:34 PM
Does Google not work where you are? Gemini helmet and Apollo helmets were designed differently.

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9296/how-do-the-movable-neck-space-suit-helmet-works

Quote
The ring had rotating bearings, allowing the astronaut to turn his head from side to side
;D
Wake up for crying out loud. If you're not being paid for this then snap out of your sci-fi bubble and engage your brain for crying out loud.

Look at the nonsense that these people pushed onto the gullible.

(https://s12.postimg.org/409g1tdr1/images_63.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/htxsqv6c9/)

Swivel helmets in 1965 then fixed in 1969. What a joke.
And this design above in 1966. Why?
Hahahahaha. What's wrong with people?  ;D

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on April 11, 2017, 11:56:25 PM
Does Google not work where you are? Gemini helmet and Apollo helmets were designed differently.

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9296/how-do-the-movable-neck-space-suit-helmet-works

Quote
The ring had rotating bearings, allowing the astronaut to turn his head from side to side
;D
Wake up for crying out loud. If you're not being paid for this then snap out of your sci-fi bubble and engage your brain for crying out loud.

Look at the nonsense that these people pushed onto the gullible.

(https://s12.postimg.org/409g1tdr1/images_63.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/htxsqv6c9/)

Swivel helmets in 1965 then fixed in 1969. What a joke.
And this design above in 1966. Why?
Hahahahaha. What's wrong with people?  ;D

Once more rather than providing evidence to back your claims, you resort to a combination of implied conspiracy, inferring that those who disagree are being paid, coupled with a constant stream of mockery.
The moon landings were carried out, the evidence is irrefutable. It's more likely that you are being paid to try and discredit both science and historical facts....why are you doing this?
Perhaps you can enlighten us?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 12, 2017, 12:02:04 AM
Once more rather than providing evidence to back your claims, you resort to a combination of implied conspiracy, inferring that those who disagree are being paid, coupled with a constant stream of mockery.
The moon landings were carried out, the evidence is irrefutable. It's more likely that you are being paid to try and discredit both science and historical facts....why are you doing this?
Perhaps you can enlighten us?

I'm making sure that the gullible people who believed it all from the early days to present, see that it was not only faked but their gullibility is being taken full advantage of as well as their actual intelligence being totally insulted.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on April 12, 2017, 12:46:41 AM
Once more rather than providing evidence to back your claims, you resort to a combination of implied conspiracy, inferring that those who disagree are being paid, coupled with a constant stream of mockery.
The moon landings were carried out, the evidence is irrefutable. It's more likely that you are being paid to try and discredit both science and historical facts....why are you doing this?
Perhaps you can enlighten us?

I'm making sure that the gullible people who believed it all from the early days to present, see that it was not only faked but their gullibility is being taken full advantage of as well as their actual intelligence being totally insulted.

Your argument still revolves around inferring that people, apart from you that is, are gullable.
Where is your proof of their gullibility?
Where is your proof of your non-gullibility?

I could assert that you are possibly slightly deranged given your prepensity for believing in unproven conspiracies and rejection of main stream science in favour of theories which you alone believe in.....denpressure for example. I think this evidence could be seen as a clear indication of your mental instability and prepensity for delusional thoughts.......
Imagining  that everyone apart from you are gullable and are being hoodwinked and only you know the real truth is a classic sign of the deluded personality.
You may wish to consider seeking some help, as these conditions can often become worse if not treated.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 12, 2017, 01:02:43 AM
Don't be an hero granger.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on April 12, 2017, 01:08:19 AM
Don't be an hero granger.

Me no understand?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 12, 2017, 01:46:53 AM
Your argument still revolves around inferring that people, apart from you that is, are gullable.
We are all gullible, so don't take offence at it.
he issue is in the amount of it people are willing to accept in the face of clear logic.

Where is your proof of their gullibility?
Are you kidding me?
Refusal to accept you are or could be or have been, does you no favours.

Where is your proof of your non-gullibility?
I don't have any because I was extremely gullible and I still am for a lot of stuff...and likely always will be gullible till I expire.
The key to it all is to try and sort the wheat from the chaff throughout your life, not just hold in the chaff because it's the in thing or the mass opinion.
I could assert that you are possibly slightly deranged given your prepensity for believing in unproven conspiracies and rejection of main stream science in favour of theories which you alone believe in.....denpressure for example.
You can assert anything you want. You can wish anything upon me or accuse me of whatever you want. You can spend the rest of your life telling all and sundry about what a shit bag and loony I am...etc...etc.
I'll keep smiling and the strong will also keep smiling under the same circumstances.
The weak will suffer and deny the suffering because they are afraid of showing their true selves.

I think this evidence could be seen as a clear indication of your mental instability and prepensity for delusional thoughts.......
Well swivelling helmets against fixed helmets under pressurisation, apparently, tells me that someone is taking the complete and utter piss out of the gullible public.
To extrapolate it all, they add in that stupid looking 1966 space suit into the mix.

So what we have is swivel helmet space suits that can be puffed out or deflated depending on the so called space shot, or we can have moon man space suits with fish bowl like stiff helmets that do not move at all and also work like a treat in a space vacuum, apparently.

Perfectly working suits, we are led to believe and yet here we are watching the bozo's trying out ridiculous suits that look like man in the can effigy's  in between these so called masterful space suits.
And people accept it all without a second thought.
It's not just gullibility for all. It's duping for many that have not even bothered to look into any of it and just take everything in their stride.
These people have their own gullibilities in life but not scrutinising so called space stories and all of it's nonsense, does not make them gullible. It makes them willingly ignorant of something that does not take precedence in their day to day lives.
Those who do scrutinise it all have no excuse if they fall for the crap. It makes them wilfully gullible when logic and common sense does not hit home or is bypassed in favour of following mass opinion on that basic piss take.



Imagining  that everyone apart from you are gullable and are being hoodwinked and only you know the real truth is a classic sign of the deluded personality.
If that was true, I'd agree.
The fact is, I don't know the truth to a lot of things and neither do you.
The thing is, I know when I've been kicked in the balls. I remember the pain of it and try to make sure I don't suffer it. You either do not have any or they are numb in many instances if you cannot feel it when you are clearly being kicked in between your legs.


You may wish to consider seeking some help, as these conditions can often become worse if not treated.
The trouble is, my condition keeps getting better because for every piece of bullshit I see, it stops the rot of gullibility setting it, because it makes me more wary and less easily duped by the snake oil sales people.
You are basically describing yourself in the treatment scenario because  it is actually becoming worse for you with every story told about space exploration and all the extra tools invented at cost (add amount in billion here) to the ever giving tax payer.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 12, 2017, 05:37:56 AM
I don't see any reason why the helmets don't turn with their heads.
It seems stupid just to have a fixed helmet.
Fixed helmets are easier to make and keep an air tight seal than movable helmets.
It doesn't appear to be a problem for them in 1965.
Can you explain what's happening with this swivel helmet at 1:55?

For all those that are interested in the space and moon shenanigans...watch it all.

I'm just interested in this bit at 1:55 and wonder if there's an explanation for it that doesn't crack me up.


Space suits have evolved over the years.  Why would that surprise you?

Space suits for Mercury and Gemini were based on existing military pressure suits.  Apollo space suits were designed, pretty much from scratch, by a different contractor.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Kuijiblob on April 12, 2017, 11:20:34 AM
I don't see any reason why the helmets don't turn with their heads.
It seems stupid just to have a fixed helmet.
Fixed helmets are easier to make and keep an air tight seal than movable helmets.
It doesn't appear to be a problem for them in 1965.
Can you explain what's happening with this swivel helmet at 1:55?

For all those that are interested in the space and moon shenanigans...watch it all.

I'm just interested in this bit at 1:55 and wonder if there's an explanation for it that doesn't crack me up.


Space suits have evolved over the years.  Why would that surprise you?

Space suits for Mercury and Gemini were based on existing military pressure suits.  Apollo space suits were designed, pretty much from scratch, by a different contractor.

The only thing missing from your flawed logic and failure to understand what the mission was about is that the suits were PRESSURIZED. Meaning that such a quick movement even if the helmet were able to swivel is impossible
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 12, 2017, 12:32:27 PM
The only thing missing from your flawed logic and failure to understand what the mission was about is that the suits were PRESSURIZED. Meaning that such a quick movement even if the helmet were able to swivel is impossible
I disagree with the video's assertion that the rotation if the earth is smooth.  To me, the clouds passing by look pretty choppy, consistent with a fairly slow frame rate of 6 frames per second.
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1965/06/24/page/135/article/cameras-film-function-fine-on-gemini-4-flight
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 12, 2017, 01:12:06 PM
The only thing missing from your flawed logic and failure to understand what the mission was about is that the suits were PRESSURIZED. Meaning that such a quick movement even if the helmet were able to swivel is impossible

Why?

The helmets clearly were able to swivel - you can see it happening. The part of the suit you can see is not pressurised, that is just an outer layer. The pressurised element is a pressure bladder. The helmet is obviously pressurised, but why would this stop it form being to move?

Some more info below, and if you look at the second link you can see clearly the head is very securely cushioned, which means that when it moves, the helmet moves.

http://www.astronautix.com/g/g4c.html

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/9296/how-do-the-movable-neck-space-suit-helmet-works
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 12, 2017, 01:32:49 PM
Another thing the video makes an issue of is the supposedly missing patch on the arm of a crew photographed in their Gemini craft.

Unfortunately for the video maker, the crew pictured is Grissom and Young from Gemini 3, not Ed White and James McDivett from Gemini 4. Gemini 3 used a different suit.

The G-4C suit was used on EVA missions, and there are many showing the US flag on the arm, for example this one from Gemini 12

(http://stellar-views.com/images/GT12_Aldrin_EVA.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Kuijiblob on April 12, 2017, 07:35:55 PM
Another thing the video makes an issue of is the supposedly missing patch on the arm of a crew photographed in their Gemini craft.

Unfortunately for the video maker, the crew pictured is Grissom and Young from Gemini 3, not Ed White and James McDivett from Gemini 4. Gemini 3 used a different suit.

The G-4C suit was used on EVA missions, and there are many showing the US flag on the arm, for example this one from Gemini 12

(http://stellar-views.com/images/GT12_Aldrin_EVA.jpg)
Pressurization is a completely different matter making it impossible for the astronaut to attempt his maneuvers. Are you blind,deaf, and dumb?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 12, 2017, 08:07:34 PM
Pressurization is a completely different matter making it impossible for the astronaut to attempt his maneuvers. Are you blind,deaf, and dumb?
You do know that the Gemini EVA suit was pressurized to all of 3.7 psi, don't you?  You also understand that the whole point of a pressure suit is so that you can move around in a very low air pressure environment, don't you?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: IonSpen on April 12, 2017, 08:52:53 PM
Another thing the video makes an issue of is the supposedly missing patch on the arm of a crew photographed in their Gemini craft.

Unfortunately for the video maker, the crew pictured is Grissom and Young from Gemini 3, not Ed White and James McDivett from Gemini 4. Gemini 3 used a different suit.

The G-4C suit was used on EVA missions, and there are many showing the US flag on the arm, for example this one from Gemini 12

(http://stellar-views.com/images/GT12_Aldrin_EVA.jpg)
Pressurization is a completely different matter making it impossible for the astronaut to attempt his maneuvers. Are you blind,deaf, and dumb?
So, are you joking here, or are we serious this time?
Is your main issue that things under pressure cannot swivel? If so, boy do I have news for you... I used to work for Halliburton, hydraulic fracturing aka fracking. From our (very) high pressure pumps, we hammered together discharge lines to the well head. This was 3" ID steel joints, rated at 15K psi. Before starting the job, the iron was pressured up to 14,500 psi, to check for leaks. We used what's called a Chiksan swivel joint at every point a turn was required in the iron. These were also rated at 15K psi. The pressure did not affect the swivel's ability to rotate.
Do you honestly believe  a measly 3.7 psi would hinder anything to turn?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 12, 2017, 09:23:05 PM
Pressurization is a completely different matter making it impossible for the astronaut to attempt his maneuvers. Are you blind,deaf, and dumb?

I asked you for an explanation as to why it is impossible to swivel the helmet,

I don't see an answer to that in your response. Who's got the sensory perception issue here?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 13, 2017, 12:25:25 AM
Pressurization is a completely different matter making it impossible for the astronaut to attempt his maneuvers. Are you blind,deaf, and dumb?
You do know that the Gemini EVA suit was pressurized to all of 3.7 psi, don't you?  You also understand that the whole point of a pressure suit is so that you can move around in a very low air pressure environment, don't you?
You do realise that your body at sea level is under around 15 psi, right?
You understand that the less pressure upon your body the more your body swells. Why does it swell?
It swells because you are under compression from this 15 psi atmosphere and taking away some of the pressure would allow your cells to expand. Take too much pressure away and you will expand so fast that you will look like your body is boiling due to massive expansion.

So first of all, don't even think for one second that a so called space suit can have under 4 psi in it in so called space vacuum, because there's something you're forgetting.

In a so called capsule that is apparently pressurised to sea level atmosphere, in so called space, a so called astronaut would be under that pressure inside his suit without pressurisation required.
If Ed White (for instance) left that capsule for his supposed space walk, he would have had to decompress the entire capsule to get out but at the same time, equalise his inner suit to match the pressure decrease by increasing it inside the suit.
3.7 psi is just not going to cover it, in no way shape or form for starters.

Now let me explain something to you and I want all genuine free thinking people to pay attention to this.
The so called 3.7 psi in the so called space suits are done at sea level. But remember that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Basically the extra pressure exerted onto you is being exerted onto the elasticity of the bladder which is now mildly crushing you by an extra 3.7 psi.

If you were to take that to so called space, then the whole shebang changes.
This is why space is impossible and this is why these so called astronauts are no more than paid actors playing a game of pretence.
It's almost like a long running series that moves along with the times.
It's a world of fantasy that is cast out as science.
It's nonsense.

People should really see this. I'm serious. People should not be arguing it in favour of real space because its so in your face clear.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 12:43:49 AM
Good post scepti.

Apparently there's just under 5psi of pressure on the top of Mt Everest, we're told that people have survived up there, I haven't climbed Everest so I am just going along with what I have been told.

We do need oxygen to keep us breathing up there.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 13, 2017, 12:47:42 AM
Good post scepti.

Apparently there's just under 5psi of pressure on the top of Mt Everest, we're told that people have survived up there, I haven't climbed Everest so I am just going along with what I have been told.

We do need oxygen to keep us breathing up there.

Which is why the suit pressure is 3.7.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 13, 2017, 01:24:56 AM
Good post scepti.

Apparently there's just under 5psi of pressure on the top of Mt Everest, we're told that people have survived up there, I haven't climbed Everest so I am just going along with what I have been told.

We do need oxygen to keep us breathing up there.
Let's assume people can survive up Everest. I don't believe it but for the sake of it let's accept that the height is legit and people have climbed it to the top.

Let's play with the 5 psi at the top as we are told.
A person getting to the top still has 5 psi crushing him, right?
It may not seem like much but it's 5 psi of pressure.

His suit is just a body heat suit. It's not a so called space suit. It's merely a loose suit and boots and hat gloves and whatever...you get the gist.

Let's go to so called space with the space suit on, like the Gemini carry on with Ed White, allegedly.
If he gets out of that space craft he is doing so with absolutely no pressure external to his space suit.
It would be like the Everest climber getting to the top in that space suit but the top of Everest has no psi of pressure at all. Zero.

As we can deduce, there is absolutely NOTHING pushing or squeezing against the so called astronaut from outside of his suit but inside it's inflated to 3.7 psi as we are led to believe.
This means that his suit is stopping that pressure from leaking out but also creating an equal and opposite reaction on his body and the suit material itself.

If you put a balloon inside a chamber and evacuate pressure, the balloon will expand to fill the void due to the molecules of air being allowed to decompress against the less pressure outside of it.
The more pressure evacuated the bigger the balloon gets, until it either bursts or the pump isn't strong enough to allow more evacuation....OR, the molecules inside the balloon simply cannot expand any more, or the balloon make up starts to be taken apart.
You get my drift, I'm sure.

Ok so back to the suit.
No matter what psi is in that suit, it is going to try and expand to fill the void of so called space vacuum.
The suit bladder can stretch like the balloon and the material of the suit can stop the expansion but the person inside of the suit will expand as well, meaning the suit becomes tighter and tighter until the person inside of it would be literally like a Michelin man...and I'm being mild here just for the sake of clarity.
The reality of a real near vacuum would be a breakdown in all material make up of everything that the space suit is and also what the person inside of it is.

Space as a fantasy for those that are into it, is fine b y me.
I'm just telling it from the reality side...the reality side that is does not exist in how we are shown and told about, especially with the silly astronaut spacewalk nonsense.


Now at the mild end of what I've said, the simple blatant in your face issue is, the so called astronaut is absolutely not going to be turning his head or moving about like he does. It just isn't or wouldn't happen....ever.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 01:38:00 AM
I would think the resistance caused by the material could cause pressure?

Like how an air compressor works, it has a steel cylinder that can hold a high pressure without exploding.

Turning your head is a complex issue, I understand that it would be difficult to make something hold pressure and also swivel, I couldn't design one, I don't think it is impossible however.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 13, 2017, 02:04:43 AM
My bike tyres run at 100 psi. They have not exploded.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 13, 2017, 02:19:28 AM
I would think the resistance caused by the material could cause pressure?
The only pressure that can be gained is the pressure already in the suit. There's no external pressure, at all.
You would be blown up like a balloon.

Like how an air compressor works, it has a steel cylinder that can hold a high pressure without exploding.
Yes but the so called space suit is not a metal container and also it's under atmospheric pressure.
The problem people have is by thinking that atmospheric sea level pressure is negligible. It's far from it.

Turning your head is a complex issue, I understand that it would be difficult to make something hold pressure and also swivel, I couldn't design one, I don't think it is impossible however.
Have you ever tried to get the lid off a jar of pickled onions or whatever?
That's the power of atmospheric pressure clamping down on a lid to stop you twisting it.
Low pressure inside surrounded by higher pressure outside looking to equalise but stopped from doing so by the jar and the fact that it's own pressure upon the lid is working against it.

Just reverse this act with the space suit with the pressure inside expanding as much as possible against the resistance of the actual suit.
Nothing is going to be moving about with any meaningful gain for anything.
Basically Ed white or any so called space walker are not getting out of anywhere to do anything inside a so called space suit.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 13, 2017, 02:22:03 AM
My bike tyres run at 100 psi. They have not exploded.
Why should they explode?


Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 13, 2017, 02:30:41 AM
They are a thin pressure bladder with a thin outer covering operating at many times the ambient pressure.

Just like the suit.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 13, 2017, 02:49:08 AM
They are a thin pressure bladder with a thin outer covering operating at many times the ambient pressure.

Just like the suit.
Nothing like the suit environment, at all.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 13, 2017, 03:27:56 AM
The actual loadings are considerably higher than 100 psi as they operate with a 90 kg bloke lweighing them down.

In another development, the wheels to which are attached contain a bearing that turns quite happily in a 15 psi environment.

If anyone wants to explain why these analogies don't apply using actual science rather than made up pretend fantasy science and lalala I'm not listening bluster then be my guest.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 13, 2017, 05:40:47 AM
Pressurization is a completely different matter making it impossible for the astronaut to attempt his maneuvers. Are you blind,deaf, and dumb?
You do know that the Gemini EVA suit was pressurized to all of 3.7 psi, don't you?  You also understand that the whole point of a pressure suit is so that you can move around in a very low air pressure environment, don't you?
You do realise that your body at sea level is under around 15 psi, right?
You understand that the less pressure upon your body the more your body swells. Why does it swell?
It swells because you are under compression from this 15 psi atmosphere and taking away some of the pressure would allow your cells to expand. Take too much pressure away and you will expand so fast that you will look like your body is boiling due to massive expansion.
That's why it generally takes several hours to decompress safely.  It's quite amazing how adaptable the human body can be when you take your time to adjust.

So first of all, don't even think for one second that a so called space suit can have under 4 psi in it in so called space vacuum, because there's something you're forgetting.

In a so called capsule that is apparently pressurised to sea level atmosphere, in so called space, a so called astronaut would be under that pressure inside his suit without pressurisation required.
So you're saying that the pressure inside the capsule can't ever be lowered?  That's just silly.

If Ed White (for instance) left that capsule for his supposed space walk, he would have had to decompress the entire capsule to get out but at the same time, equalise his inner suit to match the pressure decrease by increasing it inside the suit.
3.7 psi is just not going to cover it, in no way shape or form for starters.
Why not?  How do you think that deep sea divers adjust?

Now let me explain something to you and I want all genuine free thinking people to pay attention to this.
The so called 3.7 psi in the so called space suits are done at sea level.
No.  The spacesuit 3.7 psi is relative to whatever environment the astronaut happens to be in, in this case the zero pressure of space.

But remember that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Basically the extra pressure exerted onto you is being exerted onto the elasticity of the bladder which is now mildly crushing you by an extra 3.7 psi.

If you were to take that to so called space, then the whole shebang changes.
This is why space is impossible and this is why these so called astronauts are no more than paid actors playing a game of pretence.
It's almost like a long running series that moves along with the times.
It's a world of fantasy that is cast out as science.
It's nonsense.

People should really see this. I'm serious. People should not be arguing it in favour of real space because its so in your face clear.
You actually a pretty good good build up to a potential argument going there, until you finished with you typical argument from incredulity closer.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 13, 2017, 05:42:46 AM
Some more food for thought on pressurised suits



https://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/pdf/639715main_Vacuum_Testing_FTI.pdf



Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Cartog on April 13, 2017, 06:36:18 PM
The evidences that the Moon Landings were real are numerous.  I can't even understand some of the evidence and I can point to other evidence.

One was the difference in gravity shown in the Moon Landing telecasts - golf balls hit for miles, jumps that go forty feet, stuff like that.  You cannot fake gravity like that.
Another is the retroflectors.  They needed to be set up by humans because they required orientation too precise for mere robots in 1969 & 1970; and they worked.
Another is the radio frequencies.  Mere shortwave freqs wouldn't penetrate the ionosphere, that's why they bounce all the way from London or Moscow, but the frequencies used for the moon capsules were ultra-high that penetrate the ionosphere - were heard by receivers in many countries simultaneously, couldn't have been sent from earth, must have been sent from outer space.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: hoppy on April 13, 2017, 07:29:10 PM
The evidences that the Moon Landings were real are numerous.  I can't even understand some of the evidence and I can point to other evidence.

One was the difference in gravity shown in the Moon Landing telecasts - golf balls hit for miles, jumps that go forty feet, stuff like that.  You cannot fake gravity like that.
Another is the retroflectors.  They needed to be set up by humans because they required orientation too precise for mere robots in 1969 & 1970; and they worked.
Another is the radio frequencies.  Mere shortwave freqs wouldn't penetrate the ionosphere, that's why they bounce all the way from London or Moscow, but the frequencies used for the moon capsules were ultra-high that penetrate the ionosphere - were heard by receivers in many countries simultaneously, couldn't have been sent from earth, must have been sent from outer space.
No 40' jumps, just little bunny hops.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 13, 2017, 07:48:27 PM
The evidences that the Moon Landings were real are numerous.  I can't even understand some of the evidence and I can point to other evidence.

One was the difference in gravity shown in the Moon Landing telecasts - golf balls hit for miles, jumps that go forty feet, stuff like that.  You cannot fake gravity like that.
Another is the retroflectors.  They needed to be set up by humans because they required orientation too precise for mere robots in 1969 & 1970; and they worked.
Another is the radio frequencies.  Mere shortwave freqs wouldn't penetrate the ionosphere, that's why they bounce all the way from London or Moscow, but the frequencies used for the moon capsules were ultra-high that penetrate the ionosphere - were heard by receivers in many countries simultaneously, couldn't have been sent from earth, must have been sent from outer space.

I've heard terrible arguments for the hollywood show moon landing in 1969 but yours has to be the worst attempt.

Quote
One was the difference in gravity shown in the Moon Landing telecasts - golf balls hit for miles, jumps that go forty feet, stuff like that.  You cannot fake gravity like that.
a) slow motion
b) golf balls barely visible on the streams let alone being seen going miles
c) you can simulate gravity, there's many NASA videos doing exactly the thing you say is not possible

Quote
Another is the retroflectors.  They needed to be set up by humans because they required orientation too precise for mere robots in 1969 & 1970; and they worked.
Again, no real evidence for this. You're telling me they can send a man to space but not capable of setting mirrors? What kind of logic do moon believers have? Blind faith that's all.


Quote
Another is the radio frequencies.  Mere shortwave freqs wouldn't penetrate the ionosphere, that's why they bounce all the way from London or Moscow, but the frequencies used for the moon capsules were ultra-high that penetrate the ionosphere - were heard by receivers in many countries simultaneously, couldn't have been sent from earth, must have been sent from outer space.
And this proves the manned moon landing how?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Yashas on April 13, 2017, 11:02:21 PM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

1969 - computer - size of a house
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore
::)

You can't edit videos with those computers LOL. They did not even have display screens which could play a video.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 01:29:00 AM
a) slow motion

It is not in slow motion. This is a media trope that many people mistakenly apply to the real thing - it is just not true.

Quote
b) golf balls barely visible on the streams let alone being seen going miles

You might call it stream, those of who were around at the time called it live TV broadcast. Apollo 14's TV quality was not good. It got much better for the next missions.

It was the astronauts themselves who jokingly said it went miles and miles, the TV footage only showed him hitting the ball. You can clearly see the ball, and you can see it clearly disappearing out of shot at quite a speed considering the one handed short strike he gave it. Harrison Schmitt's hammer throw, however, was captured much more clearly and went quite some distance

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.hammer.html



Quote
c) you can simulate gravity, there's many NASA videos doing exactly the thing you say is not possible

You can simulate it, but you can't replicate it. The simulation involves all manner of harnesses and contraptions and rigging that just aren't visible anywhere in the live TV broadcasts, photos or 16mm footage. Given the number of times astronauts crossed paths there is no possibility that they could have been suspended on a harness. You also can't simulate the behaviour of the material disturbed on the ground and otherwise not attached to the astronauts, which in all the footage behaves exactly as it should in a zero atmosphere low gravity environment.



Quote
Again, no real evidence for this. You're telling me they can send a man to space but not capable of setting mirrors? What kind of logic do moon believers have? Blind faith that's all.

Indeed you can remotely set up a mirror on the moon, the Soviets did it twice. However what you have here is TV footage, 16mm film and still photograph evidence of people positioning those mirrors. Those images contain details (not known about prior to the missions) that have been confirmed in subsequent orbital probe photography. The TV signals of the installation came from exactly where you can fire a laser to get a signal return from them. The experimental stations set up at the same time and place also sent signals back. The locations and details of those locations and the record of their installation are all consistent.

If you can get a rocket to the moon, land something on the surface in a controlled way, get a probe to unload and install a mirror on the ground with 100% accuracy (the Soviet reflectors were on top of their probes), then the only thing missing from the equation is a person. There isn't much difference between being capable of getting an object to the moon and getting a person there.

Quote
And this proves the manned moon landing how?

If signals are monitored as coming from the moon (and amateurs did detect them) and receiving stations around the world rotating under the moon detect them as always coming from the moon, and a spaceship was monitored all the way to the  moon by dishes in many countries, and those radio signals have astronaut voices with the correct amount of delay, and those dishes also receive TV signals that contain time and date specific images of Earth that could only have been sent from a location outside of Earth, exactly what do you think was gong on?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on April 14, 2017, 04:59:03 AM
Slow motion doesn't work when the video often involved live interaction with mission control.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 05:28:27 AM
Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.
Not only that, they can do it in slow motion and yet we are told that video wasn't responsible for the slow motion.

If the video wasn't responsible for it,  it means that the slow motion was cast off as real footage as is.
1/6th of Earth's so called gravity we are told, as well as no air friction and yet we have slow motion movement.
Does that not seem odd to anyone?

Shouldn't the movement be the opposite to slow motion?
What's creating any resistance to movement?

And before anyone shouts " it's 1/6th gravity you fool, that's why it appears slow"...then take a look at the hammer and feather nonsense.

It takes a person to be extremely authority gullible to believe this crap in this day and age....but here we are dealing with exactly that.
I just hope it's all shills or game players. I hope it's not genuine people that believe this space crap.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 14, 2017, 05:34:53 AM
Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left. ::)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 05:38:05 AM
Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left. ::)

I wish you'd have told me about him playing 9 holes at the country club in his pressurised space suit that mimics the so called moon.  :P
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 05:42:56 AM
Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

The suit is not puffed up, they are wearing a pressure garment. The suit is on top of that and a few other layers. 'They' did not play golf. One astronaut, a keen golfer, took a couple of golf balls and a club head, attached the club head to a tool and hit, one handed, the golf balls. This is not quite 18 holes. He also did it on live TV.

[quoe]
Not only that, they can do it in slow motion and yet we are told that video wasn't responsible for the slow motion.[/quote]

It's not video, it's live TV, and it's not in slow motion. Cheap sci-fi use slow motion because they think it looks right. Learn to tell the difference,

Quote
If the video wasn't responsible for it,  it means that the slow motion was cast off as real footage as is.
1/6th of Earth's so called gravity we are told, as well as no air friction and yet we have slow motion movement.
Does that not seem odd to anyone?

It's not slow motion.

Quote
Shouldn't the movement be the opposite to slow motion?

It's not slow motion.

Quote
What's creating any resistance to movement?

Nothing, other than the stiffness of his suit's many layers.

Quote
And before anyone shouts " it's 1/6th gravity you fool, that's why it appears slow"...then take a look at the hammer and feather nonsense.

Already did that.



Quote
It takes a person to be extremely authority gullible to believe this crap in this day and age....but here we are dealing with exactly that.
I just hope it's all shills or game players. I hope it's not genuine people that believe this space crap.

blahblahblahblahblah...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 05:46:35 AM
Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left. ::)

I wish you'd have told me about him playing 9 holes at the country club in his pressurised space suit that mimics the so called moon.  :P

His pressure garment is pressurised., not the entire suit.

Notice how long it takes the golf ball to drop from his hand and hit the ground.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 05:56:53 AM
Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left. ::)

I wish you'd have told me about him playing 9 holes at the country club in his pressurised space suit that mimics the so called moon.  :P

His pressure garment is pressurised., not the entire suit.

Notice how long it takes the golf ball to drop from his hand and hit the ground.
His pressure garment would have to be against all of his skin to stop it expanding. This means that he still has to be constricted from proper movement.
To be honest, I do not see any bladder on any space suit that does any of the pressurisation you people talk about.
But assuming I'm missing something, then tell me how the suit manages to separately pressurise the entire astronowt?

Of course, you don't have to tell me or need to. All people have to do is understand what would happen to the astronowt in a so called vacuum on a so called moon without a sufficient pressure against his body to stop his body from basically expanding, or cell boiling, as we vision it in a low pressure chamber.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 07:29:43 AM
Puffed up suits and terrible movement in arms and gloved hands, etc and yet they can play golf.

Yes, it appears he was able to get in 9 holes at the country club before they left. ::)

I wish you'd have told me about him playing 9 holes at the country club in his pressurised space suit that mimics the so called moon.  :P

His pressure garment is pressurised., not the entire suit.

Notice how long it takes the golf ball to drop from his hand and hit the ground.
His pressure garment would have to be against all of his skin to stop it expanding. This means that he still has to be constricted from proper movement.
To be honest, I do not see any bladder on any space suit that does any of the pressurisation you people talk about.
But assuming I'm missing something, then tell me how the suit manages to separately pressurise the entire astronowt?

Google is your friend. Early suits had a pressure garment under the outer suit that basically constricted the skin. Later suits were themselves pressurised, but not to full atmospheric pressure because they used pure oxygen.

Quote

Of course, you don't have to tell me or need to.

No, I don't, but if you were genuinely interested in finding the answer for yourself you would actually look. The information is not difficult to find, this is why I have purposely not linked to it. You have already decided it's impossible, so there's really no point spoonfeeding you stuff you'll just spit out again.

Quote
All people have to do is understand what would happen to the astronowt in a so called vacuum on a so called moon without a sufficient pressure against his body to stop his body from basically expanding, or cell boiling, as we vision it in a low pressure chamber.

And I have already posted links for you to show you that the suits were tested in a vacuum. The suits may have been exposed to vacuum, but the astronauts themselves were not. There was one well documented incident where suit pressure was lost in a vacuum:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/16-things-gravity-got-wrong-and-some-things-it-got-right-too/

What you need to do is demonstrate that the astronauts were not in a vacuum and that their suits could not withstand that vacuum. So far you have not.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 07:59:31 AM
Some videos on the development of the suit





Includes footage of astronauts wearing the suits under much higher pressures (ie 1 atmosphere) than when used in space, yet still managing to work them without a problem.

The problems of mobility in the suit were not related to pressure but to their bulky nature.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 08:28:08 AM
Google is your friend. You can't see the pressure garment because it is under outer suit layers.
 if you were genuinely interested in finding the answer for yourself you would actually look. The information is not difficult to find, this is why I have purposely not linked to it. You have already decided it's impossible, so there's really no point spoonfeeding you stuff you'll just spit out again.

1:33 onwards. Take a look at the silly glove on a silly twist on mechanism and also look at his bare hand and arm as you see it going up the sleeve.
No way is any of that in any pressurised bladder, or any bladder at all, ready to be pressurised.

2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum.  ::)

4:20 onwards, the suit comes in half. Look at all those joints and yet the suit just comes in half. I don't actually see any twist and turn seal on that midriff, do you? Does anyone?
What a crock.  ::)

4:35 onwards. Take a look at this supposed bladder he's wearing. It's a pair of long John's.
A total piss take of people's intelligence.
Only a nutter would go in a low pressure chamber with one of these ridiculous things on, never mind in a so called moon for crying out loud.

The liquid cooling garment. The long John liquid frigging cooling garment with a couple of see through tubes sticking out. What an absolute pathetic laughable piss take it all is.
Can anyone tell me where this bladder is that stops these astronowts from expanding in so called space?

And to finish off, a frigging nappy to crap in.
1969 and they had this all sorted.
No bladder to inflate to stop them expanding an d also a nappy to crap in.
Seriously people, what does it actually take for you lot to wake the eff up?





I have already posted links for you to show you that the suits were tested in a vacuum. The suits may have been exposed to vacuum, but the astronauts themselves were not. There was one well documented incident where suit pressure was lost in a vacuum:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/16-things-gravity-got-wrong-and-some-things-it-got-right-too/
Nah, they could have shown us all this in proper detail but they didn't. They didn't because they know for an absolute fact that a person would be dead in short order at just lower pressure, never mind a supposed moon vacuum, as we are told.
What you need to do is demonstrate that the astronauts were not in a vacuum and that their suits could not withstand that vacuum. So far you have not.
I think James Burke demonstrates it all perfectly well, as well as the ridiculous way the supposed astronowts recklessly act on the so called moon, not giving a rats arse whether they damage them.
There's a good reason for them not giving a crap about damaging the suits. Can you guess?
Correct. It's because they're playing in the desert or in ready made moon staging sets.


It really shouldn't need rational people defending the nonsense.
By all means enjoy it as the fantasy that it was and still is, but know that it is far from reality.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 14, 2017, 08:38:14 AM
2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum.  ::)
You've never seen a quick disconnect fitting on an air hose before?  ???
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 08:46:11 AM
2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum.  ::)
You've never seen a quick disconnect fitting on an air hose before?  ???
Sure have but they're small and robust.
If they're bigger they are more robust.
Those so called space suits connectors are a heap of crap and would do nothing for anyone inside a so called space vacuum.
How about telling me where the bladder is on that.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 09:00:21 AM
2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum.  ::)
You've never seen a quick disconnect fitting on an air hose before?  ???
Sure have but they're small and robust.
If they're bigger they are more robust.
Those so called space suits connectors are a heap of crap and would do nothing for anyone inside a so called space vacuum.
How about telling me where the bladder is on that.

What have you got that says they aren't robust? What evidence do you have that says the suits were not up to the job given the considerable amount of testing that went into them?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 14, 2017, 09:10:24 AM
Google is your friend. You can't see the pressure garment because it is under outer suit layers.
 if you were genuinely interested in finding the answer for yourself you would actually look. The information is not difficult to find, this is why I have purposely not linked to it. You have already decided it's impossible, so there's really no point spoonfeeding you stuff you'll just spit out again.

1:33 onwards. Take a look at the silly glove on a silly twist on mechanism and also look at his bare hand and arm as you see it going up the sleeve.
No way is any of that in any pressurised bladder, or any bladder at all, ready to be pressurised.

The inner pressure suits were in the Mercury suits. I am happy to point out that I have also been confused about how the different suits were constructed. They did wear an inner glove for comfort and constant wear garments under all of it. The suit designs are freely available. Feel free to point to any evidence you can that this wouldn't have worked.

Quote
2:40 onwards. The frigging helmet. Another quick twist and this is a perfect seal against losing your pressure to a vacuum.  ::)

Feel free to prove it wouldn't have worked. You can have very similar setups on diving suits that work just fine.

Quote
4:20 onwards, the suit comes in half. Look at all those joints and yet the suit just comes in half. I don't actually see any twist and turn seal on that midriff, do you? Does anyone?
What a crock.  ::)

Argument from in credulity anyone? Any evidence the suit couldn't have done the job it was designed for? No?

Quote
4:35 onwards. Take a look at this supposed bladder he's wearing. It's a pair of long John's.
A total piss take of people's intelligence.
Only a nutter would go in a low pressure chamber with one of these ridiculous things on, never mind in a so called moon for crying out loud.

Or people who wanted to go to the moon. Plenty of evidence that people did the vacuum chambers to test and went to the moon. Got any evidence it couldn't have worked?

Quote
The liquid cooling garment. The long John liquid frigging cooling garment with a couple of see through tubes sticking out. What an absolute pathetic laughable piss take it all is.
Can anyone tell me where this bladder is that stops these astronowts from expanding in so called space?

Again, prove the suit couldn't work. The LCG was to keep them cool. It used pretty simple and effective technology.

Quote
And to finish off, a frigging nappy to crap in.

And? Any other mechanisms to do that you can come up with?

Quote
1969 and they had this all sorted.
No bladder to inflate to stop them expanding an d also a nappy to crap in.

It took them a long time to get it sorted, with lots of testing and re-testing and hard work. The only proof you seem to have is that they wore a nappy just in case they got caught short. Pretty convincing evidence there.

Quote
Seriously people, what does it actually take for you lot to wake the eff up?

blahblahblablahblah...




Quote
I have already posted links for you to show you that the suits were tested in a vacuum. The suits may have been exposed to vacuum, but the astronauts themselves were not. There was one well documented incident where suit pressure was lost in a vacuum:

https://www.spaceanswers.com/space-exploration/16-things-gravity-got-wrong-and-some-things-it-got-right-too/
Nah, they could have shown us all this in proper detail but they didn't. They didn't because they know for an absolute fact that a person would be dead in short order at just lower pressure, never mind a supposed moon vacuum, as we are told.
What you need to do is demonstrate that the astronauts were not in a vacuum and that their suits could not withstand that vacuum. So far you have not.
I think James Burke demonstrates it all perfectly well, as well as the ridiculous way the supposed astronowts recklessly act on the so called moon, not giving a rats arse whether they damage them.
There's a good reason for them not giving a crap about damaging the suits. Can you guess?
Correct. It's because they're playing in the desert or in ready made moon staging sets.

I don't see anything about them not giving a crap. i see a well designed robust suit working as designed. Prove it couldn't.

Quote
It really shouldn't need rational people defending the nonsense.
By all means enjoy it as the fantasy that it was and still is, but know that it is far from reality.

blahblahblahblahblah..
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on April 14, 2017, 01:22:15 PM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

1969 - computer - size of a house
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore
::)

1969 - computer - size of a house
Wrong.
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home
Wrong
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore

Wrong, 1. They went to the moon more than 6 times counting from 1968 It has been done since then with remote controlled robots.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: IonSpen on April 14, 2017, 07:02:33 PM
Scepti, maybe you should again describe what the so called moon really is, so the rationally thinking people will know. Will rationally thinking people even understand the moon is simply a reflection of the so called carbon arc sun off the so called dome? Or that the sun itself is also a reflection of the so called carbon arc center earth sun?
And just why exactly is the moon so dim if it's merely a reflection of the sun to begin with (never mind the actual phases)? Would you mind explaining this to the rational thinkers since we're on the subject of the moon?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 15, 2017, 02:04:33 AM
Scepti, maybe you should again describe what the so called moon really is, so the rationally thinking people will know. Will rationally thinking people even understand the moon is simply a reflection of the so called carbon arc sun off the so called dome? Or that the sun itself is also a reflection of the so called carbon arc center earth sun?
And just why exactly is the moon so dim if it's merely a reflection of the sun to begin with (never mind the actual phases)? Would you mind explaining this to the rational thinkers since we're on the subject of the moon?
If you're desperate then put up a topic.
This one is about the supposed moon landing shenanigans of which I'm questioning the actual suits.
Unless you can find me the bladder that they used in the supposed 1969 so called Apollo moon suits.

Those suits are nonsense.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 15, 2017, 04:32:21 AM
Scepti, maybe you should again describe what the so called moon really is, so the rationally thinking people will know. Will rationally thinking people even understand the moon is simply a reflection of the so called carbon arc sun off the so called dome? Or that the sun itself is also a reflection of the so called carbon arc center earth sun?
And just why exactly is the moon so dim if it's merely a reflection of the sun to begin with (never mind the actual phases)? Would you mind explaining this to the rational thinkers since we're on the subject of the moon?
If you're desperate then put up a topic.
This one is about the supposed moon landing shenanigans of which I'm questioning the actual suits.
Unless you can find me the bladder that they used in the supposed 1969 so called Apollo moon suits.

Those suits are nonsense.

It's already been pointed out to you that it was the earlier Mercury suits, based on high altitude aircraft flight suits used in things like the X-15, that had their own pressure garment that worked by constricting the skin. The Gemini and Apollo suits had a liquid cooling garment then a multi-layer suit that acted as the pressure garment, with a suit pressure running on pure oxygen at 3.7 psi.

Please provide any supporting evidence you have to demonstrate that the suits would not have worked as designed. Lots of evidence has been provided to show that the suits worked, and Google can furnish you with even more information about them. Now it's your turn to show that you have bothered to read that information and can construct a logical criticism of why they couldn't function in the way that the literature says they did.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 15, 2017, 04:38:17 AM


It's already been pointed out to you that it was the earlier Mercury suits, based on high altitude aircraft flight suits used in things like the X-15, that had their own pressure garment that worked by constricting the skin. The Gemini and Apollo suits had a liquid cooling garment then a multi-layer suit that acted as the pressure garment, with a suit pressure running on pure oxygen at 3.7 psi.

Please provide any supporting evidence you have to demonstrate that the suits would not have worked as designed. Lots of evidence has been provided to show that the suits worked, and Google can furnish you with even more information about them. Now it's your turn to show that you have bothered to read that information and can construct a logical criticism of why they couldn't function in the way that the literature says they did.
I'm happy to 100% know those suits are useless other than for gimmicks.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 15, 2017, 04:49:15 AM


It's already been pointed out to you that it was the earlier Mercury suits, based on high altitude aircraft flight suits used in things like the X-15, that had their own pressure garment that worked by constricting the skin. The Gemini and Apollo suits had a liquid cooling garment then a multi-layer suit that acted as the pressure garment, with a suit pressure running on pure oxygen at 3.7 psi.

Please provide any supporting evidence you have to demonstrate that the suits would not have worked as designed. Lots of evidence has been provided to show that the suits worked, and Google can furnish you with even more information about them. Now it's your turn to show that you have bothered to read that information and can construct a logical criticism of why they couldn't function in the way that the literature says they did.
I'm happy to 100% know those suits are useless other than for gimmicks.

You don't know that, you believe it.

Seeing is you don't seem able to provide any support for your beliefs, here's a couple of links to help people who aren't quite so blinkered.

https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/ResourceFiles/AboutASME/Who%20We%20Are/Engineering%20History/Landmarks/ApolloBR.pdf

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-SuitConvolutes.html

At least some of the confusion about the pressurised bit of the Apollo suit is that in its entirety it tends to be to referred to as a pressure garment.

The pressurised part of the suit is the TLSA, the Torso and Limb Suit Assembly, which was flexible enough to play American football in. On top of that are the layers that protect against micrometeorite and provide thermal insulation, all topped off in the white 'Beta cloth' based on Teflon.

Any information you can provide to demonstrate that the suit wouldn't have worked would be fine. If it doesn't arrive people can draw their own conclusions about how reliable your version of events is.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on April 15, 2017, 05:01:29 AM
You don't know that, you believe it.

Seeing is you don't seem able to provide any support for your beliefs, here's a couple of links to help people who aren't quite so blinkered.

https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/ResourceFiles/AboutASME/Who%20We%20Are/Engineering%20History/Landmarks/ApolloBR.pdf

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-SuitConvolutes.html

At least some of the confusion about the pressurised bit of the Apollo suit is that in its entirety it tends to be to referred to as a pressure garment.

The pressurised part of the suit is the TLSA, the Torso and Limb Suit Assembly, which was flexible enough to play American football in. On top of that are the layers that protect against micrometeorite and provide thermal insulation, all topped off in the white 'Beta cloth' based on Teflon.

Any information you can provide to demonstrate that the suit wouldn't have worked would be fine. If it doesn't arrive people can draw their own conclusions about how reliable your version of events is.
I can show you a picture of any suit. I can tell you that the suit stops hot molten metal or that you can dive to a depth of 10,000 feet in it or fall from a cliff and it'll protect you.
Add in as many extras as you want.
I can give reasons why it can do all this by telling stories and showing nonsense videos.

That's all it is.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Twerp on April 15, 2017, 06:30:42 AM
You don't know that, you believe it.

Seeing is you don't seem able to provide any support for your beliefs, here's a couple of links to help people who aren't quite so blinkered.

https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/ResourceFiles/AboutASME/Who%20We%20Are/Engineering%20History/Landmarks/ApolloBR.pdf

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-SuitConvolutes.html

At least some of the confusion about the pressurised bit of the Apollo suit is that in its entirety it tends to be to referred to as a pressure garment.

The pressurised part of the suit is the TLSA, the Torso and Limb Suit Assembly, which was flexible enough to play American football in. On top of that are the layers that protect against micrometeorite and provide thermal insulation, all topped off in the white 'Beta cloth' based on Teflon.

Any information you can provide to demonstrate that the suit wouldn't have worked would be fine. If it doesn't arrive people can draw their own conclusions about how reliable your version of events is.
I can show you a picture of any suit. I can tell you that the suit stops hot molten metal or that you can dive to a depth of 10,000 feet in it or fall from a cliff and it'll protect you.
Add in as many extras as you want.
I can give reasons why it can do all this by telling stories and showing nonsense videos.

That's all it is.

You should learn to think for yourself and quit blindly trusting your intuition. It isn't always right you know.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 16, 2017, 11:40:16 AM
You don't know that, you believe it.

Seeing is you don't seem able to provide any support for your beliefs, here's a couple of links to help people who aren't quite so blinkered.

https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/ResourceFiles/AboutASME/Who%20We%20Are/Engineering%20History/Landmarks/ApolloBR.pdf

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-SuitConvolutes.html

At least some of the confusion about the pressurised bit of the Apollo suit is that in its entirety it tends to be to referred to as a pressure garment.

The pressurised part of the suit is the TLSA, the Torso and Limb Suit Assembly, which was flexible enough to play American football in. On top of that are the layers that protect against micrometeorite and provide thermal insulation, all topped off in the white 'Beta cloth' based on Teflon.

Any information you can provide to demonstrate that the suit wouldn't have worked would be fine. If it doesn't arrive people can draw their own conclusions about how reliable your version of events is.
I can show you a picture of any suit. I can tell you that the suit stops hot molten metal or that you can dive to a depth of 10,000 feet in it or fall from a cliff and it'll protect you.
Add in as many extras as you want.
I can give reasons why it can do all this by telling stories and showing nonsense videos.

That's all it is.

So that's a no show then.

You can tell me your so-called suit has any property you want, but I'm going to want proof from you that it has that property. I'm not just going to accept nonsense fairy stories on your say so.

You've been provided with all kinds if information about space suits showing their construction and testing in the same environment in which they would be used (ie a vacuum). Much more information can be found elsewhere with very little effort on your part. Nothing from you to demonstrate that they could not perform as described. How come I have to provide proof and you don't? How come you can demand answers but don't have to provide any?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on April 20, 2017, 02:17:13 PM
I am happy to point out that I have also been confused about how the different suits were constructed.

Yeah; I noticed.

Happily, none of your tl;dr shill-spoo matters, as NASA's own recordings prove they didn't even take any 'shpayze-syootzez' to teh munn anyway...

Which saves us a lot of mad bullshit circular fol-de-rol about an event that defies every single law of physics (whilst 'coincidentally' being obedient to every single law of military-industrial propaganda mind-rape).

I imagine you & your sock-army will now feel the need to leap around your shill-cage, flinging monkey-poo at me, for a tl;dr post or ten...

Please bear in mind I will ignore your psychotic nonsense & laugh at you for doing so.

Thank you please!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on April 20, 2017, 07:35:04 PM
Please bear in mind I will ignore your psychotic nonsense & laugh at you for doing so.
And what should we do with all psychotic nonsense that pours from the Haitian Voodoo Priest and his Mambo?
What's her name again? Something or other Rotunda I think, though she was the Jekyll to your Hyde!

Is this a good likeness?
(https://yeyeolade.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/voodoo-priest_309666s.jpg)

;D ;D Lost your sense of humour while on your long vacation?  ;D ;D

Though, if my memory serves me correctly, a sense of humour was the least of your failings.
By the way I found the ideal avatar for you
(https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/11719030_f260.jpg)
The Ritual Symbols of Voodoo
The veve . . . .  represents the Voodoo loa Papa Legba,
who is the gatekeeper to the spirit world
Have a nice day voodoo lua.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on April 20, 2017, 09:45:57 PM
STFU Geoff.

Look - no shpayze-syootzez:



Oops - major continuity error detected!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2017, 05:34:47 AM
STFU Geoff.

Look - no shpayze-syootzez:



Oops - major continuity error detected!
What are you getting at? 

Do you think that the astronauts wore their space suits all the way to and from lunar orbit? 

I don't think that anyone at NASA ever claimed that they did.

They wore their space suits during liftoff, while in the LEM for landing, EVA and takeoff, and maybe during reentry.  The vast majority of the trip was with their suits off.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on April 21, 2017, 08:56:45 AM
What are you getting at?

Well for a start I'm 'getting at' you not watching the video...

Nothing new there.

For a second, I'm 'getting at' you replying to a post I originally addressed to onebigmonkey...

Again; nothing new there, as you & he are clearly the same person.

Anyhoo; the shpayzemenn got INTO their shpayze-capsyool wearing their shpayze-syootzez...

THEN they all somehow got OUT of their shpayze-syootzez (a very difficult manouvre in such a cramped space btw) & got into some kind of silly jacket & trews ensemble, for no reason whatsoever...

The bulky shpayze-syootzez & helmetzez themselves then DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY for the rest of the voyage, as is evidenced by the video, where there is no sight of them whatsoever...

Look again - SHPAYZE-SYOOTZEZ? WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING SHPAYZE-SYOOTZEZ!!!



There's also a particularly lulzy & fake view of the Earth at 39 minutes, & the fact that the shpayze-menn are not actually doing anything meaningful throughout the entire video is also giggle-worthy...

It's a Surreal Comedy; but you just can't see it, can you?

Because you're paid not to...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2017, 10:06:21 AM
What are you getting at?

Well for a start I'm 'getting at' you not watching the video...
Am I supposed to apologize for not wanting to waste an hour and a half without knowing what I'm supposed to be looking for?

Anyhoo; the shpayzemenn got INTO their shpayze-capsyool wearing their shpayze-syootzez...

THEN they all somehow got OUT of their shpayze-syootzez (a very difficult manouvre in such a cramped space btw) & got into some kind of silly jacket & trews ensemble, for no reason whatsoever...
Maybe they got out of their space suits because they wouldn't need them for a few days.

The bulky shpayze-syootzez & helmetzez themselves then DISAPPEARED COMPLETELY for the rest of the voyage, as is evidenced by the video, where there is no sight of them whatsoever...
They put the suits away.  Just because you throw your clothes all over the place doesn't mean that the astronauts do.

Look again - SHPAYZE-SYOOTZEZ? WE DON'T NEED NO STEENKING SHPAYZE-SYOOTZEZ!!!
Why would they need the space suits for the long trip between the earth and moon?



There's also a particularly lulzy & fake view of the Earth at 39 minutes, & the fact that the shpayze-menn are not actually doing anything meaningful throughout the entire video is also giggle-worthy...
Just because you can't fathom the meaning of what they're doing doesn't mean that what they're doing has no meaning.

It's a Surreal Comedy; but you just can't see it, can you?
Then maybe you should lay of the ganja for a while.

Because you're paid not to...
Have you seen my paycheck?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 21, 2017, 10:10:10 AM
Yeah that's right, the entire Apollo programme busted because someone forgot to invent storage space.

Oh...wait...

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11stowage.pdf

Completely lulzy image of Earth broadcast live on TV to Earth at 20:30 on July 17th 1969 and showing exactly what can be seen on two different weather satellites before those satellites had the images:

(http://i.imgur.com/d2ZRAcf.jpg)

See also http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/36/5366.jpg
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on April 21, 2017, 10:28:13 AM
<tl;dr gish-gallop snipped>

Do you really think I'm gonna read your military-industrial mind-rape propaganda bullshit onebigmarkjo?

I'm not some noob you can bully & tell to 'eat shit' you know?

Wtf is wrong with you?

Oh look; here's your sock-puppet with some mind-rape follow-through:

Yeah that's right, the entire Apollo programme busted because someone forgot to invent storage space.

Again; wtf is wrong with you?

The shpayze-capsyool is TINY...

The shpayze-syootzez are HUGE...

There was no 'storage space'; just watch the video ffs.

And your two 'photos' of Earth covered in mad polka-dots & meaningless arrows bear zero similarity to one another...

ZERO.

Why do you do this onebigmarkjo?

There are legal reasons for my asking this, onebigmarkjo, so answer carefully...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 21, 2017, 12:53:04 PM

Oh look; here's your sock-puppet with some mind-rape follow-through:

Yeah that's right, the entire Apollo programme busted because someone forgot to invent storage space.

I'm no-ones sock, moron.

Quote
Again; wtf is wrong with you?
The shpayze-capsyool is TINY...

The shpayze-syootzez are HUGE...

So is the storage space.

Quote
There was no 'storage space'; just watch the video ffs.

Google CSM storage space.

Quote
And your two 'photos' of Earth covered in mad polka-dots & meaningless arrows bear zero similarity to one another...

ZERO.

Blind as well as stupid?

Quote

Why do you do this onebigmonkey?

There are legal reasons for my asking this, onebigmonkey, so answer carefully...

Because the truth really annoys the crap out of morons.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2017, 12:53:38 PM
<tl;dr gish-gallop snipped>

Do you really think I'm gonna read your military-industrial mind-rape propaganda bullshit onebigmarkjo?
Why not?  You expect us to read your's.

I'm not some noob you can bully & tell to 'eat shit' you know?
That doesn't stop you from bullying us and telling us to eat shit.

Wtf is wrong with you?
Me?  I'm not the one with obvious anger issues.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on April 21, 2017, 01:10:11 PM
<total lunacy snipped>

You have gone completely insane...

Nothing you write makes sense.

You claim to have a Bsc (Hons) & a PhD, yet you cannot even multiply by zero...

<deranged ranting snipped>

You seem to think that if you increase the intensity of your mad shilling via sock-puppet it will make it true...

You are wrong.

Of course, the fact that you have been thoroughly dox'd on another website has nothing to do with your increasingly crazed preachifying on this one, does it?

Eh?

However, it does have something to do with the fact that I am now peeping through your windows on google streetview...

Which is lol.

 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2017, 01:17:22 PM
<total lunacy snipped>

You have gone completely insane...
Quite possible, but completely irrelevant.

Nothing you write makes sense.
How would you know if you don't read any of it?

You claim to have a Bsc (Hons) & a PhD...
I don't know about anyone else, but I have never made either claim.

<deranged ranting snipped>

You seem to think that if you increase the intensity of your mad shilling via sock-puppet it will make it true...
And you seem to think that if you ignore everything that everyone else says, then that makes you right.

It doesn't.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on April 21, 2017, 01:23:49 PM
<snip>

Desperate aintcha?

Only autists would believe anything you say...

Normal people are looking at your ramshackle cottage on google streetview & coming to the conclusion that being a NASA shill is a minimum wage job.

Any chance of fucking off & leaving me alone now you psycho?

Or should I call the police & ask them to intervene?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2017, 01:31:27 PM
Any chance of fucking off & leaving me alone now you psycho?
Nah.  You're too much fun to mess with.

Or should I call the police & ask them to intervene?
Once they see your behavior, I doubt that you'd like how they intervene.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on April 21, 2017, 01:52:02 PM
<snip>

Are you an orphan?

You sound like one...

And we all know what the UK orphanage system was like in the 1960's...

Did you meet Jimmy Saville in person?

You seem like his kinda guy...

Did Jim 'fix it' for you?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 21, 2017, 02:54:13 PM
<snip>
Wake me up when you decide to get back on topic.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Papa Legba on April 21, 2017, 10:11:50 PM
Wake me up when you decide to get back on topic.

Nothing will ever wake you up, onebigmarkjo; you are human rohypnol...

A Rohypno-toad, perhaps?

Now; back to peeping through your windows on google streetview...

Might I ask the purpose of the cage in your backyard btw?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on April 22, 2017, 04:24:31 PM
Wake me up when you decide to get back on topic.

《《《《  deleted usual Voodoo implied threats  》》》》

Might I ask the purpose of the cage in your backyard btw?
;D ;D ;D ;D Irrelevant off-topic garbage, almost down to usual abysmal level ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: pesadilla143 on April 22, 2017, 09:37:27 PM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 27, 2017, 06:31:13 PM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.

1. Moon rock has nothing to do with "going to the moon is cheaper than faking it"
2. Moon rock cannot be confirmed as a moon rock without having another moon rock to analyse and compare
3. Obtaining moon rocks does NOT require a man to go and fetch it

So your logic is if I have a rock sample from inside a burning volcano then it means I went there in person and it's REAL.. period

This thread was concluded ages ago. The claim that it was cheaper to actually go than to fake it is grade A bullpoop.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 06:32:46 PM
Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.

Citation please. Which moonrock and which study?

Just curious.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 27, 2017, 09:27:42 PM
Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.

Citation please. Which moonrock and which study?

Just curious.

This has useful info:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
Quote
Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 45+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in "the Government" could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth.


Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 09:45:50 PM
Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.

Citation please. Which moonrock and which study?

Just curious.

This has useful info:

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
Quote
Any geoscientist (and there have been thousands from all over the world) who has studied lunar samples knows that anyone who thinks the Apollo lunar samples were created on Earth as part of government conspiracy doesn't know much about rocks. The Apollo samples are just too good. They tell a self-consistent story with a complexly interwoven plot that's better than any story any conspirator could have conceived. I've studied lunar rocks and soils for 45+ years and I couldn't make even a poor imitation of a lunar breccia, lunar soil, or a mare basalt in the lab. And with all due respect to my clever colleagues in government labs, no one in "the Government" could do it either, even now that we know what lunar rocks are like. Lunar samples show evidence of formation in an extremely dry environment with essentially no free oxygen and little gravity. Some have impact craters on the surface and many display evidence for a suite of unanticipated and complicated effects associated with large and small meteorite impacts. Lunar rocks and soil contain gases (hydrogen, helium, nitrogen, neon, argon, krypton, and xenon) derived from the solar wind with isotope ratios different than Earth forms of the same gases. They contain crystal damage from cosmic rays. Lunar igneous rocks have crystallization ages, determined by techniques involving radioisotopes, that are older than any known Earth rocks. (Anyone who figures out how to fake that is worthy of a Nobel Prize.) It was easier and cheaper to go to the Moon and bring back some rocks than it would have been to create all these fascinating features on Earth.

Thanks, much appreciated.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on April 28, 2017, 09:07:24 AM
"Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests"

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 28, 2017, 09:24:49 AM
"Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests"

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)

As could the amateur geologist who pointed it out the art museum where the art exhibit had been staged. No-one on the Giant Leap tour gave that rock out, no-one pretended it was a moon rock other than the two artists who put it on display. No moon rocks were given out at all during the Giant Leap tour by anyone to anyone.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 28, 2017, 09:25:13 AM
"Researchers Amsterdam's Free University were able to tell at a glance that the rock was unlikely to be from the moon, a conclusion that was borne out by tests"

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/6105902/Moon-rock-given-to-Holland-by-Neil-Armstrong-and-Buzz-Aldrin-is-fake.html)

*sigh*
Quote from: https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm
The real Dutch moon rocks are in a natural history museum. But the misidentification raised questions about how well countries have safeguarded their presents from Washington.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on April 28, 2017, 01:06:16 PM
This thread is kinda getting in a rut, but at least this is relevant to the original topic.

There's going to be a Lego® kit for a 1-meter tall model of the Saturn-V, along with LM, Apollo CM, and astronauts. 1969 pieces (get it?)

(http://static6.businessinsider.com/image/5902cbd32f6ae41a008b4ea8-2000/lego-apollo-saturn-v-moon-mission-set-box-front-white.jpg)

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-apollo-moon-rocket-legos-2017-4 (http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-apollo-moon-rocket-legos-2017-4)

For those who don't believe Legos® are real, here's your chance to see for yourselves!

Available June 1. Everything is awesome!!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 28, 2017, 01:30:07 PM
Meh.  Revell beat them to it a bunch of years ago, with lots more detail.  There are even conversion kits to update the model to the block 2 configurations that actually flew.
(http://ninfinger.org/models/boxtops/rev4805.jpg)

Estes even has a flying model.
(http://www.ninfinger.org/models/boxtops/est2001.jpg)

Not to mention all of the even bigger (and far more expensive) kits and scratch built versions.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on April 28, 2017, 01:34:05 PM
Lawl. Youre posting detailed miniatures of the rocket in question in a thread called "faking the moon landing impossible".

What did they use in Star Wars and Space Odyssey again?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on April 28, 2017, 02:18:44 PM
Hey.... we could ask Revell and Lego if they have some of the original blueprints that NASA lost lying around somewhere.
That silly cleaning lady that entered the ''forbidden room'' and cleaned all those tapes.  ;D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FEskeptic on April 28, 2017, 02:53:11 PM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

You know what wasnt available? The technology to slow done the tapes to make it look like they were in low gravity. This guy explains it extremely easy for you to follow

(http://)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on April 28, 2017, 03:01:36 PM

You know what wasnt available? The technology to slow done the tapes to make it look like they were in low gravity. This guy explains it extremely easy for you to follow

(http://)
Really ?, i prefer the counter arguement by a countrymile.
(http://)

Please watch and see how easily people get dooped by so called self proclaimed experts like Collins !
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: pesadilla143 on April 28, 2017, 03:26:57 PM
Despite all the talk about faking it, there are a few reasons why I know (yes, KNOW, not "believe", KNOW) that the moon landing was real.

First, the radio frequencies.  The radio/video frequencies of the moon capsule was being heard and viewed by labs and receivers in many countries - but not by conventional shortwave enthusiasts but only by those equipped with special ultra high frequency receivers.  Regular shortwave is reflected back by the ionosphere and bounces back to Earth so it can be heard in distant countries, but ultra high frequency cuts through the ionosphere so it can be used for outer space radio signals - however it won't bounce around on Earth, it is received straight from space or not at all.  That the various observatories and labs were able to pick up the transmissions from the moon capsule proves that it was in outer space.

Second, the retroflector.  This is a special, fragile, parabolic reflector which, when precisely set up on the moon, will reflect back a laser or maser (micro-wave) beam to the very spot from which it originated.  In other words, a lab pointing a laser beam at the retroflector on the moon would get its own laser signal back a few seconds later.  This had to be set up by human astronauts at the moon landing because it required very precise positioning that robots of 1969 simply couldn't be relied to do.  Observatories had been flashing laser beams at the landing site and started getting them reflected back the minute that the astronauts finished setting up the retroflector.  Subsequent moon landings set up other retroflectors and I think these are the only moon equipment still functioning after all these years.

Third, the demonstrations.  Yes, Hollywood can do a lot, but the astronauts made a point of doing stuff on the moon that even Hollywood could not convincingly fake (at least not back in the early 1970s).  Like hitting a golf ball a mile, or jumping twenty feet.

Stop it... You are making too much sense.  There is no room in this forum for common sense.

All these respected Astronomers and Astrophysicists don't know what they are talking about.... mmmeeehhh.
All these Astronomers and Astrophysicists whom have spent most of their lives carefully making all these calculations and labor intensive research... just wasted their lives.
NOW, these people on here who did a little google search - THEY know.  THEY are the ones to listen to.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on April 28, 2017, 03:31:07 PM
Hey.... we could ask Revell and Lego if they have some of the original blueprints that NASA lost lying around somewhere.
That silly cleaning lady that entered the ''forbidden room'' and cleaned all those tapes.  ;D
NASA has never had the blueprints.  They didn't make the vehicles.  they contracted out to other companies that DO have the blueprints.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FEskeptic on April 28, 2017, 08:02:05 PM

You know what wasnt available? The technology to slow done the tapes to make it look like they were in low gravity. This guy explains it extremely easy for you to follow

(http://)
Really ?, i prefer the counter arguement by a countrymile.
(http://)

Please watch and see how easily people get dooped by so called self proclaimed experts like Collins !

???? I'm am so confused by your post I don't even know where to begin. But I will try.

Ok so it seems you don't believe we went to the moon. You doubt the validity of the video I posted and doubt Collins has any credibility in his statements. Yet you post a video made by Collins, refuting someone trying to debunk his video. Doing it very well and providing evidence for his claims also, I might add.

 In posting this video you completely contradict your ideas and make absolutely no sense.

I can come to only a few conclusions as to why this happened. 1) It was an honest mistake and you meant to post Jarrahs video. Which means you didn't try very hard to make a counter point, and ironically you posted a video that completely dismantles your argument. Highly probable judging by your intelligence. 2) you have some kind of disablitly that prevents you from understanding information that is being presented to you and legitimately thought that video contradicted the one I posted. Again, this is a highly probable idea considering your other beliefs. 3) you are a troll. 4) you secretly believe in a round earth and that we went to the moon, but you don't want to openly admit that you've either been lying or trolling, so you leave clues in your posts. Highly unlikely but still a possibility.

Either way, you failed in your post. Yet you provided me with a video I haven't seen yet and that I can now use to refute anybodies claim to the contrary so thank you for that.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on April 29, 2017, 04:45:57 AM
[???? I'm am so confused by your post I don't even know where to begin. But I will try.

Ok so it seems you don't believe we went to the moon. You doubt the validity of the video I posted and doubt Collins has any credibility in his statements. Yet you post a video made by Collins, refuting someone trying to debunk his video. Doing it very well and providing evidence for his claims also, I might add.

 In posting this video you completely contradict your ideas and make absolutely no sense.
I deleted the rest of your comments because you don't want to go that road,....believe me .

In this video Collins says : My own work experiences have been misinterpreted in different ways by people with different persuasions
in the first video Collins claims : I have been shooting in the studio for 30 years now, I KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR
On youtube he is called FILMMAKER COLLINS,,,,so who believed the deliberate confusion and upgrade of Collins' skills ? Right Collins and his clouded credentials !!
In this video Collins says : i meant it lightening wise....and i am not special there are thousends of people like me......

If you watch the first video then it is obvious that this Collins has overplayed his hand in hindsight.
He is just a ''lightguy'' commenting on the apollo moon missions while he should stick to light only.
On the contrary he presents himelf as some real pro who has the ability to dismantle the moonhoax.......poor overestimated ''lightguy'' who had half of the internet falling over his arrogant display of ignorance.....he wants to get on with his normal life. Shouldn't have been a payed shill.
I am seldomly believing in payed shills, but this Collins was one.........a real payed shill all dressed up with a filmmakers hat.
And now he wants to continue with his life,.....he must regret the day that NASA was knocking on his door !!!

The whole video is contrary to the the first one ,a modest explaination about who Collins really was/is and it makes the initial video absolutely worthless, because it is about a lightguy in diguise  who started in the eighties, but pretends to know much more about filming of the past than his credentials in real life show for,

Get it now ??


Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FEskeptic on April 29, 2017, 07:34:51 AM
[???? I'm am so confused by your post I don't even know where to begin. But I will try.

Ok so it seems you don't believe we went to the moon. You doubt the validity of the video I posted and doubt Collins has any credibility in his statements. Yet you post a video made by Collins, refuting someone trying to debunk his video. Doing it very well and providing evidence for his claims also, I might add.

 In posting this video you completely contradict your ideas and make absolutely no sense.
I deleted the rest of your comments because you don't want to go that road,....believe me .

In this video Collins says : My own work experiences have been misinterpreted in different ways by people with different persuasions
in the first video Collins claims : I have been shooting in the studio for 30 years now, I KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR
On youtube he is called FILMMAKER COLLINS,,,,so who believed the deliberate confusion and upgrade of Collins' skills ? Right Collins and his clouded credentials !!
In this video Collins says : i meant it lightening wise....and i am not special there are thousends of people like me......

If you watch the first video then it is obvious that this Collins has overplayed his hand in hindsight.
He is just a ''lightguy'' commenting on the apollo moon missions while he should stick to light only.
On the contrary he presents himelf as some real pro who has the ability to dismantle the moonhoax.......poor overestimated ''lightguy'' who had half of the internet falling over his arrogant display of ignorance.....he wants to get on with his normal life. Shouldn't have been a payed shill.
I am seldomly believing in payed shills, but this Collins was one.........a real payed shill all dressed up with a filmmakers hat.
And now he wants to continue with his life,.....he must regret the day that NASA was knocking on his door !!!

The whole video is contrary to the the first one ,a modest explaination about who Collins really was/is and it makes the initial video absolutely worthless, because it is about a lightguy in diguise  who started in the eighties, but pretends to know much more about filming of the past than his credentials in real life show for,

Get it now ??

Yea, you aren't so good at this are you? He doesn't say he's "just a light guy". He clarified that he started out as "just a light guy". I never thought he was the "leading expert" in his field. It doesn't matter if he is. He researched his argument. He provided evidence for his argument. And in the second video he clarified things.

Is he not a filmmaker? Does he not make films? His YouTube is full of "films" he's made. He admits to making tons of commercials and documentaries.

Again. It doesn't matter if he invented film or if he was just some homeless guy on the street. His argument was well presented and his evidence cannot be refuted. As you can see, jarrah tried, and failed. You don't need to be an expert to make an educated and well researched argument. Though it does help if you are in the business and know what you are looking for in the first place.

Oh yup, now the paranoid side is coming out in you. Paid shill!? What makes you think that? Is it your paranoid delusional mind? I think it is!

The whole video is a refutation of jarrahs video, it contradicts absolutely non of his original video other than clarifying that he isn't special compared to other people who are in the same business. Again you don't need to be different than someone to put forth an educated argument. You just need to reasearch your topic well and provide sources for you're evidence. Which he does, very, very well.

Clearly you are confused but again I thank you for refuting your own argument. I know your brain prevents you from seeing it that way but clearly this isn't the only disablitly you have. I would expect nothing less from someone who cannot understand things that are being presented to him. Is ignorant of science, and believes 911 was an inside job done by holograms. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 29, 2017, 07:57:27 AM
Don't forget that Collins admitted that he might be wrong more than once.  But if he is wrong, then someone is going to have to provide some very specific evidence to prove it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 09:29:06 AM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

You know what wasnt available? The technology to slow done the tapes to make it look like they were in low gravity. This guy explains it extremely easy for you to follow

(http://)

And who said anything about LEO being faked? I sure didn't so how about valid arguments? Wait we already concluded there are none against these points. We tried for a few pages and the claim is just bogus, baseless, senseless
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 29, 2017, 10:24:46 AM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

You know what wasnt available? The technology to slow done the tapes to make it look like they were in low gravity. This guy explains it extremely easy for you to follow

(http://)

And who said anything about LEO being faked? I sure didn't so how about valid arguments? Wait we already concluded there are none against these points. We tried for a few pages and the claim is just bogus, baseless, senseless

Who said anything about LEO being faked? He sure didn't.

You might have decided you've provided enough evidence but sadly that claim is bogus, baseless and useless. Getting into LEO (which you seem to be suggesting is all you need) is fine, but it is physically impossible to film or photograph an entire Earth from there. Simply waving a "Hey they must have done it from LEO" flag around doesn't get you anywhere.

They also didn't have any technology to slow down live TV for long enough to cope with the length of Apollo broadcasts from either the moon or cislunar space, broadcasts that were all seen in the press room and that were not always received directly in the US but had to go through relay stations around the world depending on which part of it Apollo was looking at.

The existence of film crews and producers is also no proof of anything. If that's all you need I'm happy to announce that the missions happened based on the existence of astronauts and spaceships.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FEskeptic on April 29, 2017, 10:45:06 AM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

You know what wasnt available? The technology to slow done the tapes to make it look like they were in low gravity. This guy explains it extremely easy for you to follow

(http://)

And who said anything about LEO being faked? I sure didn't so how about valid arguments? Wait we already concluded there are none against these points. We tried for a few pages and the claim is just bogus, baseless, senseless

Well no where in my statements did I mention it so I don't know why you are acting like I did. If we can get to LEO why can't we get to the moon? Radiation? Been proven that it can be shielded/mitigated.

So in your eyes we have the ability to get to space since you are not refuting LEO. We made a giant fucking rocket with enough delta v to get to the moon. Yet we didn't use it. Why fake it at that point. What are they saving? They already built a giant fucking rocket that works so they aren't saving money on that. And it would definitely be cheaper to feed three astronauts for a few weeks than to feed and pay a whole film crew. So again no savings there. Maybe they filmed the fake moon landing on the moon!! 


(http://)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 10:57:05 AM
Excuse the CAPS to emphasize key POINTS

Who said anything about LEO being faked? He sure didn't.

You know what wasnt available? The technology to slow done the tapes to make it look like they were in low gravity.

And if he's referring to low gravity on the moon, you're actually suggesting they were able to stream live from 384,400 KM away but couldn't slow down (pre-recorded) video or use strings that were already used in hollywood decades before?

What kind of logic do you moon shills have?

And yes the entire Earth CAN be faked from LEO as the video showed whether it was simulation, practice or a dream caught on video somehow since they were capable of the impossible in 1969. Possibility is there. Video seen of them doing that already.

And how difficult is it really to understand that it was NOT live. The feed was broadcast as LIVE. And this was POSSIBLE. Whether they did that or not, it was POSSIBLE to broadcast anything and claim it's live.

You have understanding issues because you're so fixated on defending the sham that you can't read valid points without getting all defensive about things that aren't even mentioned.

Like this:
Quote
The existence of film crews and producers is also no proof of anything. If that's all you need I'm happy to announce that the missions happened based on the existence of astronauts and spaceships.

Film crews + producers = POSSIBILITY to stage as is evident from movies
Astronauts + spaceships = POSSIBLE to reach earth orbit as is evident in satellites and live video of earth (low)

By your logic, astronauts + spaceship = we went to mars and then continued to Pluto.. who cares about science, let's just 1+1=1969
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on April 29, 2017, 11:00:02 AM
Who said anything about LEO being faked? He sure didn't.

You know what wasnt available? The technology to slow done the tapes to make it look like they were in low gravity.

And if he's referring to low gravity on the moon, you're actually suggesting they were able to stream live from 384,400 KM away but couldn't slow down video or use strings that can use in hollywood decades before?

What kind of logic do you moon shills have?

And yes the entire CAN be faked from LEO as the video showed whether it was simulation, practice or a dream caught on video somehow since they were capable of the impossible in 1969.

And how difficult is it really to understand that it was NOT live. The feed was broadcast as LIVE. And this was POSSIBLE. Whether they did that or not, it was POSSIBLE to broadcast anything and claim it's live.

You have understanding issues because you're so fixated on defending the sham that you can't read valid arguments and points without getting all defensive about things that aren't even mentioned.

Like this:
Quote
The existence of film crews and producers is also no proof of anything. If that's all you need I'm happy to announce that the missions happened based on the existence of astronauts and spaceships.

Film crews + producers = POSSIBILITY to stage as is evident from movies
Astronauts + spaceships != POSSIBLE to reach earth orbit as is evident in satellites and live video of earth (low)

By your logic, astronauts + spaceship = we went to mars and then continued to Pluto.. who cares about science, let's just 1+1=1969
there was live interaction with mission control while they were on the moon.  That negates the arguments of slow motion and it not being live.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 11:17:03 AM
there was live interaction with mission control while they were on the moon.  That negates the arguments of slow motion and it not being live.
The live interaction (assuming you mean communication) of astronauts inside helmets where you can't see lip movement to confirm slow movement + live communication?

Or do you mean the live communication like they did from base to launchpad, base to in-flight ascend, base to LEO. The communication delay is not that major, it's POSSIBLE. Your point is only valid if it was impossible to record live communication on Earth but only possible on the moon.

So I don't really see what point you're trying to make
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 29, 2017, 11:20:14 AM
there was live interaction with mission control while they were on the moon.  That negates the arguments of slow motion and it not being live.
The live interaction (assuming you mean communication) of astronauts inside helmets where you can't see lip movement to confirm slow movement + live communication?

Or do you mean the live communication like they did from base to launchpad, base to in-flight ascend, base to LEO. The communication delay is not that major, it's POSSIBLE. Your point is only valid if it was impossible to record live communication on Earth but only possible on the moon.

So I don't really see what point you're trying to make
President Nixon made a phone call to the astronauts on the moon. 

If Nixon couldn't get away with Watergate, what makes you think that he could have gotten away with participating in a fake moon program?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 11:25:48 AM
there was live interaction with mission control while they were on the moon.  That negates the arguments of slow motion and it not being live.
The live interaction (assuming you mean communication) of astronauts inside helmets where you can't see lip movement to confirm slow movement + live communication?

Or do you mean the live communication like they did from base to launchpad, base to in-flight ascend, base to LEO. The communication delay is not that major, it's POSSIBLE. Your point is only valid if it was impossible to record live communication on Earth but only possible on the moon.

So I don't really see what point you're trying to make
President Nixon made a phone call to the astronauts on the moon. 

If Nixon couldn't get away with Watergate, what makes you think that he could have gotten away with participating in a fake moon program?

Once again, your point is valid if it wasn't POSSIBLE to make phonecalls on Earth or LEO and POSSIBLE to make phonecalls only to the moon. Why is it so difficult for moon landing cults to understand this?

As for "getting away with it" - do you really not know the power of governments and media?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on April 29, 2017, 11:44:19 AM
Moon landscape details have been viewed with the live TV camera that was not known before the landing.  The Lunar orbiter probes that were used to map the moon send out very good images, but not good enough to make out the details seen in moving picture film, live tv and stills taken on and above the moon.

Those details have only been verified later by modern satellites.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FEskeptic on April 29, 2017, 12:01:00 PM
Excuse the CAPS to emphasize key POINTS

Who said anything about LEO being faked? He sure didn't.

You know what wasnt available? The technology to slow done the tapes to make it look like they were in low gravity.

And if he's referring to low gravity on the moon, you're actually suggesting they were able to stream live from 384,400 KM away but couldn't slow down (pre-recorded) video or use strings that were already used in hollywood decades before?

What kind of logic do you moon shills have?

And yes the entire Earth CAN be faked from LEO as the video showed whether it was simulation, practice or a dream caught on video somehow since they were capable of the impossible in 1969. Possibility is there. Video seen of them doing that already.

And how difficult is it really to understand that it was NOT live. The feed was broadcast as LIVE. And this was POSSIBLE. Whether they did that or not, it was POSSIBLE to broadcast anything and claim it's live.

You have understanding issues because you're so fixated on defending the sham that you can't read valid points without getting all defensive about things that aren't even mentioned.

Like this:
Quote
The existence of film crews and producers is also no proof of anything. If that's all you need I'm happy to announce that the missions happened based on the existence of astronauts and spaceships.

Film crews + producers = POSSIBILITY to stage as is evident from movies
Astronauts + spaceships = POSSIBLE to reach earth orbit as is evident in satellites and live video of earth (low)

By your logic, astronauts + spaceship = we went to mars and then continued to Pluto.. who cares about science, let's just 1+1=1969

Well I sure wasn't talking about "low gravity" in LEO since if you are in LEO you are in ZERO G.

He explains pretty well why you cannot "slow down" film. Key word being FILM, and why you would need an as of yet non invented 6,000 ft roll of film just to do it. Even then it only works for apollo 11. Not every mission after that which were played back at a higher frame rate. Why would it be hard to transmit data that far? All you have to do is send a signal back towards earth. The technology already existed. You can tell it is live because there are 0 artifacts that would show up if it was film. I.e. Emulsion flakes and dust. String! Are you fucking kidding me? This has been disproven so many times it's not funny. I think the myth busters did it best and found that there were discrepancies in the look of the film due to filming in earths gravity. Yet when they simulated micro gravity with a plane, every matched up. Hmm I wonder why? Now you may say, well then they filmed the moon landings on a plane simulating micro gravity. Yea sure. They had planes big enough to hold an entire movie set. Oh and somehow they made the plane simulate micro gravity for a full 3 hours. Longer than any plane can or ever has simulated micro gravity.

What video shows they faked the earth from LEO. You can't even take a picture of the entire earth from LEO.

Uhh what proof do you have of film crews and producers being involved? None? That's what I thought.

I'm not fixated on defending a sham. I'm fixated on defending something that is demonstrably provable, has a mountain of fucking evidence for, and requires a complete ignorance of scientific ideas to dismiss.

And yes the entire Earth CAN be faked from LEO as the video showed whether it was simulation, practice or a DREAM caught on video somehow since they were capable of the impossible in 1969.

Hahaha dream. You are delusional. Your ignorance is astounding. You are worse than most on this site. Most seem to have some sort of disability or mental issues. Your only mental issues are your complete ignorance and lack of mental capacity.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FEskeptic on April 29, 2017, 12:07:00 PM
there was live interaction with mission control while they were on the moon.  That negates the arguments of slow motion and it not being live.
The live interaction (assuming you mean communication) of astronauts inside helmets where you can't see lip movement to confirm slow movement + live communication?

Or do you mean the live communication like they did from base to launchpad, base to in-flight ascend, base to LEO. The communication delay is not that major, it's POSSIBLE. Your point is only valid if it was impossible to record live communication on Earth but only possible on the moon.

So I don't really see what point you're trying to make
President Nixon made a phone call to the astronauts on the moon. 

If Nixon couldn't get away with Watergate, what makes you think that he could have gotten away with participating in a fake moon program?

Once again, your point is valid if it wasn't POSSIBLE to make phonecalls on Earth or LEO and POSSIBLE to make phonecalls only to the moon. Why is it so difficult for moon landing cults to understand this?

As for "getting away with it" - do you really not know the power of governments and media?

I know all to well that anytime a cover up is attempted, the public finds out. Our media isn't state run. It isn't controlled by the government. The current administration should be proof of that. Don't you think all we would hear is how awesome Trump is if the media were controlled by the government. In fact, if anything history has proven the government/governments are fucking horrible at keeping secrets.

So how do you fake the moons gravity, in LEO. In LEO you are essentially weightless. Meaning gravity is not effecting you. So again, how do you fake micro gravity in a zero G environment?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 29, 2017, 12:17:57 PM
Once again, your point is valid if it wasn't POSSIBLE to make phonecalls on Earth or LEO and POSSIBLE to make phonecalls only to the moon. Why is it so difficult for moon landing cults to understand this?
Probably because it doesn't make any sense.  Maybe you could try that again, but this time in a language other than gibberish.

Besides, my point was simply to illustrate that there was live interaction between the POTUS on earth and the astronauts on the moon and how that doesn't really work very well with the slo-mo prerecorded film assertion.

As for "getting away with it" - do you really not know the power of governments and media?
I think that conspiracy theorists give governments far too much credit.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 12:45:21 PM
Moon landscape details have been viewed with the live TV camera that was not known before the landing.  The Lunar orbiter probes that were used to map the moon send out very good images, but not good enough to make out the details seen in moving picture film, live tv and stills taken on and above the moon.

Those details have only been verified later by modern satellites.

Finally a good point. I saw the comparison video before when my doubts first started. I checked both sides of the story and I was full of joy inside when I saw that video showing both landscapes side by side. Then someone raised a question in the comments which made me check other things and it shattered beyond repair coz the evidence is piled up against the landing.

I will try to find it and your argument above is valid, I was too had this argument but other things over powered it. I'll have to get back to you coz I can't seem to find what it was.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 12:57:32 PM

He explains pretty well why you cannot "slow down" film. Key word being FILM, and why you would need an as of yet non invented 6,000 ft roll of film just to do it.

Quote
What video shows they faked the earth from LEO. You can't even take a picture of the entire earth from LEO.

Uhh what proof do you have of film crews and producers being involved? None? That's what I thought.

Slow motion dates back to 1890's
Even if the 6000 ft roll statement is accurate why was that impossible in a studio in 1969?

Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 01:08:43 PM
Quote
I know all to well that anytime a cover up is attempted, the public finds out.
And we're not public?

Quote
Our media isn't state run. It isn't controlled by the government.
It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything

Quote
So how do you fake the moons gravity, in LEO. In LEO you are essentially weightless. Meaning gravity is not effecting you. So again, how do you fake micro gravity in a zero G environment?
Get facts right.. just basic simple things:
LEO - NOT FAKE confirmed
Moon gravity - Can be faked as there has never been anything to compare it to. POSSIBILITY

Stop mixing things as it doesn't make you seem very smart
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 01:14:30 PM
Once again, your point is valid if it wasn't POSSIBLE to make phonecalls on Earth or LEO and POSSIBLE to make phonecalls only to the moon. Why is it so difficult for moon landing cults to understand this?
Probably because it doesn't make any sense.  Maybe you could try that again, but this time in a language other than gibberish.
Ok let me translate that into English
"Once again, your point is valid if it wasn't POSSIBLE to make phonecalls on Earth or LEO and POSSIBLE to make phonecalls only to the moon. Why is it so difficult for moon landing cults to understand this?"

Quote
Besides, my point was simply to illustrate that there was live interaction between the POTUS on earth and the astronauts on the moon and how that doesn't really work very well with the slo-mo prerecorded film assertion.
1. Who said it worked well?
2. Read my points again, the one in English and the translation of it into English.

Quote
As for "getting away with it" - do you really not know the power of governments and media?
I think that conspiracy theorists give governments far too much credit.
Credit where it's due. 47 years and counting
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on April 29, 2017, 02:18:08 PM
Yea, you aren't so good at this are you? He doesn't say he's "just a light guy". He clarified that he started out as "just a light guy". I never thought he was the "leading expert" in his field. It doesn't matter if he is. He researched his argument. He provided evidence for his argument. And in the second video he clarified things.
so we have an average guy doing some insignifricant things in the film industry, no one in particular, who all of a sudden decides it is his duty to get into the moonlandings in detail from a professional point of view.
The window dressing, the calm voice, the neutral stand about trusting covernments,.......o boy this guy has never participated in the debate, commented on the Apollo and all of a sudden he makes a debunking pretentious debunking video.
And now we have not heard from him to participate in the ongoing debate.
A suspicious ephemera that wants to get on with his live........wtf ? is the debate not important enough to continue ?
I believe he did not expect so much negativity....a true debater accepts and wants to continue, but he wants to get on with his normal life making insignificant.....uh ''films'' ?
Quote
Is he not a filmmaker? Does he not make films? His YouTube is full of "films" he's made. He admits to making tons of commercials and documentaries.
He presents himself as someone with high credentials that knows the ins and outs of the film industry for more than 30 years about film, filmmaking, lightening and equipment that is used today and in the late sixties and seventies...
Only to realise that he should have mentioned in the first vid that he was nobody in particular in the filmindustry and your average lightguy reflects his abilities nicely.
To hear him say that in the second video is in hindsight. Should have set his own film achievements strait from the beginning.
Quote
Again. It doesn't matter if he invented film or if he was just some homeless guy on the street. His argument was well presented and his evidence cannot be refuted. As you can see, jarrah tried, and failed. You don't need to be an expert to make an educated and well researched argument. Though it does help if you are in the business and know what you are looking for in the first place.
Fail ! His initial vid sounds scripted ! A bit historical backgound, a bit of info on film, all easy going and smooth........but clearly someone who wants to continue with his life after dropping a bomb, but not really interrested in an ongoing debate about Apollo.
Collins said :
'when you listen to them they do not seem to know very much about photography or video, or lightening, or even perspective and i think'they hope you don't either''
Wow, David Percy and the ''aulis'' site, proof this is utter bogus and Collins hopes you don't realise there are many persons doubting the Apollo footage with more credentials than him.
But instead of going to the next level, poor Collins wants to go back to his normal life.
Quote
Oh yup, now the paranoid side is coming out in you. Paid shill!? What makes you think that? Is it your paranoid delusional mind? I think it is!
One video, pretending to know it all, smooth scripted layout, window dressing as a genuine filmmaker, but wants to continue with his life the moment he stumbles upon some critics.
Quote
The whole video is a refutation of jarrahs video, it contradicts absolutely non of his original video other than clarifying that he isn't special compared to other people who are in the same business. Again you don't need to be different than someone to put forth an educated argument. You just need to reasearch your topic well and provide sources for you're evidence. Which he does, very, very well.
He debunks himself,.......that is way better than presenting Jarrah's video, because then you would have said that Jarrah is insane.
Now i post his own video, which clearly reveals what a louzy authority he is on the whole subject.
But i guess this is way over your head.......
Quote
Clearly you are confused but again I thank you for refuting your own argument. I know your brain prevents you from seeing it that way but clearly this isn't the only disablitly you have. I would expect nothing less from someone who cannot understand things that are being presented to him. Is ignorant of science, and believes 911 was an inside job done by holograms.
Holograms ?, but i thought that those technigues weren't available in 2001  ;D ;D

I don't know about 9/11, what i do know is that Secretary Norman Mineta gave a vailable testimony that was skipped from the records, because his remarks would clearly indicate goverment involvement one way or the other
And the collapse of building 7 was a 100% demolotion according to the top authority in the field from my country the Netherlands who was shown the footage without knowing it was on 9/11 !

Be my guest if you want to discuss more, but i advise you to be more critical...and i am willing to support you with that !

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on April 29, 2017, 02:19:22 PM
there was live interaction with mission control while they were on the moon.  That negates the arguments of slow motion and it not being live.
The live interaction (assuming you mean communication) of astronauts inside helmets where you can't see lip movement to confirm slow movement + live communication?

Or do you mean the live communication like they did from base to launchpad, base to in-flight ascend, base to LEO. The communication delay is not that major, it's POSSIBLE. Your point is only valid if it was impossible to record live communication on Earth but only possible on the moon.

So I don't really see what point you're trying to make
No, I mean interaction, like they were given instructions like "go over there", "look at that rock", etc. and responded.  So since they interacted in real time, they couldn't have been in slow motion.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on April 29, 2017, 02:22:55 PM


Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.
I know which one the hoaxies CLAIM is faking the distance from low Earth orbit but they are wrong.  Sibrel cut out part of the footage that proved him wrong.


Also explained here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
and here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on April 29, 2017, 03:28:58 PM


Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.
I know which one the hoaxies CLAIM is faking the distance from low Earth orbit but they are wrong.  Sibrel cut out part of the footage that proved him wrong.


Also explained here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
and here
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html
Granted that is a good video !!

Problem is that both Sibrel and Jarrah white oppose a flat earth.
Most flatearthers started with debunking the Apollo missions, but believed the Gemini achievements.
Recently there is a shift towards ''all space achievements are fake'' based on the observations that we only ''see'' a rocket going ''up'' and mostly with a typicall shallow arc, destined for....... ??

Since this is a flatearth forum, i doubt if to many flatearthers still support the work of Sibrel and J. White, because especcially the latter is promoting space X achievements most flatearthers consider fraudulent.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on April 29, 2017, 03:37:04 PM
Quote
Our media isn't state run. It isn't controlled by the government.
It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything
Oh, how President Trump wishes that were true in the US.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FEskeptic on April 29, 2017, 09:06:56 PM

He explains pretty well why you cannot "slow down" film. Key word being FILM, and why you would need an as of yet non invented 6,000 ft roll of film just to do it.

Quote
What video shows they faked the earth from LEO. You can't even take a picture of the entire earth from LEO.

Uhh what proof do you have of film crews and producers being involved? None? That's what I thought.

Slow motion dates back to 1890's
Even if the 6000 ft roll statement is accurate why was that impossible in a studio in 1969?

Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.

I don't know much about film technologies, however all the evidence points to the fact that before the 1980s slowmotion tech was limited to a few seconds, not a full 3 hours. Collins explains why this is not possible with the tech in the 1960s. Apparently you ignored it.

Why was it impossible? Because 6,000 ft rolls of film didn't exist.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 09:21:47 PM
There is a lot of video evidence supporting moon missions.





Just in case anyone else is getting confused as to what video evidence actually is.
::) ::) ::)

Not saying that I think it would be totally impossible to fake, just really, really hard and unlikely.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FEskeptic on April 29, 2017, 10:15:26 PM
Quote
I know all to well that anytime a cover up is attempted, the public finds out.
And we're not public?

Quote
Our media isn't state run. It isn't controlled by the government.
It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything

Quote
So how do you fake the moons gravity, in LEO. In LEO you are essentially weightless. Meaning gravity is not effecting you. So again, how do you fake micro gravity in a zero G environment?
Get facts right.. just basic simple things:
LEO - NOT FAKE confirmed
Moon gravity - Can be faked as there has never been anything to compare it to. POSSIBILITY

Stop mixing things as it doesn't make you seem very smart

Yes we are public. Hence my point that, most likely, we would know about  a cover up.

Are you seriously mentally handicapped? You literarily just said; "It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything".

Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement? " it's not state run, but it's state run". That is what you literally just said. I'm sorry but I have no time for fucking idiots. That's twice you've tried to prove a point and have completely contradicted your own beliefs. Why anyone would continue to give you the time of day anymore is beyond me. So I am done arguing with someone that has the intelligence of a glorified ape. You bring nothing to the discussion and your intelligence makes everyone who reads your statements just that much more stupid. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 10:29:00 PM
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on April 29, 2017, 11:18:08 PM

He explains pretty well why you cannot "slow down" film. Key word being FILM, and why you would need an as of yet non invented 6,000 ft roll of film just to do it.

Quote
What video shows they faked the earth from LEO. You can't even take a picture of the entire earth from LEO.

Uhh what proof do you have of film crews and producers being involved? None? That's what I thought.

Slow motion dates back to 1890's
Even if the 6000 ft roll statement is accurate why was that impossible in a studio in 1969?

Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.

Leaving aside the fact that believing that the lunar surface videos are in slow motion is falling for a commonly held misconception (nothing is in slow motion), slow motion of live TV was not possible for hours at a time on live TV, and that's what was being shown - not a filmed recording. We know it was live TV because those TV images showed views of Earth that could not have been done in advance.

To respond to your reply to Denspressure about images of the surface I have done a considerable amount of work matching views taken by modern lunar probes with those taken by Apollo astronaut (including views broadcast on live TV and printed on the next day's newspapers). The  details shown in those Apollo images show not just the hardware and the trails they made on the ground but rocks and craters, and these are not visible in the Lunar Orbiter images taken prior to the missions. This is particularly true of the later missions where they relied more on orbital images taken by Apollo astronauts themselves for details of the ground.

I've also done a lot on recreating views of the ground using digital elevation models created by a number of probes (including non-US ones) and seeing how they compare with images taken by Apollo, and again they are an exact match.

I'll repeat myself: You can't reproduce lunar gravity on live TV. You can't film an entire Earth from LEO. You can't produce images of Earth on live TV that are an exact match for what weather satellites show when the weather satellites haven't taken the photos yet.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on April 30, 2017, 03:18:39 AM
Hey onebigmonkey, something just occurred to me: On some Apollo missions, match results of football matches are told to the astronauts. I don't think while any TV camera's were on, but its still interesting.

Also 2001 A Space Odyssey took 2 years to make, for about 2.5 hours of footage. Calculate the numbers and you have major problems with when filming had to be started (Multiple Apollo missions had to run on the same year to make all the footage for their live release date) and things they knew about those release date, which they could not have known unless they time-traveled to the future.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on April 30, 2017, 07:35:16 AM
We know it was live TV because those TV images showed views of Earth that could not have been done in advance.

Really? Thats how we "know"? How do you know the images shown of Earth were not faked and have been ever since?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 30, 2017, 12:51:29 PM
Quote
I know all to well that anytime a cover up is attempted, the public finds out.
And we're not public?

Quote
Our media isn't state run. It isn't controlled by the government.
It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything

Quote
So how do you fake the moons gravity, in LEO. In LEO you are essentially weightless. Meaning gravity is not effecting you. So again, how do you fake micro gravity in a zero G environment?
Get facts right.. just basic simple things:
LEO - NOT FAKE confirmed
Moon gravity - Can be faked as there has never been anything to compare it to. POSSIBILITY

Stop mixing things as it doesn't make you seem very smart

Yes we are public. Hence my point that, most likely, we would know about  a cover up.

Are you seriously mentally handicapped? You literarily just said; "It's not state run but if you believe government and news and media in general is not controlled by the government (most governments if not all) then you are seriously below par to be discussing anything".

Do you not see the contradiction in your own statement? " it's not state run, but it's state run". That is what you literally just said. I'm sorry but I have no time for fucking idiots. That's twice you've tried to prove a point and have completely contradicted your own beliefs. Why anyone would continue to give you the time of day anymore is beyond me. So I am done arguing with someone that has the intelligence of a glorified ape. You bring nothing to the discussion and your intelligence makes everyone who reads your statements just that much more stupid.

Running something is not the same as having control over it. You don't need to run it to have influence over it. So asking if I'm mentally handicapped by someone who doesn't know the difference in the two is like a person with no legs criticizing my footballing skills.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 30, 2017, 12:54:35 PM

He explains pretty well why you cannot "slow down" film. Key word being FILM, and why you would need an as of yet non invented 6,000 ft roll of film just to do it.

Quote
What video shows they faked the earth from LEO. You can't even take a picture of the entire earth from LEO.

Uhh what proof do you have of film crews and producers being involved? None? That's what I thought.

Slow motion dates back to 1890's
Even if the 6000 ft roll statement is accurate why was that impossible in a studio in 1969?

Videos.. if you don't know which video faking distance in low earth orbit then you're not worth the time.

I don't know much about film technologies, however all the evidence points to the fact that before the 1980s slowmotion tech was limited to a few seconds, not a full 3 hours. Collins explains why this is not possible with the tech in the 1960s. Apparently you ignored it.

Why was it impossible? Because 6,000 ft rolls of film didn't exist.
Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 30, 2017, 12:56:06 PM
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.
Thanks.. his words make zero difference to me. It's their defense mechanism many times when they have no valid arguments or points.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on April 30, 2017, 12:59:43 PM
I'll repeat myself: You can't reproduce lunar gravity on live TV. You can't film an entire Earth from LEO. You can't produce images of Earth on live TV that are an exact match for what weather satellites show when the weather satellites haven't taken the photos yet.

I do get quite surprised at the lack of understanding moon landing believers possess.

So I repeat:
1. It was possible to pre-record
2. It was possible to air it "AS" live (by putting it together in such a sequence, they were not stupid by any means, very very capable)
3. Slow motion being live was NEVER a claim so why does this keep coming up? It shows how limited and fixated moon landing believers are on one concept and idea. Almost like being brainwashed no?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on April 30, 2017, 12:59:49 PM
We know it was live TV because those TV images showed views of Earth that could not have been done in advance.

Really? Thats how we "know"? How do you know the images shown of Earth were not faked and have been ever since?

To flip the coin, how do you know that all you have been fed in relation to the flat earth is no more solid that a John Davis bum burp?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on April 30, 2017, 08:26:46 PM
Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

You can't do video editing beforehand if it's a live broadcast. That's what LIVE means.

If by "prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" you mean "planning", then, yeah.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 08:37:12 PM
Obviously he is claiming he thinks the moon landings were pre-recorded. Not broadcast live.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on April 30, 2017, 09:21:16 PM
Obviously he is claiming he thinks the moon landings were pre-recorded. Not broadcast live.

Possibly. But it's not what he said.

What is actually typed is known (especially if QFT so editing after the fact can be detected). Otherwise, it becomes:

"I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
 ― Alan Greenspan
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 09:29:06 PM
"I know you think you understand what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant"
 ― Alan Greenspan

Alright paid, people have been saying that to me a lot recently, it's pretty annoying.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on April 30, 2017, 09:30:49 PM
I dont think we went to the moon.

I do indeed think it was pre recorded nonsense.

Overlaying a little logo that say "live" proves nothing. Never has, never will.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 01, 2017, 12:22:12 AM
We know it was live TV because those TV images showed views of Earth that could not have been done in advance.

Really? Thats how we "know"? How do you know the images shown of Earth were not faked and have been ever since?

Yet again: Because what can be seen on the live TV broadcasts of Earth is Earth exactly as it should be in terms of the land masses that should be visible at the time of the broadcast and the configuration of the terminator in relation to that, and because the weather patterns visible on that Earth are an exact, and I mean exact - not just 'vaguely similar', match for the weather patterns visible in images taken by weather satellites, often containing well document hurricanes and tropical storms. Those weather satellite images were public, freely available (I have a volume of them published at the time) and could in fact have been intercepted by anyone with the right equipment just as they are now.

You can't fake the weather if you don't know what the weather is yet, and as it takes 12 hours to image the side of the Earth visible from the moon with a satellite in LEO, then you have to put it together, then you have to get the colours and the the perspective correct, then you have to make sure that those clouds actually move and change over time when you take other photos or broadcast it again on live TV. Then you have to make sure that the subsolar point is in the correct place. That's why they are impossible to fake.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: FEskeptic on May 01, 2017, 02:22:02 AM
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.

Not to worried what it says about me. Idiot and mentally handicapped are very appropriate descriptions of someone who can't tell when they are contradicting themselves and try to make points that make absolutely 0 sense.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:32:28 AM
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.

Not to worried what it says about me.

I'll keep that in mind.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 01, 2017, 04:45:36 AM
Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

You can't do video editing beforehand if it's a live broadcast. That's what LIVE means.

If by "prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" you mean "planning", then, yeah.

Really? It's amazing how such simple concepts are beyond you...

Here, this is live
Right? Because it says live on youtube as well as on the video itself

I can tell you the score will be 1-3, place some bets on it. It's live right?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 01, 2017, 04:54:40 AM
There's no need to call him an idiot or mentally handicapped.

It says more about you than him imo.

Not to worried what it says about me. Idiot and mentally handicapped are very appropriate descriptions of someone who can't tell when they are contradicting themselves and try to make points that make absolutely 0 sense.
1. it's "too"
2. That's not what "idiot" means
3. That's not what "mentally handicapped" means either
4. "sense" is not measured in quantity. It either makes sense or doesn't. So are you making 1 sense, 2 or 3?
5. Anyone can claim anything as you are poorly attempting. Show me a contradiction and maybe I can clarify it. But I don't think you're capable of discussion or even capable of basic construction of sentences.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: pesadilla143 on May 01, 2017, 06:01:35 AM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.

1. Moon rock has nothing to do with "going to the moon is cheaper than faking it"
2. Moon rock cannot be confirmed as a moon rock without having another moon rock to analyse and compare
3. Obtaining moon rocks does NOT require a man to go and fetch it

So your logic is if I have a rock sample from inside a burning volcano then it means I went there in person and it's REAL.. period

This thread was concluded ages ago. The claim that it was cheaper to actually go than to fake it is grade A bullpoop.

Apples to Oranges.  Having a rock sample from inside a burning volcano could mean you got it from somebody else; however, the rock does prove that SOMEBODY got that rock from the volcano.  If you are implying that the moon rock somehow traveled to earth by itself and somebody picked it up... traveled a quarter of a million miles by itself... I think even for a flat earther - that is far fetched.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on May 01, 2017, 06:13:01 AM
If you are implying that the moon rock somehow traveled to earth by itself and somebody picked it up... traveled a quarter of a million miles by itself... I think even for a flat earther - that is far fetched.
Not really.  It fairly well known that larger asteroid impacts on the moon (and even Mars) can cause lunar (or martian) ejecta to reach the earth in the form of meteors.  Of course, it's generally pretty easy to tell the difference between such meteors and samples that didn't have to survive atmospheric entry.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 01, 2017, 02:28:55 PM
Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

You can't do video editing beforehand if it's a live broadcast. That's what LIVE means.

If by "prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" you mean "planning", then, yeah.

Really? It's amazing how such simple concepts are beyond you...

Here, this is live
Right? Because it says live on youtube as well as on the video itself

That's a recording of a live broadcast. It was live when it was broadcast live, but is no longer live. I think you already knew that, but are just being silly for some reason.

Quote
I can tell you the score will be 1-3, place some bets on it. It's live right?

Actually, I would if I could get someone to take the bet against that result! :D

Did you know at the end of the first half that the final score would be 1 - 3 when the game was being broadcast live?

If yes, did you fix the match? If you're well-connected enough to do that, I'm impressed you spend time here and we should be honored! Do you have any tips on games that haven't been played yet?

Seriously, for some reason you seem to be arguing that actual live broadcasts aren't truly live broadcasts if it's possible to record them for later playback (including the 'LIVE' icon that is sometimes shown). Get a grip.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on May 01, 2017, 07:42:25 PM
(http://www.thatericalper.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/6a00d83451cb2869e2013482b75183970c.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 01, 2017, 10:51:22 PM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.

1. Moon rock has nothing to do with "going to the moon is cheaper than faking it"
2. Moon rock cannot be confirmed as a moon rock without having another moon rock to analyse and compare
3. Obtaining moon rocks does NOT require a man to go and fetch it

So your logic is if I have a rock sample from inside a burning volcano then it means I went there in person and it's REAL.. period

This thread was concluded ages ago. The claim that it was cheaper to actually go than to fake it is grade A bullpoop.

Apples to Oranges.  Having a rock sample from inside a burning volcano could mean you got it from somebody else; however, the rock does prove that SOMEBODY got that rock from the volcano.  If you are implying that the moon rock somehow traveled to earth by itself and somebody picked it up... traveled a quarter of a million miles by itself... I think even for a flat earther - that is far fetched.
That's EXACTLY my point.

A burning volcano has lava reaching up to 1,200 °C and NO HUMAN can extract anything from it. But it doesn't mean it's not possible. Moon rock CAN be fetched with equipment, it's POSSIBLE without human. You guys are on the borderline of absolute stupidity not being able to understand such a simple thing.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 01, 2017, 10:54:11 PM
Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

You can't do video editing beforehand if it's a live broadcast. That's what LIVE means.

If by "prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" you mean "planning", then, yeah.

Really? It's amazing how such simple concepts are beyond you...

Here, this is live
Right? Because it says live on youtube as well as on the video itself

That's a recording of a live broadcast. It was live when it was broadcast live, but is no longer live. I think you already knew that, but are just being silly for some reason.

Quote
I can tell you the score will be 1-3, place some bets on it. It's live right?

Actually, I would if I could get someone to take the bet against that result! :D

Did you know at the end of the first half that the final score would be 1 - 3 when the game was being broadcast live?

If yes, did you fix the match? If you're well-connected enough to do that, I'm impressed you spend time here and we should be honored! Do you have any tips on games that haven't been played yet?

Seriously, for some reason you seem to be arguing that actual live broadcasts aren't truly live broadcasts if it's possible to record them for later playback (including the 'LIVE' icon that is sometimes shown). Get a grip.
Once again, this is exactly the point.
It's not a recording for playback, the stream on YouTube was LIVE when I posted it. In fact, I just played it and it's still live. You can't forward it as it's a LIVE stream. But the contents are NOT live.

This has ALWAYS been possible with live broadcasts. That's the point. POSSIBLE

Please don't be so daft any longer it's tiring
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: inquisitive on May 02, 2017, 12:08:02 AM
No proof a moon landing was impossible here.

A 'live stream' means watch as it happens, not a recording.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 02, 2017, 12:34:13 AM
No proof a moon landing was impossible here.

A 'live stream' means watch as it happens, not a recording.
Since you don't know what live stream actually means I'll ask a basic questions.

All relevant keywords are capitalised to make it easier to understand the question.

Was it POSSIBLE (whether they did or not) to transmit a broadcast live of something pre-recorded? Was this IMPOSSIBLE to do or was it POSSIBLE?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on May 02, 2017, 12:38:21 AM
No proof a moon landing was impossible here.

A 'live stream' means watch as it happens, not a recording.
Since you don't know what live stream actually means I'll ask a basic questions.

All relevant keywords are capitalised to make it easier to understand the question.

Was it POSSIBLE (whether they did or not) to transmit a broadcast live of something pre-recorded? Was this IMPOSSIBLE to do or was it POSSIBLE?
Yes it's possible. It's possible to record any event, staged or not and play it at a later date to an audience as if it was live, as long as the audience have no prior knowledge PHYSICALLY that this is not the case.

I just thought I'd answer.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: inquisitive on May 02, 2017, 12:44:39 AM
No proof a moon landing was impossible here.

A 'live stream' means watch as it happens, not a recording.
Since you don't know what live stream actually means I'll ask a basic questions.

All relevant keywords are capitalised to make it easier to understand the question.

Was it POSSIBLE (whether they did or not) to transmit a broadcast live of something pre-recorded? Was this IMPOSSIBLE to do or was it POSSIBLE?
What does that mean?

It does not matter that the moon landing could have been recorded in a studio, the question is was it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 12:56:38 AM
Of course it was possible to fake the moon landing.

I don't think we did fake the landing (possibly some scenes filmed on earth) I think we probably did land on the moon but I can't honestly say it would have been impossible to fake.

I don't think anyone could say honestly that it would have been impossible to fake.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 02, 2017, 01:01:03 AM
No proof a moon landing was impossible here.

A 'live stream' means watch as it happens, not a recording.
Since you don't know what live stream actually means I'll ask a basic questions.

All relevant keywords are capitalised to make it easier to understand the question.

Was it POSSIBLE (whether they did or not) to transmit a broadcast live of something pre-recorded? Was this IMPOSSIBLE to do or was it POSSIBLE?
Yes it's possible. It's possible to record any event, staged or not and play it at a later date to an audience as if it was live, as long as the audience have no prior knowledge PHYSICALLY that this is not the case.

I just thought I'd answer.
Thank you

No proof a moon landing was impossible here.

A 'live stream' means watch as it happens, not a recording.
Since you don't know what live stream actually means I'll ask a basic questions.

All relevant keywords are capitalised to make it easier to understand the question.

Was it POSSIBLE (whether they did or not) to transmit a broadcast live of something pre-recorded? Was this IMPOSSIBLE to do or was it POSSIBLE?
What does that mean?
See youtube video I posted earlier. And if you can't understand this basic broadcasting method then it's pointless.

Quote
It does not matter that the moon landing could have been recorded in a studio, the question is was it.
That's not the question at all. Read the first post in the thread to understand the discussion.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: inquisitive on May 02, 2017, 01:04:46 AM
If it keeps you happy then, yes, it would have been possible to prerecord the whole moon launch and landing.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: JerkFace on May 02, 2017, 01:20:47 AM
No proof a moon landing was impossible here.

A 'live stream' means watch as it happens, not a recording.
Since you don't know what live stream actually means I'll ask a basic questions.

All relevant keywords are capitalised to make it easier to understand the question.

Was it POSSIBLE (whether they did or not) to transmit a broadcast live of something pre-recorded? Was this IMPOSSIBLE to do or was it POSSIBLE?

It was impossible to fake the fact that the signals came from the moon.  The Australian Radio Telescope at Parkes was the downlink station for the first moonwalk transmission. 

That's impossible to fake.  Sorry,  but your theory is busted.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 01:56:23 AM
The theory that "it was possible to fake the moonlanding" hasn't been debunked you dolt.

It's just really hard and really unlikely to be faked imo.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: JerkFace on May 02, 2017, 02:28:55 AM
The theory that "it was possible to fake the moonlanding" hasn't been debunked you dolt.

It's just really hard and really unlikely to be faked imo.

So to fake the transmissions that physically came from the moon they set up a studio on the moon to transmit the fake broadcast?

Sounds legit,
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 02:32:09 AM
The theory that "it was possible to fake the moonlanding" hasn't been debunked you dolt.

It's just really hard and really unlikely to be faked imo.

So to fake the transmissions that physically came from the moon they set up a studio on the moon to transmit the fake broadcast?

Sounds legit,

How can you prove the signals physically came from the moon?

You have been here for too long to try this with flat earthers.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: JerkFace on May 02, 2017, 03:54:31 AM
The theory that "it was possible to fake the moonlanding" hasn't been debunked you dolt.

It's just really hard and really unlikely to be faked imo.

So to fake the transmissions that physically came from the moon they set up a studio on the moon to transmit the fake broadcast?

Sounds legit,

How can you prove the signals physically came from the moon?

You have been here for too long to try this with flat earthers.

Thats the direction they had to point the dish to pick up and track the signals.   Also a few well equipped radio amateurs were able to listen in to the audio and telemetry channels.

Jodrell bank in the UK, also recorded the doppler shift on the lunar module transmissions during landing. 

All these things are actually impossible to fake.   

You have to be on the moon to send a transmission from the moon. 

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 06:30:31 AM
Is this your first time in FE general?

That can all be discounted as part of the conspiracy.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 02, 2017, 06:45:05 AM
If it keeps you happy then, yes, it would have been possible to prerecord the whole moon launch and landing.

That's the only point being made about the live broadcast. That "it was possible".

So from my initial list, each point is confirmed that it COULD be faked hence, the claim "Going to the moon was easier than faking it" is one of the dumbest thing ever said in this regard.

Unfortunately pure dunces are adamant in trying to prove why it was real when that's not the subject here at all.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: pesadilla143 on May 02, 2017, 06:54:47 AM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.

1. Moon rock has nothing to do with "going to the moon is cheaper than faking it"
2. Moon rock cannot be confirmed as a moon rock without having another moon rock to analyse and compare
3. Obtaining moon rocks does NOT require a man to go and fetch it

So your logic is if I have a rock sample from inside a burning volcano then it means I went there in person and it's REAL.. period

This thread was concluded ages ago. The claim that it was cheaper to actually go than to fake it is grade A bullpoop.

Apples to Oranges.  Having a rock sample from inside a burning volcano could mean you got it from somebody else; however, the rock does prove that SOMEBODY got that rock from the volcano.  If you are implying that the moon rock somehow traveled to earth by itself and somebody picked it up... traveled a quarter of a million miles by itself... I think even for a flat earther - that is far fetched.
That's EXACTLY my point.

A burning volcano has lava reaching up to 1,200 °C and NO HUMAN can extract anything from it. But it doesn't mean it's not possible. Moon rock CAN be fetched with equipment, it's POSSIBLE without human. You guys are on the borderline of absolute stupidity not being able to understand such a simple thing.

You know what... you are absolutely right.  The earth is flat.  You and a handful of brilliant people have finally figured it out.  This is huge.  I think you should go on national television and pronounce your findings.  Get your faces out there so people know who you are.  You deserve this credit.  You deserve all the attention this will bring you.  Good job.  You have blown the conspiracy.  All I can think is WOW!  I can't believe this whole "round earth" nonsense went on for so long.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2017, 07:05:36 AM
A burning volcano has lava reaching up to 1,200 °C and NO HUMAN can extract anything from it.
Incorrect.
(http://volcano.si.edu/Photos/full/024089.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 07:19:17 AM
(https://s12.postimg.org/9awys4o9p/Straw_Man2.jpg)

Is that so?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on May 02, 2017, 07:52:56 AM

You know what... you are absolutely right.  The earth is flat. All I can think is WOW!  I can't believe this whole "round earth" nonsense went on for so long.

My thoughts exactly.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 02, 2017, 07:59:17 AM
Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

You can't do video editing beforehand if it's a live broadcast. That's what LIVE means.

If by "prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" you mean "planning", then, yeah.

Really? It's amazing how such simple concepts are beyond you...

Here, this is live <youtube link>
Right? Because it says live on youtube as well as on the video itself

That's a recording of a live broadcast. It was live when it was broadcast live, but is no longer live. I think you already knew that, but are just being silly for some reason.

Quote
I can tell you the score will be 1-3, place some bets on it. It's live right?

Actually, I would if I could get someone to take the bet against that result! :D

Did you know at the end of the first half that the final score would be 1 - 3 when the game was being broadcast live?

If yes, did you fix the match? If you're well-connected enough to do that, I'm impressed you spend time here and we should be honored! Do you have any tips on games that haven't been played yet?

Seriously, for some reason you seem to be arguing that actual live broadcasts aren't truly live broadcasts if it's possible to record them for later playback (including the 'LIVE' icon that is sometimes shown). Get a grip.
Once again, this is exactly the point.
It's not a recording for playback, the stream on YouTube was LIVE when I posted it.

The link you posted a couple of days ago? No. The game was played last summer. You're seeing a recording of the game played back from one of youtube's servers.

Unless the players are back on the field, commentators in the booth, and the fans in the stands recreating the game in exact detail every time you watch it, it's not live. Sorry.

Quote
In fact, I just played it and it's still live. You can't forward it as it's a LIVE stream.

Are you confusing streaming video with live streaming? Live streaming is a particular kind of streaming.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
Live streaming refers to Internet content delivered in real-time, as events happen, much as live television broadcasts its contents over the airwaves via a television signal.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
Streaming media is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a provider. The verb "to stream" refers to the process of delivering or obtaining media in this manner; the term refers to the delivery method of the medium, rather than the medium itself, and is an alternative to file downloading, a process in which the end-user obtains the entire file for the content before watching or listening to it.

Quote
But the contents are NOT live.

Then it's not a live broadcast (or a live stream). I'm glad that's settled. Was it really that difficult to understand?

Quote
This has ALWAYS been possible with live broadcasts. That's the point. POSSIBLE

Not true. In the early days of television, it wasn't even possible to record video except on film. It wasn't until the late '50s that a practical video tape recorder was developed. For the first decade or so, TV broadcasts were either from movie film converted to video, or live - that is, with signals from a camera effectively connected directly to the transmitter (although the signal bound for the transmitter could be split and recorded to film at the same time, if desired). Note that the conversion from film to video produces recognizable artifacts, so passing off movie film as "live television" to a reasonably astute audience wouldn't work.

I don't know how old you are, but it might come as a surprise to you that youtube didn't exist at the time of the Apollo moon landings. There wasn't even an internet then, streams were flowing liquid, and servers were people working in restaurants or playing volleyball, tennis, and the like.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 02, 2017, 08:42:46 AM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

Forgot one small detail - THE MOON ROCKS - Can't be faked!  There is no process on earth (then or now) that can produce an authentic moon rock.  The moon rock from the Apollo missions are REAL.  Period.

1. Moon rock has nothing to do with "going to the moon is cheaper than faking it"
2. Moon rock cannot be confirmed as a moon rock without having another moon rock to analyse and compare
3. Obtaining moon rocks does NOT require a man to go and fetch it

So your logic is if I have a rock sample from inside a burning volcano then it means I went there in person and it's REAL.. period

This thread was concluded ages ago. The claim that it was cheaper to actually go than to fake it is grade A bullpoop.

Apples to Oranges.  Having a rock sample from inside a burning volcano could mean you got it from somebody else; however, the rock does prove that SOMEBODY got that rock from the volcano.  If you are implying that the moon rock somehow traveled to earth by itself and somebody picked it up... traveled a quarter of a million miles by itself... I think even for a flat earther - that is far fetched.
That's EXACTLY my point.

A burning volcano has lava reaching up to 1,200 °C and NO HUMAN can extract anything from it. But it doesn't mean it's not possible. Moon rock CAN be fetched with equipment, it's POSSIBLE without human. You guys are on the borderline of absolute stupidity not being able to understand such a simple thing.

You know what... you are absolutely right.  The earth is flat.  You and a handful of brilliant people have finally figured it out.  This is huge.  I think you should go on national television and pronounce your findings.  Get your faces out there so people know who you are.  You deserve this credit.  You deserve all the attention this will bring you.  Good job.  You have blown the conspiracy.  All I can think is WOW!  I can't believe this whole "round earth" nonsense went on for so long.

Clearly the argument's gone straight up your arse.

PS. Never once did I say the Earth is flat. You moon landing blind brainwashed sheep have no responses to valid arguments so you do things like type in gigantic font as if it'll make what you say more valid or change subject and try to ridicule when clearly it displays your ignorance more than anything else. And the weird part is, you're actually saying the truth (except for the flat earth bit) disguising it as sarcasm.. lol pathetic
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 02, 2017, 08:48:09 AM
A burning volcano has lava reaching up to 1,200 °C and NO HUMAN can extract anything from it.
Incorrect.
(http://volcano.si.edu/Photos/full/024089.jpg)
My example wasn't great but that's a dormant volcano
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 02, 2017, 09:12:24 AM
You've really cornered yourself now

The link you posted a couple of days ago? No. The game was played last summer. You're seeing a recording of the game played back from one of youtube's servers.
I will now post your sentence with reference to the moonlanding
"No. The moon landing was before July 1969. You're seeing a recording of the staged moon landing played back from NASA."

Quote
Unless the players are back on the field, commentators in the booth, and the fans in the stands recreating the game in exact detail every time you watch it, it's not live. Sorry.
You're not very smart are you? The video is a live stream, it's displayed as it's received from the person broadcasting it. The contents is the football match that was played before (i.e. not live)

Quote
Quote
In fact, I just played it and it's still live. You can't forward it as it's a LIVE stream.

Are you confusing streaming video with live streaming? Live streaming is a particular kind of streaming.
Nope, i never once said "streaming video" - I said "live stream" - 1 broadcast to the server that pushes it out to viewers. Still confused?
In TV terms, 1 broadcast (staged moon landing) to the TV station that pushed it out to viewers.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
Live streaming refers to Internet content delivered in real-time, as events happen, much as live television broadcasts its contents over the airwaves via a television signal.

And your point is?

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
Streaming media is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a provider. The verb "to stream" refers to the process of delivering or obtaining media in this manner; the term refers to the delivery method of the medium, rather than the medium itself, and is an alternative to file downloading, a process in which the end-user obtains the entire file for the content before watching or listening to it.

Again, your point is? It's ok to try and feel clever.

Quote
Quote
But the contents are NOT live.

Then it's not a live broadcast (or a live stream). I'm glad that's settled. Was it really that difficult to understand?
Yes, it's still a live broadcast whether the contents are live or not. The broadcast is live, the contents are not live. Radio is live but the songs are not being performed that very second.

Quote
Quote
This has ALWAYS been possible with live broadcasts. That's the point. POSSIBLE

Not true. In the early days of television, it wasn't even possible to record video except on film. It wasn't until the late '50s that a practical video tape recorder was developed. For the first decade or so, TV broadcasts were either from movie film converted to video, or live - that is, with signals from a camera effectively connected directly to the transmitter (although the signal bound for the transmitter could be split and recorded to film at the same time, if desired). Note that the conversion from film to video produces recognizable artifacts, so passing off movie film as "live television" to a reasonably astute audience wouldn't work.

I don't know how old you are, but it might come as a surprise to you that youtube didn't exist at the time of the Apollo moon landings. There wasn't even an internet then, streams were flowing liquid, and servers were people working in restaurants or playing volleyball, tennis, and the like.

Youtube didn't exist in 1969? Oh no!!!!

Anyway, the more you try to be clever the harder you'll fall. The moon landing was not broadcast directly from the moon. It was not a live feed. You'll find that information from NASA. So you're wrong in pretty much every possible way in trying to be clever. Good effort though. The fact that the TV broadcast was provided by NASA (from Earth) - ANYTHING CAN be provided. That's all.

And for the millionth time, WHETHER they did or didn't isn't the argument, the point is simply that they COULD, POSSIBLE... Unless you can prove it's impossible, stick to the topic
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 02, 2017, 09:20:01 AM
The default argument seems to be that the overwhelming proof of the moonlandings is a testimony in itself and the chances of fakery are extremely limited.
In the various discussions about the moonlandings, globers claim that NASA and sub contractors still have most of the data to re-built the Apollo machinery and the knowledge about how to do it again is recorded, preserved and known by every scientist in the field.

If that is the case then going back to the moon shouldn't be a problem.
Both Bush and Obama hinted about going back and the Chinese are getting close with far superiour computing power, equall financial resources and a whole lot of data that was tested, preserved and understood by the whole scientific world.

So what is the problem here ?
Why can't we go back ?.....the Chinese like to go there with a manned mission and so does NASA (step before going to mars according to a NASA spokesman before congress),
What is a realistic timeframe in which ''we moonhoaxer's'' will have a point in denying the initial moonlandings ?
IOW do our critics have more value in 2030 when no other nation has returned to the moon with a manned mission ?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2017, 09:22:06 AM
A burning volcano has lava reaching up to 1,200 °C and NO HUMAN can extract anything from it.
Incorrect.
(http://volcano.si.edu/Photos/full/024089.jpg)
My example wasn't great but that's a dormant volcano
LOL!!  Dormant volcanoes don't have lava streams coming out of them.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on May 02, 2017, 09:24:58 AM
A burning volcano has lava reaching up to 1,200 °C and NO HUMAN can extract anything from it.
Incorrect.
(http://volcano.si.edu/Photos/full/024089.jpg)
My example wasn't great but that's a dormant volcano
LOL!!  Dormant volcanoes don't have lava streams coming out of them.
Don't you mean extinct volcanoes?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2017, 09:32:59 AM
A burning volcano has lava reaching up to 1,200 °C and NO HUMAN can extract anything from it.
Incorrect.
(http://volcano.si.edu/Photos/full/024089.jpg)
My example wasn't great but that's a dormant volcano
LOL!!  Dormant volcanoes don't have lava streams coming out of them.
Don't you mean extinct volcanoes?
Neither dormant nor extinct volcanoes have lava streams coming out of them (the main difference being how long they've been inactive).  Even active volcanoes don't necessarily have lava streams coming out of them.  However, erupting volcanoes (like the one in the picture) sure do.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 02, 2017, 09:38:11 AM
The default argument seems to be that the overwhelming proof of the moonlandings is a testimony in itself and the chances of fakery are extremely limited.
In the various discussions about the moonlandings, globers claim that NASA and sub contractors still have most of the data to re-built the Apollo machinery and the knowledge about how to do it again is recorded, preserved and known by every scientist in the field.

If that is the case then going back to the moon shouldn't be a problem.
Both Bush and Obama hinted about going back and the Chinese are getting close with far superiour computing power, equall financial resources and a whole lot of data that was tested, preserved and understood by the whole scientific world.

So what is the problem here ?
Why can't we go back ?.....the Chinese like to go there with a manned mission and so does NASA (step before going to mars according to a NASA spokesman before congress),
What is a realistic timeframe in which ''we moonhoaxer's'' will have a point in denying the initial moonlandings ?
IOW do our critics have more value in 2030 when no other nation has returned to the moon with a manned mission ?

The problem is money and politics. China currently has the money and political will. Private sector speculators have the money and don't have to worry about politics. There is no arbitrary default time limit after which you can declare it didn't happen. This isn't some sort of perishable food.

All you can do is look at the evidence that supports the missions as historical fact and weigh it against the claims that they didn't happen. In all my years of examining this, from whichever angle I look, the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of history. Claims that it didn't happen are either ill-informed or ill-intentioned and never stand up to scrutiny.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: gomwelder on May 02, 2017, 10:10:02 AM
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on May 02, 2017, 10:22:38 AM
The problem is money and politics.

What an opinionated response.

From a scientific standpoint it is becoming aparant that man has never set foot on the moon.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: inquisitive on May 02, 2017, 10:31:08 AM
You've really cornered yourself now

The link you posted a couple of days ago? No. The game was played last summer. You're seeing a recording of the game played back from one of youtube's servers.
I will now post your sentence with reference to the moonlanding
"No. The moon landing was before July 1969. You're seeing a recording of the staged moon landing played back from NASA."

Quote
Unless the players are back on the field, commentators in the booth, and the fans in the stands recreating the game in exact detail every time you watch it, it's not live. Sorry.
You're not very smart are you? The video is a live stream, it's displayed as it's received from the person broadcasting it. The contents is the football match that was played before (i.e. not live)

Quote
Quote
In fact, I just played it and it's still live. You can't forward it as it's a LIVE stream.

Are you confusing streaming video with live streaming? Live streaming is a particular kind of streaming.
Nope, i never once said "streaming video" - I said "live stream" - 1 broadcast to the server that pushes it out to viewers. Still confused?
In TV terms, 1 broadcast (staged moon landing) to the TV station that pushed it out to viewers.

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
Live streaming refers to Internet content delivered in real-time, as events happen, much as live television broadcasts its contents over the airwaves via a television signal.

And your point is?

Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
Streaming media is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a provider. The verb "to stream" refers to the process of delivering or obtaining media in this manner; the term refers to the delivery method of the medium, rather than the medium itself, and is an alternative to file downloading, a process in which the end-user obtains the entire file for the content before watching or listening to it.

Again, your point is? It's ok to try and feel clever.

Quote
Quote
But the contents are NOT live.

Then it's not a live broadcast (or a live stream). I'm glad that's settled. Was it really that difficult to understand?
Yes, it's still a live broadcast whether the contents are live or not. The broadcast is live, the contents are not live. Radio is live but the songs are not being performed that very second.

Quote
Quote
This has ALWAYS been possible with live broadcasts. That's the point. POSSIBLE

Not true. In the early days of television, it wasn't even possible to record video except on film. It wasn't until the late '50s that a practical video tape recorder was developed. For the first decade or so, TV broadcasts were either from movie film converted to video, or live - that is, with signals from a camera effectively connected directly to the transmitter (although the signal bound for the transmitter could be split and recorded to film at the same time, if desired). Note that the conversion from film to video produces recognizable artifacts, so passing off movie film as "live television" to a reasonably astute audience wouldn't work.

I don't know how old you are, but it might come as a surprise to you that youtube didn't exist at the time of the Apollo moon landings. There wasn't even an internet then, streams were flowing liquid, and servers were people working in restaurants or playing volleyball, tennis, and the like.

Youtube didn't exist in 1969? Oh no!!!!

Anyway, the more you try to be clever the harder you'll fall. The moon landing was not broadcast directly from the moon. It was not a live feed. You'll find that information from NASA. So you're wrong in pretty much every possible way in trying to be clever. Good effort though. The fact that the TV broadcast was provided by NASA (from Earth) - ANYTHING CAN be provided. That's all.

And for the millionth time, WHETHER they did or didn't isn't the argument, the point is simply that they COULD, POSSIBLE... Unless you can prove it's impossible, stick to the topic
The definition of a live broadcast is that what is shown is happening at the same time, ie. not recorded.  Yes, we know there are processing and transmission delays.  Seeing a replay/recording of a football match is not a live broadcast.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: frenat on May 02, 2017, 10:37:18 AM
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...
The camera was attached to the MESA arm that was lowered via lanyard before he started down the ladder.  And if you think the footage was perfect then I suggest you've never actually watched it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 02, 2017, 10:38:47 AM
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...
HAHAHA funny indeed.

1969 the great era of spacetechnologies....

When men were brave enough to put their personal life at risk
When The Van Allen Belts hardly influenced the analogue equipment of those days
When an amature astronomer had substancial meaning
When Russians admitted their losses
When resources welled from a dwelling fountain of dollars
When in the mids of a cruel war the greatest achievement of mankind took place
When a landline phone could easily contact the moon
When untested equipment/fuel worked flawlessly
When a rendezvous in space was a simple cosmic date
When moondust was invited into the LEM
When solar flares were applauding cosmic fireworks
When micro meteorites had no real business
When the whole world witinessed a huge step for mankind
When Nixon wasn't a crook
When astronauts didn't like the spotlights

I'm day dreaming about what was......... ::) ::) ::) ::)


Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2017, 10:45:34 AM
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...

*sigh*
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 02, 2017, 11:20:58 AM
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...

*sigh*

You have me convinced, those old farts surely knew their enhanced stuff...... ;D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 02, 2017, 12:59:08 PM
The definition of a live broadcast is that what is shown is happening at the same time, ie. not recorded.  Yes, we know there are processing and transmission delays.  Seeing a replay/recording of a football match is not a live broadcast.
That's not the definition of live broadcast. Live broadcast is when the signal being received is directly from the source. The TV you watch is also live. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo)

It doesn't mean it's actually happening there and then. Where did you get that definition from? NASA?

(https://www.vpnranks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Launch-BBC-Iplayer.png)
See the 3 methods displayed in the BBC illegal TV license notice

LIVE, Catch-up and on-demand
Live refers to watching it as it's broadcast. Not that it has to be happening at the very moment

I mean it's so simple, type "what is live tv?" and the very first definition explains.

Quote
Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it's being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. ... An online TV service is any streaming or smart TV service, website or app that lets you watch live TV over the internet.
Who said it has to be happening at that very moment?

Yes, live also refers to when it's happening at that moment indicated with a LIVE icon/text notice in the corner. But that's not the soul definition of live otherwise there'd be no need to indicate it with LIVE.

When will you give up and realise how wrong you are and get back to topic which moon shills seem to be great at diverting like the above posts. Read the posts and understand the point being raised and then maybe a discussion with some benefit might come from it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 02, 2017, 01:07:43 PM
The problem is money and politics.

What an opinionated response.

As opposed to that opinionated response. Go back through the history books, see how when the political decisions were made to change the direction of space exploration and what that meant for NASA's budget.

Quote

From a scientific standpoint it is becoming aparant that man has never set foot on the moon.

The scientific standpoint completely vindicates every single fact about the Apollo landings. The idiot ignoramus standpoint is to ignore all that evidence and wallow in stupidity.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 02, 2017, 01:13:45 PM
The definition of a live broadcast is that what is shown is happening at the same time, ie. not recorded.  Yes, we know there are processing and transmission delays.  Seeing a replay/recording of a football match is not a live broadcast.
That's not the definition of live broadcast. Live broadcast is when the signal being received is directly from the source. The TV you watch is also live. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo)

It doesn't mean it's actually happening there and then. Where did you get that definition from? NASA?

(https://www.vpnranks.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Launch-BBC-Iplayer.png)
See the 3 methods displayed in the BBC illegal TV license notice

LIVE, Catch-up and on-demand
Live refers to watching it as it's broadcast. Not that it has to be happening at the very moment

I mean it's so simple, type "what is live tv?" and the very first definition explains.

Quote
Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it's being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. ... An online TV service is any streaming or smart TV service, website or app that lets you watch live TV over the internet.
Who said it has to be happening at that very moment?

Yes, live also refers to when it's happening at that moment indicated with a LIVE icon/text notice in the corner. But that's not the soul definition of live otherwise there'd be no need to indicate it with LIVE.

When will you give up and realise how wrong you are and get back to topic which moon shills seem to be great at diverting like the above posts. Read the posts and understand the point being raised and then maybe a discussion with some benefit might come from it.

When the people pointing a satellite receiver at the moon, not just in the US but in receiving stations worldwide, receive a TV signal from the place those dishes are pointed, and those TV signals contain details that can only be coming from a live, not recorded, TV broadcast because it contains images of Earth that are exactly matched by weather satellite data, then you can be pretty certain it's live. Decades later when you look at what the TV signals show of the lunar surface and they reveal details that were not known about at the time but have been shown by modern probes from many countries, then you can be certain they were actually on the moon.

When not one single person can be found anywhere who will admit to having been in a film studio recording the lunar footage, or building the set, or operating the wires and pulleys, or wiring in the lighting and power, or transporting in the lunar surface simulant, or who destroyed it afterwards, then you can be pretty certain that claims it was all done in a TV studio on Earth in advance are made up desperate armwaving sacks full of bullshit.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 02, 2017, 01:44:31 PM
The link you posted a couple of days ago? No. The game was played last summer. You're seeing a recording of the game played back from one of youtube's servers.
I will now post your sentence with reference to the moonlanding
"No. The moon landing was before July 1969. You're seeing a recording of the staged moon landing played back from NASA."

Nice strawman!

Here's the context you conveniently omitted.
It's not a recording for playback, the stream on YouTube was LIVE when I posted it.

The link you posted a couple of days ago? No. The game was played last summer. You're seeing a recording of the game played back from one of youtube's servers.


Here is the correction:

You: "It's not a recording for playback, the stream on YouTube was LIVE when I posted it."

Me: "No. The moon landing was in July 1969. You're seeing a recording of the live broadcast of the event as it was happening back then."

Quote
Quote
Unless the players are back on the field, commentators in the booth, and the fans in the stands recreating the game in exact detail every time you watch it, it's not live. Sorry.
You're not very smart are you? The video is a live stream, it's displayed as it's received from the person broadcasting it. The contents is the football match that was played before (i.e. not live)

Quote
Quote
In fact, I just played it and it's still live. You can't forward it as it's a LIVE stream.

Are you confusing streaming video with live streaming? Live streaming is a particular kind of streaming.
Nope, i never once said "streaming video" - I said "live stream"

I know. You use "live stream" when you meant "stream" or "streaming video". That's wrong.

Quote
- 1 broadcast to the server that pushes it out to viewers. Still confused?

Thoroughly. I don't understand how you could consider recorded content from last year to be "live" when you view it today. I have to admit - I'm mystified how someone could be confused about something as simple as this.

 - 1 stream of live content to a server that immediately pushes it out to viewers.

That's a live stream.

 - 1 (or more) stream(s) of previously uploaded content on the server that it pushes out to viewers.

That's a stream. See the difference yet?

Quote
In TV terms, 1 broadcast (staged moon landing) to the TV station that pushed it out to viewers.

"Broadcast" isn't exactly correct here since distribution of most such content to TV stations was point-to-point (which isn't "broadcast"), but close enough for this.

More accurately:
 - 1 broadcast of analog moon landing video, taking place at the time, to a TV station that pushed it out to viewers as it arrived.

That's a live broadcast.

Replay of recording of the above live broadcast pushed by a TV station out to viewers later.

Not a live broadcast of the event.

Got it?

Quote
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
Live streaming refers to Internet content delivered in real-time, as events happen, much as live television broadcasts its contents over the airwaves via a television signal.

And your point is?

You're confused about what a live stream is.

Live streaming is content that is streamed as it's happening. Did you miss "as it's happening" in the quote? Is that really hard to understand?

Quote
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streaming_media
Streaming media is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a provider. The verb "to stream" refers to the process of delivering or obtaining media in this manner; the term refers to the delivery method of the medium, rather than the medium itself, and is an alternative to file downloading, a process in which the end-user obtains the entire file for the content before watching or listening to it.

Again, your point is?

Streaming is delivering content for immediate consumption as it's being transferred (viewing, in the case of video). Streaming makes no distinction whether the content is being transferred at the same time as it's being created (i.e. live), or from archive. If the content is live at the time it's also being streamed, that's a live stream.

Quote
It's ok to try and feel clever.

There's no use for me to be clever when you can't grasp the basics.

Quote
Quote
Quote
But the contents are NOT live.

Then it's not a live broadcast (or a live stream). I'm glad that's settled. Was it really that difficult to understand?

Yes, it's still a live broadcast whether the contents are live or not.

This is not correct.

Quote
The broadcast is live, the contents are not live.

It's not a live broadcast unless it has live content. Otherwise the term 'live broadcast' has no meaning. Shouldn't that be self-evident? This is getting tedious.

Quote
Radio is live but the songs are not being performed that very second.

Radio is live when someone is, for instance, speaking (or singing, etc.) into a microphone and the audio is going to the transmitter as it's generated. When a DJ is playing a record and that signal is going to the transmitter, that material is pre-recorded. When the DJ is talking over the music, the patter is live, but the music still isn't. You're going way into the weeds here.

You can have a live broadcast that contains some pre-recorded material, sure. If the broadcast is entirely pre-recorded, how could you justify calling it 'live'?

Quote
Quote
Quote
This has ALWAYS been possible with live broadcasts. That's the point. POSSIBLE

Not true. In the early days of television, it wasn't even possible to record video except on film. It wasn't until the late '50s that a practical video tape recorder was developed. For the first decade or so, TV broadcasts were either from movie film converted to video, or live - that is, with signals from a camera effectively connected directly to the transmitter (although the signal bound for the transmitter could be split and recorded to film at the same time, if desired). Note that the conversion from film to video produces recognizable artifacts, so passing off movie film as "live television" to a reasonably astute audience wouldn't work.

I don't know how old you are, but it might come as a surprise to you that youtube didn't exist at the time of the Apollo moon landings. There wasn't even an internet then, streams were flowing liquid, and servers were people working in restaurants or playing volleyball, tennis, and the like.

Youtube didn't exist in 1969? Oh no!!!!

Sorry! Since your argument seems to hinge on streamed content, I thought you should know.

Any more questions about the answer to your "ALWAYS POSSIBLE" claim?

Quote
Anyway, the more you try to be clever the harder you'll fall.

I try to keep it as simple as possible but sometimes it's not possible to make things simple enough for some people to understand. If this is still too complicated for you, I'm sure you'll let me know.

Quote
The moon landing was not broadcast directly from the moon. It was not a live feed. You'll find that information from NASA.

Are you referring to the scan conversion step? That doesn't matter. This was all happening in real time: camera on moon, signal transmitted to earth and received in Australia and converted from slow-scan to NTSC, NTSC signal is relayed to TV networks who distribute it for broadcast to homes. There are a lot of steps, but all this was happening as the signals were being generated. IOW, live.

Quote
So you're wrong in pretty much every possible way in trying to be clever. Good effort though. The fact that the TV broadcast was provided by NASA (from Earth) - ANYTHING CAN be provided.

There is no evidence that all the necessary equipment to fake the moon landings existed in 1969, only speculation based on misconceptions by you and others that it might have been possible.

Quote
That's all.

That's not much.

Quote
And for the millionth time, WHETHER they did or didn't isn't the argument

OK. Good. They didn't. No argument.

Quote
the point is simply that they COULD, POSSIBLE... Unless you can prove it's impossible, stick to the topic

"Prove"?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Your assertion is that there's a conspiracy capable of faking anything it wants to fake, so anything can be faked. First, this conspiracy needs to exist. You need to show some evidence. Next, you need to show that they had all the equipment needed to accomplish what you claim they did. Otherwise your argument falls apart there.

Quote
You've really cornered yourself now

Lol!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 02, 2017, 06:02:11 PM
The definition of a live broadcast is that what is shown is happening at the same time, ie. not recorded.  Yes, we know there are processing and transmission delays.  Seeing a replay/recording of a football match is not a live broadcast.
That's not the definition of live broadcast.

That certainly is a definition of live broadcast.

Quote
Live broadcast is when the signal being received is directly from the source. The TV you watch is also live. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo)

It doesn't mean it's actually happening there and then.

It doesn't? Then why do real-time broadcasts of an event, like a football match, while it's happening, often sport a 'LIVE' icon in the corner of the screen, but not when they're broadcasting things like movies?

Quote
Where did you get that definition from? NASA?

I can't speak for inquisitive, but the first entry from Wikipedia on the topic is:

Quote
Live television is a television production broadcast in real-time, as events happen, in the present.

Quote
<image>
See the 3 methods displayed in the BBC illegal TV license notice

LIVE, Catch-up and on-demand
Live refers to watching it as it's broadcast. Not that it has to be happening at the very moment

In the context of a BBC iPlayer, they call it that.

Here's another news flash: those didn't exist at the time of the Apollo moon landings.

Recall that the thread is about faking the Apollo moon landings in the late '60s and early '70s.

Earlier in this thread you made this statement:

Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

In 1969 and through the time of the Apollo moon landings, when a broadcast was said to be live, that meant it was happening as it was being televised to the public.

Some different meanings have been attached to the term 'Live' much more recently. This seems to have confused you.

Regardless of your understanding, or lack, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have "prepared the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" in 1969. Why? Because if the broadcast had been created and edited beforehand, it would not have been a LIVE broadcast. Spurious meanings applied to the term 'LIVE' to cope with later technology do not change this.

If you were misusing the term LIVE for the context, and when you said LIVE you didn't really mean LIVE, that's a problem. Correct that and we can go on.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 03, 2017, 07:57:10 AM
Regardless of your understanding, or lack, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have "prepared the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" in 1969. Why? Because if the broadcast had been created and edited beforehand, it would not have been a LIVE broadcast. Spurious meanings applied to the term 'LIVE' to cope with later technology do not change this.

If you were misusing the term LIVE for the context, and when you said LIVE you didn't really mean LIVE, that's a problem. Correct that and we can go on.

Now this is on track to topic..

This is pretty much what I'm saying. It wasn't live. The LEO footage may have been live (and has every reason to be live which I don't really doubt) but the actual moon landing, surfacing etc. was all provided by NASA and NASA controlled the feed. Correct?

And while the footage was broadcast live, the contents of the footage was not live. It was rebroadcasted by the TV networks in real time. No TV station broadcast the feed as it was allegedly received from the moon. When the TV stations switched live to the moon, they were switching to NASA providing the "live" feed.

1. Technically speaking, just because it said "LIVE" does that mean it's impossible for it not be live?
2. Did the TV networks broadcast the feed directly as it was received from the moon?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on May 03, 2017, 08:05:42 AM
Regardless of your understanding, or lack, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have "prepared the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" in 1969. Why? Because if the broadcast had been created and edited beforehand, it would not have been a LIVE broadcast. Spurious meanings applied to the term 'LIVE' to cope with later technology do not change this.

If you were misusing the term LIVE for the context, and when you said LIVE you didn't really mean LIVE, that's a problem. Correct that and we can go on.

Now this is on track to topic..

This is pretty much what I'm saying. It wasn't live. The LEO footage may have been live (and has every reason to be live which I don't really doubt) but the actual moon landing, surfacing etc. was all provided by NASA and NASA controlled the feed. Correct?

And while the footage was broadcast live, the contents of the footage was not live. It was rebroadcasted by the TV networks in real time. No TV station broadcast the feed as it was allegedly received from the moon. When the TV stations switched live to the moon, they were switching to NASA providing the "live" feed.

1. Technically speaking, just because it said "LIVE" does that mean it's impossible for it not be live?
2. Did the TV networks broadcast the feed directly as it was received from the moon?

Receiving stations (3 major ones) -> NASA -> TV stations

It would be difficult to setup a prepared 'live' broadcast for the three major stations (and many smaller ones) since their antenna's were aimed at... the moon

When Buzz Aldrin switched on the TV camera on the Lunar Module, three tracking antennas received the signals simultaneously. They were the 64-metre Goldstone antenna in California, the 26-metre antenna at Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra in Australia, and the 64-metre dish at Parkes.

In the first few minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals being received from its two stations at Goldstone and Honeysuckle Creek, searching for the best quality picture.

A little under nine minutes into the broadcast, the TV was switched to the Parkes signal. The quality of the TV pictures from Parkes was so superior that NASA stayed with Parkes as the source of the TV for the remainder of the 2.5 hour broadcast.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 03, 2017, 09:19:30 AM
Regardless of your understanding, or lack, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have "prepared the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" in 1969. Why? Because if the broadcast had been created and edited beforehand, it would not have been a LIVE broadcast. Spurious meanings applied to the term 'LIVE' to cope with later technology do not change this.

If you were misusing the term LIVE for the context, and when you said LIVE you didn't really mean LIVE, that's a problem. Correct that and we can go on.

Now this is on track to topic..

This is pretty much what I'm saying. It wasn't live. The LEO footage may have been live (and has every reason to be live which I don't really doubt) but the actual moon landing, surfacing etc. was all provided by NASA and NASA controlled the feed. Correct?

Mostly. NASA also provided live LEO footage to the networks, too. You seem to have no problem with this. Why the difference?

Quote
And while the footage was broadcast live, the contents of the footage was not live.

If that were true, then it wasn't a live broadcast of the lunar EVA. Period. This whole "live but not live" argument is silly.

Just because you claim the EVA video was pre-recorded doesn't mean it was.

Quote
It was rebroadcasted by the TV networks in real time. No TV station broadcast the feed as it was allegedly received from the moon.

It was scan-converted in real time at the receiving ground station. So?

Quote
When the TV stations switched live to the moon, they were switching to NASA providing the "live" feed.

And this was functionally different from the LEO live feeds how?

Quote
1. Technically speaking, just because it said "LIVE" does that mean it's impossible for it not be live?

Of course not. But, unless someone makes a mistake or is trying to deceive, why add it to a non-live broadcast?

Obviously you're trying to argue that NASA was lying, and the lunar EVA video was pre-recorded, not live. So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

Of course, you'll need to provide some evidence if you want to make any headway with that argument. Convincing evidence would be more effective, not the same tired ol' BS that's been around the block a few times. Do you have anything we haven't already seen before?

Quote
2. Did the TV networks broadcast the feed directly as it was received from the moon?

That depends on how you define "directly". If by "directly", you mean "from a central receiving station and distributed to networks, all in real time", then, yes. If you mean "their own antenna received the signal originating from the moon and pumped it out their transmitter", then, no.

Either of these are live if the signal from the moon was live (in the 1969 sense). Applying processing and relaying the signal from point to point doesn't change this fact if it's all done in real time.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 03, 2017, 11:28:09 AM
So you create an argument and then you argue with yourself? Are you mentally ok?

Quote
This whole "live but not live" argument is silly.
Quote
So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

You're quoting these? Why? I never said that even once. These are your words. Moving on...

So you agree that NASA provided the video that was broadcast by TV claiming it's live?

So that's confirmed as well then. It was possible to give any feed and claim it was from such and such signal and so on. There's no way to prove it except their words.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 03, 2017, 01:07:58 PM
So you create an argument and then you argue with yourself? Are you mentally ok?

Quote
This whole "live but not live" argument is silly.
Quote
So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

You're quoting these? Why? I never said that even once. These are your words. Moving on...

So you agree that NASA provided the video that was broadcast by TV claiming it's live?

So that's confirmed as well then. It was possible to give any feed and claim it was from such and such signal and so on. There's no way to prove it except their words.

How many times do I have to repeat it? There is far more evidence that 'just their words' when the live TV images contain images of Earth that can only have been taken at the time of the broadcasts? When the broadcasts are being received by dishes pointed at the moon? When the TV images of the moon show details no-one knew about but that have been confirmed today? When no-one can say where the alleged TV studios were, who built them and who crewed them?

If you insist on claiming that the only evidence of the TV broadcasts being live is the word "Live" in the corner then you are just willfully ignoring everything anyone ever posts that proves you wrong.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 03, 2017, 01:34:48 PM
So you create an argument and then you argue with yourself?

???

Quote
Are you mentally ok?

Since I participate in a flat-earth forum, some might wonder. You're here, too.

At least I don't believe (or pretend to believe) the earth is flat, or that NASA, nearly every technical enterprise and large corporation, the US Government, and all the governments of the world are in on a vast conspiracy.

Quote
Quote
This whole "live but not live" argument is silly.
Quote
So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

You're quoting these? Why? I never said that even once. These are your words.

Quote marks are used for more than verbatim quotes.

Quote from: http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/quotes.asp
Rule 8a. Quotation marks are often used with technical terms, terms used in an unusual way, or other expressions that vary from standard usage.

When paraphrasing self-contradictory statements, the result pretty much has to be unusual.

If I'm quoting you directly I'll generally use the quote tags, and the quoted text will be in a box labeled Quote, and sometimes with a link back to the source of the quote, like the citation above and the examples from your post, below.

Quote
Moving on...

So you agree that NASA provided the video that was broadcast by TV

Since it originated on the moon, using NASA equipment, operated by a NASA crew, well, duh! Did I ever suggest otherwise?

Quote
claiming it's live?

It was live, yes. Why shouldn't they describe it as such?

Obviously you're trying to argue that NASA was lying, and the lunar EVA video was pre-recorded, not live. So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

Of course, you'll need to provide some evidence if you want to make any headway with that argument. Convincing evidence would be more effective, not the same tired ol' BS that's been around the block a few times. Do you have anything we haven't already seen before?

You sidestepped that part. Why?

Quote
So that's confirmed as well then.

Yes. The video was live from the moon (in the stricter sense of "live video" from 1969).

Quote
It was possible to give any feed and claim it was from such and such signal and so on.

Since the video was taken in an environment with low gravity and no air, and the downlinked signal was coming from the direction of a point on the surface of the moon, no, not really. This conclusion is based on the video itself, backed up by an immense amount of corroborating evidence.

Quote
There's no way to prove it except their words.

There's much more evidence than that for it and nothing but speculation against it.

Prove? It's not possible to prove anything in science or engineering - only math. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof)

Where's your evidence to the contrary? I'm not asking for proof, just evidence.

[Edit] Remove spurious tag.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Babushka on May 03, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
If NASA really faked the moon landing, they wanted to hide something. If this is true, it's worth investigating.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: beforeitstoolate on May 03, 2017, 03:39:02 PM
I thought I'd heard it all but this is new to me.

Do people actually believe that faking the moon landings was impossible and it was easier to just send humans there instead?

On what basis is this claimed?

Here's my take on it:

Requirements to fake a moon landing:

  • Film studio - available
  • Government controlled and monitored desert - available
  • Video camera - available
  • Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available
  • Full control over the live feed to the media - available
  • Camera speed control - available
  • Editing capabilities - available
  • Space shuttle to launch into orbit - available
  • Live footage from orbit - available
  • Ability to return from orbit - done

So how was it impossible? What exactly was impossible to fake?

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

my roommate was arguing that it would be impossible to fake because he heard that on a podcast. i had to disagree . its seems pretty easy to fake when the people back that took it at face value. now everything is coming out.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: observer on May 03, 2017, 06:11:38 PM
Quote
Are you mentally ok?

Since I participate in a flat-earth forum, some might wonder. You're here, too.

This made me laugh.. in a good way. I'll leave it at that.

I'm satisfied with the discussion on the broadcast.

Just one answer to:
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Quote
Obviously you're trying to argue that NASA was lying, and the lunar EVA video was pre-recorded, not live. So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

Of course, you'll need to provide some evidence if you want to make any headway with that argument. Convincing evidence would be more effective, not the same tired ol' BS that's been around the block a few times. Do you have anything we haven't already seen before?
You sidestepped that part. Why?

I didn't sidestep it. The first part I answered with your idea of live but not live. Since you narrowed it down to physically live happening at that very moment there was no need to clarify further.

As for proof, providing proof is on the one making the claim. I'm not making a claim in this thread. This thread is merely about "possibility" to provide video feed to TV stations that was recorded beforehand and it WAS POSSIBLE. If they provided actual LIVE footage, it was possible to provide pre-recorded. Seriously, surely this has to be the end of this discussion?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 03, 2017, 07:56:41 PM
Quote
Are you mentally ok?

Since I participate in a flat-earth forum, some might wonder. You're here, too.

This made me laugh.. in a good way. I'll leave it at that.

That was the intent. ;)

Quote
I'm satisfied with the discussion on the broadcast.

Just one answer to:
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Quote
Obviously you're trying to argue that NASA was lying, and the lunar EVA video was pre-recorded, not live. So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

Of course, you'll need to provide some evidence if you want to make any headway with that argument. Convincing evidence would be more effective, not the same tired ol' BS that's been around the block a few times. Do you have anything we haven't already seen before?
You sidestepped that part. Why?

I didn't sidestep it. The first part I answered with your idea of live but not live. Since you narrowed it down to physically live happening at that very moment there was no need to clarify further.

As for proof, providing proof is on the one making the claim. I'm not making a claim in this thread. This thread is merely about "possibility" to provide video feed to TV stations that was recorded beforehand and it WAS POSSIBLE. If they provided actual LIVE footage, it was possible to provide pre-recorded. Seriously, surely this has to be the end of this discussion?

I hoped to convey the idea that there can never be absolute proof - the best we can get is solid evidence one way or another. If better evidence for a different conclusion is presented, then that should prevail.

In my estimation, the solid evidence is on the side that the Apollo 11 video would have been impossible to fake. This is based on a large number of, often independent, factors. Observations, and answers to questions from a large number of independent (and sometimes hostile) sources, all form a coherent whole. Could any one piece of evidence have been fabricated? It's possible, but, like in a good court case, a vast amount of interlocked and mutually-confirming evidence becomes unassailable. Would it have been possible to fake all that evidence? That's so unlikely that it can be taken as impossible.

Is this absolute proof in the technical sense? No. Such a thing is not possible. It will take a lot of evidence (no need for 'proof', which ain't gonna happen for the same reasons), from multiple independent and verifiable sources, to make a convincing case against it, though.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 05, 2017, 01:48:07 PM
NASA Astronaut Don Pettit claims :
We Cant Go Back To The Moon ''That Technology Was Destroyed''
The interview starts at 1.51 :
Spelled out for you :
I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond...
The problem is, we don't have the technology to do that anymore
We used to, but we ahhh destroyed that technology and ohhh it's a painfull process to built it back again
But going to mars should be one of the next steps that humans do


WAZZZ ?? Moon = impossible due to destruction of technology
                 Mars  = what humans do

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

(http://)
I read all over the place (here that is) as counter arguements about NASA destroying NASA data ,that they have basically everything, the tapes, the knowledge, can rebuilt everything...sure ???

You know whome i'm addressing, don't you ?
See ? don't ever rely on NASA's take on reality and history, it reflects badly on you too in the end......
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on May 05, 2017, 09:43:25 PM
You know whome i'm addressing, don't you ?
See ? don't ever rely on NASA's take on reality and history, it reflects badly on you too in the end......
And even if you managed to demolish NASA, the numerous other space agencies and the hundreds of companies using satellite technology, 
what have you managed to do?
The earth is still a Globe, as has been known for ages. Keep wasting your time pretending you are getting somewhere!

But, even if you managed to convince everyone thst the the earth really is flat, you still do not have a working flat earth model!
Not even a map or any idea of the "continental layout" - it's a laughable situation really.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 06, 2017, 12:27:52 AM
You know whome i'm addressing, don't you ?
See ? don't ever rely on NASA's take on reality and history, it reflects badly on you too in the end......
And even if you managed to demolish NASA, the numerous other space agencies and the hundreds of companies using satellite technology, 
what have you managed to do?
The earth is still a Globe, as has been known for ages. Keep wasting your time pretending you are getting somewhere!

But, even if you managed to convince everyone thst the the earth really is flat, you still do not have a working flat earth model!
Not even a map or any idea of the "continental layout" - it's a laughable situation really.
Your reply sounds more like someone who is aware about the cracks that suddenly appear in his worldview. We all went through the same process and are here to help you Rabinoz.
It always starts with NASA and their credibilty ,..... you are on the right track my friend, if i read between the lines correctly !!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on May 06, 2017, 02:00:26 AM
And even if you managed to demolish NASA, the numerous other space agencies and the hundreds of companies using satellite technology, 
what have you managed to do?
The earth is still a Globe, as has been known for ages. Keep wasting your time pretending you are getting somewhere!

But, even if you managed to convince everyone thst the the earth really is flat, you still do not have a working flat earth model!
Not even a map or any idea of the "continental layout" - it's a laughable situation really.
Your reply sounds more like someone who is aware about the cracks that suddenly appear in his worldview. We all went through the same process and are here to help you Rabinoz.
It always starts with NASA and their credibilty ,..... you are on the right track my friend, if i read between the lines correctly !!
I see no "cracks that suddenly appear in" my "worldview", but then I don't see that the shape of the earth is part of any worldview!

The shape of the the earth and whether it rotates or not are simply physical facts to be determined by observation and measurement.
That has been done long ago and from what I can see observations on earth, in astronomy and more recently in space simply confirm that.

So don't pretend to try your psychological analysis on me, it won't work.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 06, 2017, 03:52:15 AM

I see no "cracks that suddenly appear in" my "worldview", but then I don't see that the shape of the earth is part of any worldview!

The shape of the the earth and whether it rotates or not are simply physical facts to be determined by observation and measurement.
That has been done long ago and from what I can see observations on earth, in astronomy and more recently in space simply confirm that.

So don't pretend to try your psychological analysis on me, it won't work.
Let me assist you !
Explaination about the appearing cracks.
1 Contrary to your and other globular statements NASA has completey faked a cosmic-earth live performance proving that certain marketing goals seem more important than presenting scientifically accurate reflections about the environment in outerspace and how real communication works with outerspace. Taking into consideration the speed (17.600. Km/h) and time delay.
2 Contrary to the claims you and your fellow NASA endorsee have made, NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon.
It is a longlist of nonsense in defence of the supposed technologies that are all archived and well known. It seems that NASA themselves strongly disagrees with this fantasy.
3 Your claims about the Greeks knowing that the earth was a globe, + tilt and precise calculated size considering their tools are bizare since the Greeks believed that ships dissapeared over the horizon based on eyesight only.
Not taking into account looming, lensing, refraction as we do today . Bringing back a ship through optic zoom is proof of our limited eyesight.
Despite all Greek accomplishments, we cannot take their idea about the shape of our earth serious, because their other claims (boats over the curvature) show their conclusions were a bit premature.That is not how the scientific method works and the Greeks should no longer be part of the rational debate about earth's shape, because you only want a rational debate. Not about religion or gut feeling.
Start youself with leaving the Greeks at peace. ;D

Conclusion:
NASA has failed as trustworthy organisation that has completely failed to preserve the greatest achievements of mankind and has showed marketing nonsense from the ISS more than once.
Also the Greeks could never scientiffically proof the shape of our earth, because of their limited tools and other nonsical observations about boats' mast slowly sinking behind the curvature.

With the Greeks and NASA out of the way as trustworthy sources of our globe, i wonder what the next source will be ?

Who scientifically is trustworthy and has come forward with repeatable and tested proof for a spinning globe ?
Looking forward to your next exhibets !!!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Hannibaal on May 06, 2017, 05:08:13 AM

I see no "cracks that suddenly appear in" my "worldview", but then I don't see that the shape of the earth is part of any worldview!

The shape of the the earth and whether it rotates or not are simply physical facts to be determined by observation and measurement.
That has been done long ago and from what I can see observations on earth, in astronomy and more recently in space simply confirm that.

So don't pretend to try your psychological analysis on me, it won't work.
Let me assist you !
Explaination about the appearing cracks.
1 Contrary to your and other globular statements NASA has completey faked a cosmic-earth live performance proving that certain marketing goals seem more important than presenting scientifically accurate reflections about the environment in outerspace and how real communication works with outerspace. Taking into consideration the speed (17.600. Km/h) and time delay.
2 Contrary to the claims you and your fellow NASA endorsee have made, NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon.
It is a longlist of nonsense in defence of the supposed technologies that are all archived and well known. It seems that NASA themselves strongly disagrees with this fantasy.
3 Your claims about the Greeks knowing that the earth was a globe, + tilt and precise calculated size considering their tools are bizare since the Greeks believed that ships dissapeared over the horizon based on eyesight only.
Not taking into account looming, lensing, refraction as we do today . Bringing back a ship through optic zoom is proof of our limited eyesight.
Despite all Greek accomplishments, we cannot take their idea about the shape of our earth serious, because their other claims (boats over the curvature) show their conclusions were a bit premature.That is not how the scientific method works and the Greeks should no longer be part of the rational debate about earth's shape, because you only want a rational debate. Not about religion or gut feeling.
Start youself with leaving the Greeks at peace. ;D

Conclusion:
NASA has failed as trustworthy organisation that has completely failed to preserve the greatest achievements of mankind and has showed marketing nonsense from the ISS more than once.
Also the Greeks could never scientiffically proof the shape of our earth, because of their limited tools and other nonsical observations about boats' mast slowly sinking behind the curvature.

With the Greeks and NASA out of the way as trustworthy sources of our globe, i wonder what the next source will be ?

Who scientifically is trustworthy and has come forward with repeatable and tested proof for a spinning globe ?
Looking forward to your next exhibets !!!

When I first came to this Forum I was very angry at Nasa and threw all my ammunition at them trying to prove them wrong - moon landings were a hoax, space walks took place in swimming pools and the whole space travel issue was a production in Hollywood studios - all that coming from a person who loved Nasa very much and dreamed of space since childhood, and a man preparing his daughter to go into this field (at her wish)!

Now, I realize that my opinion then and the opinion of many others had or will have no effect at all on the reality we are witnessing and the verity we are living > the space program is advancing day by day and aiming further than we have ever reached before, more super-power countries are taking serious steps into space exploration and moon mining, major contracting companies are getting enrolled in sharing their technologies and advancements in the development of the space program, space shuttles & moon bases.

How can we simply close our eyes and pretend all that doesn't exist, or even think is a global hoax?
That is really scary (and I just realized that) to think that ALL humans have been fooled and some elites have made a big joke out of them!

Personally, I can't stop moving or walk backwards while the rest of the world is going forward and advancing!

IT'S TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH TO BE A JOKE!!!

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on May 06, 2017, 05:20:53 AM
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Let me assist you !
Explaination about the appearing cracks.
1 Contrary to your and other globular statements NASA has completey faked a cosmic-earth live performance proving that certain marketing goals seem more important than presenting scientifically accurate reflections about the environment in outerspace and how real communication works with outerspace. Taking into consideration the speed (17.600. Km/h) and time delay.
So you claim.
Quote from: dutchy
2 Contrary to the claims you and your fellow NASA endorsee have made, NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon.
It is a longlist of nonsense in defence of the supposed technologies that are all archived and well known. It seems that NASA themselves strongly disagrees with this fantasy.
So you claim.
You claim that "NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon."
They did not "destroyed all technologies". They just did not preserve the old hardware, that they would not use now anyway.
Quote from: dutchy
3 Your claims about the Greeks knowing that the earth was a globe, + tilt and precise calculated size considering their tools are bizare since the Greeks believed that ships dissapeared over the horizon based on eyesight only.
Not taking into account looming, lensing, refraction as we do today . Bringing back a ship through optic zoom is proof of our limited eyesight.
Despite all Greek accomplishments, we cannot take their idea about the shape of our earth serious, because their other claims (boats over the curvature) show their conclusions were a bit premature.That is not how the scientific method works and the Greeks should no longer be part of the rational debate about earth's shape, because you only want a rational debate. Not about religion or gut feeling.
Start youself with leaving the Greeks at peace. ;D
So you claim. But the early Greeks just started it and
And you totaly ignore the findings of astronomy from before Ptolemy to the present day and there is no way any of that fits a flat earth!

Quote from: dutchy
Conclusion:
NASA has failed as trustworthy organisation that has completely failed to preserve the greatest achievements of mankind and has showed marketing nonsense from the ISS more than once.
So you claim.
Quote from: dutchy
Also the Greeks could never scientiffically proof the shape of our earth, because of their limited tools and other nonsical observations about boats' mast slowly sinking behind the curvature.

Maybe the Greeks couldn't do it scientifically to your satisfaction, but in the last few hundred years there has been ever more scientific proof the shape of our earth and even very direct evidence that it is rotating.
But, of course, if I bring up things like
      geodetic surveyors measuring the earth and proving that it can't be flat and
      "ring laser" gyroscopes directly measuring the earth's rotation
you'll come up with some other excuses.

Quote from: dutchy
With the Greeks and NASA out of the way as trustworthy sources of our globe, i wonder what the next source will be ?
So you claim. But you simply ignore anything anyone says to the contrary,

Quote from: dutchy
Who scientifically is trustworthy and has come forward with repeatable and tested proof for a spinning globe ?
Looking forward to your next exhibets !!!
I've given enough, but you ignore anything that you find inconvenient!

But as I said before, even if you managed to demolish NASA, the numerous other space agencies and the hundreds of companies using satellite technology, 
what have you managed to do?
The earth is still a Globe, as has been known for ages. Keep wasting your time pretending you are getting somewhere!

But, even if you managed to convince everyone that the earth really is flat,
you still do not have a working flat earth model!
Not even a map or any idea of the "continental layout" - it's a laughable situation really.

So, run away and play with your toy flat earth, because it will not "work" in real life.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 06, 2017, 11:58:07 AM
So you claim.
NASA claims that they can't go back to the moon, because of destroyed technology and a painfull process to built it back again.
See ?? Not dutchy's claim.
Those claims are the total opposite of those from the NASA fanboys camp, that claim that NASA (apart from some Apollo 11 data),has in fact archived all important Apollo data...and so did the major construtors of those days.
Either NASA is lying or you fanboys are spouting nonsence......which is it ?
Quote
You claim that "NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon."
They did not "destroyed all technologies". They just did not preserve the old hardware, that they would not use now anyway.
What a lot of crap,...Didn't you read what Don Petitt claims ? NASA Astronaut Don Pettit claims :

I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond...
The problem is, we don't have the technology to do that anymore
We used to, but we ahhh destroyed that technology and ohhh it's a painfull process to built it back again
But going to mars should be one of the next steps that humans do

He clearly didn't talk about the hardware, but the technology behind the Apollo program...., because rebuilding hardware using the original archived data and blueprints is done in a few months.
Without the data and blueprints it is what Don Petitt says : it's a painfull process to built it back again
With the original data and blueprints well known and archieved by NASA and former constructors (claimed over here on several occasions by the fanboys) it takes a few months instead of a painfull process.

And you want to discuss ''flatearth'' with me ? After showing contempt and distraction techniques to avoid the obvious ? Namely that you+fanboys and NASA have a total different take on what NASA still knows and is able to re-use from the Apollo moonlanding project to reanimate a moonlanding program !!
Quote
So you claim. But the early Greeks just started it .....
What did the Greeks start ?
Trying to wrap their heads around the model of our earth.
In doing so they had limited means.
Some seem plausible (measuring shadows)
Others completely off (seeing ships drop over the visible curvature with eyesight only)

The Greeks did not have accurate scientific tools to proof anything about earth's shape with real scientific research in mind.
There is nothing more to say about the ancient Greeks and their supposed knowledge about earth's shape........you are just cherry picking about what seems convinient for your globe based invalid Greek research.
That is not how the discussion should continue.
If you withdraw from any NASA proofs or ancient proof based on invalid measurements, i will debate the inconsistancies within the flatearth model with you.
If you keep pointing towards the Greeks and NASA then i'm afraid we use different standards of truth finding my friend !
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on May 06, 2017, 01:39:43 PM
This line of discussion with a simple question from me!
And even if you managed to demolish NASA, the numerous other space agencies and the hundreds of companies using satellite technology, 
what have you managed to do?
The earth is still a Globe, as has been known for ages. Keep wasting your time pretending you are getting somewhere!

But, even if you managed to convince everyone thst the the earth really is flat, you still do not have a working flat earth model!
Not even a map or any idea of the "continental layout" - it's a laughable situation really.
You still haven't ventured an answer.

If you withdraw from any NASA proofs or ancient proof based on invalid measurements, i will debate the inconsistancies within the flatearth model with you.
If you keep pointing towards the Greeks and NASA then i'm afraid we use different standards of truth finding my friend !
But, you claim I should "withdraw from any NASA proofs"? Where have I relied on NASA proofs?
I have presented some photos, but most of mine have, I believe, been from other sources.

And of course I'll "keep pointing towards the Greeks ", the Babylonians, the early middle eastern astronomers, mathematicians, surveyors and scientists and then the European scientists from the 1500s to the present day.

The early ones may not have had the advantage of modern instruments, but even from over 1000 years BC various forms of measuring devices were used, leading to the massive 2 metre quadrant used by Tycho Brahe (1546-1601).

The "ancients" were not nearly as ignorant as you make out.
But, my whole point has been a continuous history of the globe, then the heliocentric globe, through from many centuries to the present day with a quite consistent story.
You might ridicule the Greeks, yet many of their early measurements were not that far off.
I could list the progression of measurements on the earth diameter, moon size and distance and sun distance from the to the present day.

I often say that the heliocentric globe model "works", but the flat earth model does not "work".
By that, I mean that there are numerous simple and not so simple little bits of evidence that fit the globe model and not the flat earth model.

When I bring these up, the answer is usually "that doesn't prove the earth a globe". No that alone doesn't "prove it", but these little things all add up to a consistent model.

If you are going to discard all this history that fits perfectly with the current model and replace it with a comparatively recent invention (early 1800s) then as you say:
I'm afraid we use very different standards of truth finding.
So now, it's over to you to present a consistent flat earth model, but in a separate thread please, not here!

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Twerp on May 06, 2017, 02:58:31 PM
If you withdraw from any NASA proofs or ancient proof based on invalid measurements, i will debate the inconsistancies within the flatearth model with you.
If you keep pointing towards the Greeks and NASA then i'm afraid we use different standards of truth finding my friend !

How about you withdraw from pointing toward ENAG et al.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on May 06, 2017, 03:56:33 PM
If you withdraw from any NASA proofs or ancient proof based on invalid measurements, i will debate the inconsistancies within the flatearth model with you.

Does the 18th century French geodesic mission count as proof that doesn't come from NASA or the Ancient Greeks?
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7359/full/476149a.html?message-global=remove
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 07, 2017, 12:54:27 AM
So you claim.
NASA claims that they can't go back to the moon, because of destroyed technology and a painfull process to built it back again.
See ?? Not dutchy's claim.
Those claims are the total opposite of those from the NASA fanboys camp, that claim that NASA (apart from some Apollo 11 data),has in fact archived all important Apollo data...and so did the major construtors of those days.
Either NASA is lying or you fanboys are spouting nonsence......which is it ?
Quote
You claim that "NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon."
They did not "destroyed all technologies". They just did not preserve the old hardware, that they would not use now anyway.
What a lot of crap,...Didn't you read what Don Petitt claims ? NASA Astronaut Don Pettit claims :

I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond...
The problem is, we don't have the technology to do that anymore
We used to, but we ahhh destroyed that technology and ohhh it's a painfull process to built it back again
But going to mars should be one of the next steps that humans do

He clearly didn't talk about the hardware, but the technology behind the Apollo program...., because rebuilding hardware using the original archived data and blueprints is done in a few months.
Without the data and blueprints it is what Don Petitt says : it's a painfull process to built it back again
With the original data and blueprints well known and archieved by NASA and former constructors (claimed over here on several occasions by the fanboys) it takes a few months instead of a painfull process.

And you want to discuss ''flatearth'' with me ? After showing contempt and distraction techniques to avoid the obvious ? Namely that you+fanboys and NASA have a total different take on what NASA still knows and is able to re-use from the Apollo moonlanding project to reanimate a moonlanding program !!
Quote
So you claim. But the early Greeks just started it .....
What did the Greeks start ?
Trying to wrap their heads around the model of our earth.
In doing so they had limited means.
Some seem plausible (measuring shadows)
Others completely off (seeing ships drop over the visible curvature with eyesight only)

The Greeks did not have accurate scientific tools to proof anything about earth's shape with real scientific research in mind.
There is nothing more to say about the ancient Greeks and their supposed knowledge about earth's shape........you are just cherry picking about what seems convinient for your globe based invalid Greek research.
That is not how the discussion should continue.
If you withdraw from any NASA proofs or ancient proof based on invalid measurements, i will debate the inconsistancies within the flatearth model with you.
If you keep pointing towards the Greeks and NASA then i'm afraid we use different standards of truth finding my friend !

You don't get to gatekeep the boundaries of the argument or what evidence is allowed. You don't get to eliminate sources of evidence just because they are inconvenient to your argument.

If you're going to cherrypick hyperbole from an astronaut, let's look at what he said. Regardless of the completely untrue argument that all the data have been destroyed and no blueprints exist thanks to those evil bad guys at NASA here's what he said:

"We don't have the technology any more".

Any more.

So they had it when they went to the moon. You're effectively arguing that they didn't go to the moon because they went to the moon.

Why not see if you can find a statement anywhere from Pettit that says "We didn't go to the moon at all". In the interview you cherrypick he actually says "we should go back to the moon."

Back.

If you think he's speaking the truth, then you have to accept that we went.

Try coming up with some actual evidence that the blueprints to build the Apollo hardware have been destroyed, or that wasn't capable of doing the job for which it was designed, or that the calculations of the ancient Greeks are incorrect.

Maybe give this a read:

https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Lander-Developed-Smithsonian-Spaceflight/dp/1588342735

you could learn something.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 07, 2017, 03:53:55 AM
You don't get to gatekeep the boundaries of the argument or what evidence is allowed. You don't get to eliminate sources of evidence just because they are inconvenient to your argument.
Of course i can decide not to debate Rabinoz about the flatearth when he cherry picks ancient invalid globe models over ancient invalid models of a flatearth with no real scientific proof to back up his claims.
It's hilarious that the Greeks seem to meet Rabinoz scientific criterea for a globe earth, while in the meantime flatearthers have to come up with far more accurate and up to date proof for their flatearth model than the Greeks ever did !!
I only ask for a level playingfield, but that seems very hard for globe earth believers who rely on many, many proofs that cannot stand the scientific method !!!

CGI from outerspace can be dismissed as proof for a globe earth, because no one realy knows what data and techniques were used. All we know is some cripted NASA data and a CGI end result about how the globe was ''photographed''. Not nearly enough to convince even the most enthusiastic space fan about authenticphotographic material of the globe from outerspace.
Precise repeatable atmospheric math and testing instead of unguided jargon like, looming, lensing, superior mirage that is inserted in a very unscientific way when observation does not fit the prefered globe model.
Quote
If you're going to cherrypick hyperbole from an astronaut, let's look at what he said. Regardless of the completely untrue argument that all the data have been destroyed and no blueprints exist thanks to those evil bad guys at NASA here's what he said:

"We don't have the technology any more".

Any more.
Forgetting the best part.... it's a painfull process to built it back again

What could be so painfull ?
What could be so difficult ?
What could be so technically advanced ?
What could be so time consuming ?

You are cherry picking, because you have to deal with a NASA ''spokesman'' that destroys most of NASA's claims that ''finances'' are the only real problem to go back to the moon.
It is presented here, as on youtube comments, in the Clavius forums........money is the most important reason we can't rebuilt a moon rocket/mission.
I have heard it so many times that i almost believed it....

Luckily Don Petitt says it's a painfull process to built it back again...painfull , because you don't know how to reanimate a second Apollo program due to destroyed technology.
Yep...that is exactly what Don Petitt says !
Quote
So they had it when they went to the moon. You're effectively arguing that they didn't go to the moon because they went to the moon.

Why not see if you can find a statement anywhere from Pettit that says "We didn't go to the moon at all". In the interview you cherrypick he actually says "we should go back to the moon."

Back.

If you think he's speaking the truth, then you have to accept that we went.
What logic is that sir ?
I don't believe anything that Disney space institute claims, you fanboys however have claimed there are no cover-ups, no secret agenda's to fool the masses, no deliberate use of the shredder to remove Apollo data, no inconsistancies between astronauts testimonies, everything else apart from some Apollo 11 data was captured, archived and scientifically known in every possible detail.
Don Petitt's claims are 100% proof that there should be an investigation asap to make an inventory what exactly was destroyed and what we still have/know today., because NASA wants our money for a trip to mars. But if it destroyed technology that would defenitly decrease the costs NOW, then we should have the right to know what is going on and who is responsible for such neglect and destruction of valuable sources.

Probably Don will make a public statement that he was taken out of context, just as when the Orion spokesman claimed that NASA did not know how to safely guide humans through the VAB yet, and Armstrong's early seventies interview where he claimed it was deep black in cislunar space to the contrary of Ed Mitchell's ''bright stars'' claims etc....

You make it yourselves damn easy this way...ignore facts, ignore facts, ignore facts, ignore facts and repeat the propaganda, repeat the propaganda, repeat the propaganda.
I have to spend way to much time to point out the implications of what Don Petitt claimed, but it is like hitting a brick wall time and time and time again.
Quote
Try coming up with some actual evidence that the blueprints to build the Apollo hardware have been destroyed, or that wasn't capable of doing the job for which it was designed, or that the calculations of the ancient Greeks are incorrect.

Maybe give this a read:

https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Lander-Developed-Smithsonian-Spaceflight/dp/1588342735

you could learn something.
Again i am only pointing out enormous inconsistancies among the NASA camp and their own take on the  archived and known Apollo leftovers
I cannot explain anything when i do not to know wich explainations is more true, because.....
I have never ever heard such alarming and conflicting invented aftermath when i simply matched together Explaination A and B explaining things about the same timeframe and event.
It's insane to think how much credit NASA has....i can't believe it....i really can't.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 04:23:38 AM
It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on May 07, 2017, 06:32:23 AM
It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

NASA has made incredible advancements in space probes and robotic landers and rovers. They have not gone back. Their modern rockets are technically more advance than the Saturn-V, just not as powerful.

Following the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, in early 2003 President George W. Bush, announced his Vision for Space Exploration which called for the completion of the American portion of the International Space Station by 2010 (due to delays this would not happen until 2011), the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet following its completion, to return to the moon by 2020 and one day to Mars. A new vehicle would need be developed, it eventually was named the Orion spacecraft, a six-person variant would have serviced the ISS and a four-person variant would have traveled to the Moon. The Ares I would have launched Orion, and the Ares V heavy-lift vehicle (HLV) would have launched all other hardware. The Altair lunar lander would have landed crew and cargo onto the moon. The Constellation program experienced many cost overruns and schedule delays, and was openly criticized by the subsequent U.S. President, Barack Obama.

In February 2010, the Obama administration proposed eliminating public funds for the Constellation program and shifting greater responsibility of servicing the ISS to private companies. During a speech at the Kennedy Space Center on April 15, 2010, President Obama proposed the design selection of the new HLV that would replace the Ares-V but would not occur until 2015. The U.S. Congress drafted the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and President Obama signed it into law on October 11 of that year. The authorization act officially cancelled the Constellation program.

The Constellation Program was suppose to replace the Space Shuttles and offer the ability to travel beyond low earth orbit.

Obama killed it.

Obama also forced NASA to look into private space companies to help the private space sector build equipment and vehicles cheaper than the predicted NASA costs.

Thanks Obama. Now NASA is launching their first complete SLS rocket somewhere in 2019.

Only the Orion capsule was continued, the rockets and everything else was ditched for something that was suppose to be going to be cheaper.


Your "Why have we not gone back" argument can also be thrown back at you, be careful with it. There are examples of things done in the 19's and 2000's that we can no longer do today.

Why has NASA not yet faked a new moon or mars landing? it should be much easier and cheaper.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 07, 2017, 10:24:29 AM
It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.
Spot on !!!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on May 07, 2017, 01:26:44 PM
It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.
Spot on !!!
I guess if you want to ignore all the countless advancements made in everything else but "Ive got the biggest Di- I mean rocket"

The SLS is planned to launch in 2019, which is more powerful than the Saturn-V
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on May 07, 2017, 04:54:38 PM
It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.
Spot on !!!
??? Why do people keep thinking that NASA is in the space rocket business?  They aren't.  They're in the space exploration business.  There's a difference.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 10:59:55 PM
It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.
Spot on !!!
??? Why do people keep thinking that NASA is in the space rocket business?  They aren't.  They're in the space exploration business.  There's a difference.
There's no difference. It's all bullshit.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 07, 2017, 11:17:09 PM
You don't get to gatekeep the boundaries of the argument or what evidence is allowed. You don't get to eliminate sources of evidence just because they are inconvenient to your argument.
Of course i can decide not to debate Rabinoz about the flatearth when he cherry picks ancient invalid globe models over ancient invalid models of a flatearth with no real scientific proof to back up his claims.
It's hilarious that the Greeks seem to meet Rabinoz scientific criterea for a globe earth, while in the meantime flatearthers have to come up with far more accurate and up to date proof for their flatearth model than the Greeks ever did !!
I only ask for a level playingfield, but that seems very hard for globe earth believers who rely on many, many proofs that cannot stand the scientific method !!!

The scientific method supports the established fact of the Earth as a sphere every time. Flat Earth falls over every time.

Quote

CGI from outerspace can be dismissed as proof for a globe earth, because no one realy knows what data and techniques were used.

Which things are you claiming as CGI? The TV images broadcast from geostationary satellites in the 1960s when computer graphics did not exist? The still images, 16mm and live TV images from the 1960s and 70s when computer graphics did not exist? Or are you just unhappy  because you don't understand how images are put together. Lots of people do. You can download raw images from a variety of sources (not just the USA) and make your own images. Using a computer to compile a digitally sourced image does not make it fake, and there are plenty of people around who understand how to do it.

Quote
All we know is some cripted NASA data and a CGI end result about how the globe was ''photographed''. Not nearly enough to convince even the most enthusiastic space fan about authenticphotographic material of the globe from outerspace.

It will never convince you because you've already decided what you think. Don't presume to speak for anyone else.

Quote
Precise repeatable atmospheric math and testing instead of unguided jargon like, looming, lensing, superior mirage that is inserted in a very unscientific way when observation does not fit the prefered globe model.

What makes you think precise repeatable atmospheric maths and testing hasn't been done?

Quote
Quote
If you're going to cherrypick hyperbole from an astronaut, let's look at what he said. Regardless of the completely untrue argument that all the data have been destroyed and no blueprints exist thanks to those evil bad guys at NASA here's what he said:

"We don't have the technology any more".

Any more.
Forgetting the best part.... it's a painfull process to built it back again

What could be so painfull ?
What could be so difficult ?
What could be so technically advanced ?
What could be so time consuming ?

It took a long time to get the Apollo spacecraft right. You think it there's a dust cover on the manufacturing plant somewhere and all they need is to throw the big switch?

Quote
You are cherry picking, because you have to deal with a NASA ''spokesman'' that destroys most of NASA's claims that ''finances'' are the only real problem to go back to the moon.
It is presented here, as on youtube comments, in the Clavius forums........money is the most important reason we can't rebuilt a moon rocket/mission.
I have heard it so many times that i almost believed it....

Petitt was not making comments as a NASA spokesman, and money has always been the prime factor in success for any big project. Why do you think it's cheap to get to the moon?

Quote
Luckily Don Petitt says it's a painfull process to built it back again...painfull , because you don't know how to reanimate a second Apollo program due to destroyed technology.
Yep...that is exactly what Don Petitt says !

Hyperbole to make a nice sound bite. No-one went round with a sledgehammer smashing up parts, no-one went around burning blueprints. The pain is metaphorical - something conspiracy nuts always seem to have problem understanding.

Quote
Quote
So they had it when they went to the moon. You're effectively arguing that they didn't go to the moon because they went to the moon.

Why not see if you can find a statement anywhere from Pettit that says "We didn't go to the moon at all". In the interview you cherrypick he actually says "we should go back to the moon."

Back.

If you think he's speaking the truth, then you have to accept that we went.
What logic is that sir ?

It's your logic. You are taking his statement as literal fact. There he is right there saying we need to go back to the moon. Ergo we went to the moon.

Quote
I don't believe anything that Disney space institute claims, you fanboys however have claimed there are no cover-ups, no secret agenda's to fool the masses, no deliberate use of the shredder to remove Apollo data, no inconsistancies between astronauts testimonies, everything else apart from some Apollo 11 data was captured, archived and scientifically known in every possible detail.

Your interpretation of my stance is fine so far. Doesn't mean your interpretation of reality is correct.

Quote
Don Petitt's claims are 100% proof that there should be an investigation asap to make an inventory what exactly was destroyed and what we still have/know today., because NASA wants our money for a trip to mars. But if it destroyed technology that would defenitly decrease the costs NOW, then we should have the right to know what is going on and who is responsible for such neglect and destruction of valuable sources.

Nothing was destroyed. Learn to deal with metaphor, simile, and people making grandiose statements for the cameras. What we have and know today is entirely based on what was learned during earlier space programmes.

Quote
Probably Don will make a public statement that he was taken out of context,

You can't project your personal prejudice onto someone else and make assumptions about what they will say based on it. Petitt will do no such thing, because he doesn't care about you, people like you, or what you think. Hes been in space, why should he bother?

Quote
just as when the Orion spokesman claimed that NASA did not know how to safely guide humans through the VAB yet, and Armstrong's early seventies interview where he claimed it was deep black in cislunar space to the contrary of Ed Mitchell's ''bright stars'' claims etc....

And speaking of taking things out of context, the Orion spokesman was referring to a specific Orion mission profile. Armstrong noted the same as anyone else can that the night sky is deep black. Deep black is not the same as 'no stars'. The night sky here last night was deep black and full of stars. Armstrong observed stars in space and commented on them, just as many other astronauts have.

Quote
You make it yourselves damn easy this way...ignore facts, ignore facts, ignore facts, ignore facts and repeat the propaganda, repeat the propaganda, repeat the propaganda.
I have to spend way to much time to point out the implications of what Don Petitt claimed, but it is like hitting a brick wall time and time and time again.

If you're going to hit a brick wall, make it with your head. The facts speak for themselves, I am more than happy that they are consistent, logical and in line with the what would be expected. Your denial doesn't change any of those facts.

Quote
Quote
Try coming up with some actual evidence that the blueprints to build the Apollo hardware have been destroyed, or that wasn't capable of doing the job for which it was designed, or that the calculations of the ancient Greeks are incorrect.

Maybe give this a read:

https://www.amazon.com/Moon-Lander-Developed-Smithsonian-Spaceflight/dp/1588342735

you could learn something.
Again i am only pointing out enormous inconsistancies among the NASA camp and their own take on the  archived and known Apollo leftovers
I cannot explain anything when i do not to know wich explainations is more true, because.....
I have never ever heard such alarming and conflicting invented aftermath when i simply matched together Explaination A and B explaining things about the same timeframe and event.
It's insane to think how much credit NASA has....i can't believe it....i really can't.

There are no inconsistencies just an inability to work out on your part whether it is appropriate or even true to put explanation a and b together to explain something completely different, and when your explanations are false to start with. 2+2 = 4, not 5 or 3, and 2 has to be 2 to start with.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 07, 2017, 11:18:01 PM
It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.

Identify the basement.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on May 08, 2017, 03:37:09 AM
It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.
The Space Shuttle may have been suitable for placing things, like the Hubble etc, into Low Earth Orbit.
But, if you are heading further afield, all that extra weight is a useless burden. Something like a much more modern Apollo might not be a bad idea.

Maybe something like this Delta IV heavy?
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/74/Delta_IV_launch_2013-08-28.jpg/480px-Delta_IV_launch_2013-08-28.jpg)
Delta IV heavy launch.
And USA is not completely out of reusabke vehicles. This is US Air Force and is only a robotic vehicle, but it is re-usable.
Quote
The US Air Force’s X37-B space plane is back home after its fourth mission
The robotic vehicle spent 719 days in space[/size]
(https://cdn0.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/1gj0Z0ayVTui754CEWBYU5vdSA4=/0x0:1024x683/1820x1213/filters:focal(431x261:593x423):format(webp)/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/54661457/C_OiRZCUAAApICh.0.jpg)
The US Air Force’s secret robotic space plane is back on Earth after its longest mission yet. The X37-B embarked on its fourth trip to space in 2015 and landed earlier this morning at Orlando’s Kennedy Space Center.

The landing marks the completion of the spacecraft’s fourth mission, OTV-4. This was the first time the spacecraft landed in Florida — it touched down at Vandenberg Air Force Base after each of its previous three missions — and woke up residents with a sonic boom this morning, according to the Orlando Sentinel. The US Air Force confirmed that the spacecraft touched down with a tweet.

From The US Air Force’s X37-B space plane is back home after its fourth mission (https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/7/15572828/us-air-force-x37b-secret-space-plane-otv4-florida)


Quote from: sceptimatic
And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.
;D ;D Maybe you should get a job advising NASA on how to proceed?  ;D ;D
:P Hope you enjoy the photos!  :P
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: markjo on May 08, 2017, 05:38:53 AM
It's completely laughable that NASA somehow appears to go backwards in technology whilst self made supposed multi billionaires like Lone Skum, etc, just happen to be able to knock up rockets galore for pennies, compared to the days gone by.
NASA not only seemingly can't afford to keep up with rocketry, then revert back to the old style of supposed re-entry in little cramped cones, when they had a supposed re-usable aircraft that worked so well, so often, that it made so called space flight a breeze.

And yet, after all of this, they revert back to old style but cannot revert back to the older older style Saturn V rockets that took men to the moon, as we were told.

Lost plans and too hard to make despite much much better all round technological advances as well as much better brain advancement in the so called rocket scientists school of thought....but, apparently not.
Leave it to the private sector to launch and land the same rocket, because they will fly you to mars, whilst NASA revert back to the lego room.

The NASA follow trends. They're reverting back to old style but not so old as to copy the 60's version of space rocketry.

Space and all of the spin off's are really made in a Hollywood basement.
Spot on !!!
??? Why do people keep thinking that NASA is in the space rocket business?  They aren't.  They're in the space exploration business.  There's a difference.
There's no difference. It's all bullshit.
It's only bullshit if you aren't willing to take an honest, open minded look at the science and technologies involved.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: jtlondon83 on May 20, 2017, 01:58:23 AM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

[Non sequitur meme]
Indeed, the idea that staging moon landings is insanely impossible but making moon landings is perfectly possible is a non sequitur.


Quote
1969 - computer - size of a house

Also rare, expensive, difficult to use, and, compared to what many people routinely carry in their pocket today, not powerful at all.
Indeed. So the idea that a small flimsy LM could house that is ridiculous.

Quote
This is strong evidence against the "CGI" some claim was used to fake the moon landings, but was still more than adequate to do the calculations necessary for a moon landing.

:D CGI didn't exist in 1969-1972. Front screen projection did. And that's what they used obviously. Your non sequitur is getting boring.

Quote
Who cares if an IBM System/360 was the size of a house if you had a large building to keep it in?

People who think some steps further than just accepting a lie.

Quote
Quote
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available

No. They were rare, expensive, and limited in capabilities compared to modern CGI, which wasn't available at the time.

Film studios were rare, expensive and limited in capabilities.
Going on a journey into the craziness of space was not rare, not expensive and not limited.


You see, your non sequitur is dooming your position, not mine.

Quote
Quote
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Apollo 8 did not leave System Earth, just as Apollo 11-17 didn't.

And even taking that as true; 1 journey to the Moon (without landing) was enough to perform 7 successful (6 with landing) journeys afterwards. Sure, then it wasn't difficult. Controlling the LEM in the well-known desert of the US was too hard for Clumsy Neil, but two weeks later a perfect landing on a celestial body, never done before was no problem. Your non sequiturs are dropping like micrometeorites.

Quote
Quote
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Of course, the deal was to make 2001 not too perfect, so the film stage hoax wouldn't be too obvious. The technical details of the "Moon landings" were even greater, pointed out by many reviewers, from Kaysing to McGowan, Sibrel and White (2 of them). And back.

Quote
Quote
The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

The "moon-landing hoax" arguments seem to have stalled a couple of decades ago after being thoroughly debunked. Ignorance is apparently endless, however, since some still claim to believe them.

The problem of believers is, that they think they "debunk" something just by quoting the same liars who staged the whole thang.

Ignorance indeed is apparently endless, good you acknowledge your failures. That's the first step, now you have to take the big leap.

Quote
Quote
Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore
::)

Sadly, this may come to pass. There seems to be no compelling short-term economic or political reason to put in the money and effort,

There are more motives than just economic and political. Scientific investigation is one of them.

"There seems to be" is just regurgitating the lies of the ones who have proven to lie all the time. Doesn't impress.

Quote
or take the risk - and it is expensive, difficult, and risky. All of that is needed to make a manned moon landing possible.

Apparently it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972. So today it would be even less difficult and risky.

The Wright brothers had a difficult and risky task at hand and they made it happen for a few seconds. That's why now you can fly almost anywhere on the planet. The summer holidays on the Moon will not. 44.5 years and counting.

Quote
The best chance of it happening again? China may press to attempt manned moon landing(s) for prestige and to hone technical capabilities. If they do so, the US may decide that it's worth it again, too, because there is still a lot to learn, but mostly we won't want to be upstaged by China. We can hope!
You name "prestige" and "still a lot to learn", which are good points, and then mask them again by pouring the sauce of the liars over it.

The Chinese government! :D Those commies can be trusted of course. Just like the Soviets could be trusted.
[/quote]

Fuck me, you're the embodiment of typical conspiratorial dullards - "I think it sounds hard to do so there must be someone with access to some better technology acting covertly in the shadows". See also Pyramids, Easter Island Statues, etc.

The point is that they couldn't do slow-mo in 1969, it's that simple, why not watch the video which explains it?

Setting light to shit tonne of propellent and firing something into space is quite crude really, and our understanding of Newtonian Physics is an effective tool in achieving a successful trip to the moon. It's not easy obviously, but quite why you think it's impossible makes literally no sense unless you haven't really thought about it, even superficially.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: BrightNextStep on May 20, 2017, 02:04:58 AM
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: jtlondon83 on May 20, 2017, 02:06:59 AM
All those who claim that faking the Moon "landings" in 1969-1972 was impossible but making the Moon landings in 1969-1972 possible, are essentially saying that warpdrives and Death Stars must be real.

[Non sequitur meme]
Indeed, the idea that staging moon landings is insanely impossible but making moon landings is perfectly possible is a non sequitur.


Quote
1969 - computer - size of a house

Also rare, expensive, difficult to use, and, compared to what many people routinely carry in their pocket today, not powerful at all.
Indeed. So the idea that a small flimsy LM could house that is ridiculous.

Quote
This is strong evidence against the "CGI" some claim was used to fake the moon landings, but was still more than adequate to do the calculations necessary for a moon landing.

:D CGI didn't exist in 1969-1972. Front screen projection did. And that's what they used obviously. Your non sequitur is getting boring.

Quote
Who cares if an IBM System/360 was the size of a house if you had a large building to keep it in?

People who think some steps further than just accepting a lie.

Quote
Quote
1969 - filmstudios - everywhere available

No. They were rare, expensive, and limited in capabilities compared to modern CGI, which wasn't available at the time.

Film studios were rare, expensive and limited in capabilities.
Going on a journey into the craziness of space was not rare, not expensive and not limited.


You see, your non sequitur is dooming your position, not mine.

Quote
Quote
1969 - no experience having been 380,000 kms from home

1968 - Apollo 8. 381,681 km from home on the evening of 24 Dec. Distance to moon (from central North America), 379,800 km + 1781 km radius of moon + 100 km orbital height.

Apollo 8 did not leave System Earth, just as Apollo 11-17 didn't.

And even taking that as true; 1 journey to the Moon (without landing) was enough to perform 7 successful (6 with landing) journeys afterwards. Sure, then it wasn't difficult. Controlling the LEM in the well-known desert of the US was too hard for Clumsy Neil, but two weeks later a perfect landing on a celestial body, never done before was no problem. Your non sequiturs are dropping like micrometeorites.

Quote
Quote
1969 - Kubrick had experience staging space films

2001: A Space Odyssey was a fun science-fiction film for the time. No one would confuse it for a documentary, however. The moon scenes made good visuals for a popular film, but had too many technical details wrong to pass muster as remotely close to realistic due to the limitations of special effects in films and simulation of conditions on the moon in a film studio on earth.

Of course, the deal was to make 2001 not too perfect, so the film stage hoax wouldn't be too obvious. The technical details of the "Moon landings" were even greater, pointed out by many reviewers, from Kaysing to McGowan, Sibrel and White (2 of them). And back.

Quote
Quote
The list is endless and every year that passes since those Nixon Nonlandings the whole scam becomes more laughable.

The "moon-landing hoax" arguments seem to have stalled a couple of decades ago after being thoroughly debunked. Ignorance is apparently endless, however, since some still claim to believe them.

The problem of believers is, that they think they "debunk" something just by quoting the same liars who staged the whole thang.

Ignorance indeed is apparently endless, good you acknowledge your failures. That's the first step, now you have to take the big leap.

Quote
Quote
Jan 13, 2167: Mama, can we go to the Moon for summer holidays?
No son, they did it 6 times between 1969 and 1972 with medieval technology, but now we can't anymore
::)

Sadly, this may come to pass. There seems to be no compelling short-term economic or political reason to put in the money and effort,

There are more motives than just economic and political. Scientific investigation is one of them.

"There seems to be" is just regurgitating the lies of the ones who have proven to lie all the time. Doesn't impress.

Quote
or take the risk - and it is expensive, difficult, and risky. All of that is needed to make a manned moon landing possible.

Apparently it wasn't difficult and risky in 1969-1972. So today it would be even less difficult and risky.

The Wright brothers had a difficult and risky task at hand and they made it happen for a few seconds. That's why now you can fly almost anywhere on the planet. The summer holidays on the Moon will not. 44.5 years and counting.

Quote
The best chance of it happening again? China may press to attempt manned moon landing(s) for prestige and to hone technical capabilities. If they do so, the US may decide that it's worth it again, too, because there is still a lot to learn, but mostly we won't want to be upstaged by China. We can hope!
You name "prestige" and "still a lot to learn", which are good points, and then mask them again by pouring the sauce of the liars over it.

The Chinese government! :D Those commies can be trusted of course. Just like the Soviets could be trusted.

Fuck me, you're the embodiment of typical conspiratorial dullards - "I think it sounds hard to do so there must be someone with access to some better technology acting covertly in the shadows". See also Pyramids, Easter Island Statues, etc.

The point is that they couldn't do slow-mo in 1969, it's that simple, why not watch the video which explains it?

Setting light to shit tonne of propellent and firing something into space is quite crude really, and our understanding of Newtonian Physics is an effective tool in achieving a successful trip to the moon. It's not easy obviously, but quite why you think it's impossible makes literally no sense unless you haven't really thought about it, even superficially.
[/quote]
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on May 20, 2017, 02:25:43 AM
2001 a space odyssey took 2 years to make for 2.5 hours of footage.

Over 21 hours of video is avaible from Apollo 17

So did Apollo 17 take 16,8 years to make?

Can you imagine how long it would take to fake the 36000 gigapixel map of the lunar surface, which consists of 4500 Apollo Panoramic Camera photos taken from Apollo 15 to Apollo 17?

Stanley Kubric was working on an other movie while Apollo was going on,
The special effects directors and creators went to make other movies while Apollo was going on.
how did they work on two projects at the same time?

Also no, not all computers were the size of houses.

Apollo lunar surface footage could not have been faked because the Lunar Orbiter maps were of much lower resolution. You can not fake something if you don't know it is there and have it match up with modern  moon probes that took pictures also.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 20, 2017, 04:38:08 AM
  • http://yournewswire.com/stanley-kubrick-confesses-to-faking-the-moon-landings/

The material in this article is a demonstrable lie.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/movie-news/stanley-kubrick-moon-landings-hoax-fake/

http://www.snopes.com/false-stanley-kubrick-faked-moon-landings/
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: BrightNextStep on May 22, 2017, 02:47:07 AM
 :-X
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 22, 2017, 02:53:37 AM
after the descent, dust was undisturbed on the surface and none was on the legs.   ::)

That's correct. If you watch any video footage of a lunar landing, and that also includes the Chinese one, you see the descent engine sending lunar dust off towards the horizon. The momentum of that and the fact that there is no atmosphere means that there is no dust floating around to settle on the LM feet - any dust entrained by the engine exhaust is long gone.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Denspressure on May 24, 2017, 10:45:50 AM
after the descent, dust was undisturbed on the surface and none was on the legs.   ::)

That's correct. If you watch any video footage of a lunar landing, and that also includes the Chinese one, you see the descent engine sending lunar dust off towards the horizon. The momentum of that and the fact that there is no atmosphere means that there is no dust floating around to settle on the LM feet - any dust entrained by the engine exhaust is long gone.

No, wrong. Dust was clearly disturbed.

Apollo 11 under LM, lunar surface is clearly scorched:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/xlp5ewm52lrwv76/AS11-40-5892cropped.jpg?dl=1)
Smooth surface near LM:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/643/21472297878_19ab9825c1_z_d.jpg)
Rough surface further away from LM:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5821/21669278091_6691003091_z_d.jpg)

And Apollo 12:
Next to LM:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5815/21672141752_5141569df9_z_d.jpg)
Under LM descent engine:
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5725/21692794731_dec30f60c9_z_d.jpg)
Rough surface further away from LM:
(https://farm1.staticflickr.com/629/21659536705_77cd39402a_z_d.jpg)

Impact of LM foot on lunar surface as recorded on Apollo 12:
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on May 24, 2017, 03:36:52 PM
It really funny what people get up to on this forum.....pretending that they are super sleuths and know stuff.....and can prove the moonlanding were all faked! Pretending they all know all the stuff to know about moon dust and how it should move and behave at 1/6 th G ....or is it 1/6th denpressure!.......hold on no air so no denpressure, in your face Sceptimatic explain that flat people.....in near vacuum conditions...total crap by the way...... people went to the moon .......I know I had a drink with one once........well a couple of drinks....

The only thing I know about the moon, other than it's not made from metal and stone as claimed by some other flat head looser,  is a long time ago on a trip to the USA, 1989/ 1990 I happened to meet a former astronaut who had been on the moon, I forget his name, I think he said Apollo15, but I'm not really sure, being on this forum has really fucked up my memory.....anyhow we were in a bar at a conference, he had done a talk on the Spaceshuttle and the future of space flight earlier that day.....and he says the moon was as boring as this bar we were in, and he started waving his hands around he was quite well on, I think his tipple was wild turkey, I was getting him to try some Bowmore the bar had!....anyhow he said boring boring boring, when I asked why? He smiled and said .....both lacked any atmosphere, he then almost pissed himself laughing, the funny thing is I didn't laugh either. He then promptly fell off his stool. I had to carry him back to his room, his wife (girlfriend?) was not happy. The other strange thing I remember thinking was odd at the time he asked me if I wanted to buy any stamps!

True story.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 24, 2017, 04:38:05 PM
It really funny what people get up to on this forum.....pretending that they are super sleuths and know stuff.....and can prove the moonlanding were all faked! Pretending they all know all the stuff to know about moon dust and how it should move and behave at 1/6 th G ....or is it 1/6th denpressure!.......hold on no air so no denpressure, in your face Sceptimatic explain that flat people.....in near vacuum conditions...total crap by the way...... people went to the moon .......I know I had a drink with one once........well a couple of drinks....

The only thing I know about the moon, other than it's not made from metal and stone as claimed by some other flat head looser,  is a long time ago on a trip to the USA, 1989/ 1990 I happened to meet a former astronaut who had been on the moon, I forget his name, I think he said Apollo15, but I'm not really sure, being on this forum has really fucked up my memory.....anyhow we were in a bar at a conference, he had done a talk on the Spaceshuttle and the future of space flight earlier that day.....and he says the moon was as boring as this bar we were in, and he started waving his hands around he was quite well on, I think his tipple was wild turkey, I was getting him to try some Bowmore the bar had!....anyhow he said boring boring boring, when I asked why? He smiled and said .....both lacked any atmosphere, he then almost pissed himself laughing, the funny thing is I didn't laugh either. He then promptly fell off his stool. I had to carry him back to his room, his wife (girlfriend?) was not happy. The other strange thing I remember thinking was odd at the time he asked me if I wanted to buy any stamps!

True story.
True is also that you and others shovel a recent ISS live event between an ISS guitar hero and a band+choir on earth under the carpet.
The actual audio is for experts like me a post studio production in all aspects.
Since you nor any other glober validate my expertise in this particular aspect of sound, recording and live music, i wonder if you really care about any truth at all.
I have proposed the credibility of this event with several recording and theater engeneres and all agreed it is impossible on several levels.
The end result that was shown with accompanying video defies reality as WE the experts know as such.

Why do i keep bringing this to the table again and again ?
Because it shows that space agencies have little morality in their ranks to spread the ultimate truth....it's just a marketing hype that has no real boundaries then to promote a certain template of space achievements and amusement.
Every sensible person agrees that the specific ''live'' event between the ISS and earth is fraudulent on all accounts, but no one taking part in the actuall event indicated such thing.
If NASA is willing to betray the general public this way, i wonder what their ''moral standards'' look like.
Is it allright to pretend a certain ''intergalactic'' concert to fool the masses, while insiders like me know for a fact that it is totally impossible to have a real live concert between the ISS and planet earth ?

Who would dismiss this glaring fraudulent event as a minor footnote ??
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on May 24, 2017, 05:38:37 PM
It really funny what people get up to on this forum.....pretending that they are super sleuths and know stuff.....and can prove the moonlanding were all faked! Pretending they all know all the stuff to know about moon dust and how it should move and behave at 1/6 th G ....or is it 1/6th denpressure!.......hold on no air so no denpressure, in your face Sceptimatic explain that flat people.....in near vacuum conditions...total crap by the way...... people went to the moon .......I know I had a drink with one once........well a couple of drinks....

The only thing I know about the moon, other than it's not made from metal and stone as claimed by some other flat head looser,  is a long time ago on a trip to the USA, 1989/ 1990 I happened to meet a former astronaut who had been on the moon, I forget his name, I think he said Apollo15, but I'm not really sure, being on this forum has really fucked up my memory.....anyhow we were in a bar at a conference, he had done a talk on the Spaceshuttle and the future of space flight earlier that day.....and he says the moon was as boring as this bar we were in, and he started waving his hands around he was quite well on, I think his tipple was wild turkey, I was getting him to try some Bowmore the bar had!....anyhow he said boring boring boring, when I asked why? He smiled and said .....both lacked any atmosphere, he then almost pissed himself laughing, the funny thing is I didn't laugh either. He then promptly fell off his stool. I had to carry him back to his room, his wife (girlfriend?) was not happy. The other strange thing I remember thinking was odd at the time he asked me if I wanted to buy any stamps!

True story.
True is also that you and others shovel a recent ISS live event between an ISS guitar hero and a band+choir on earth under the carpet.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Every sensible person agrees that the specific ''live'' event between the ISS and earth is fraudulent on all accounts, but no one taking part in the actuall event indicated such thing.
If NASA is willing to betray the general public this way, i wonder what their ''moral standards'' look like.
Is it allright to pretend a certain ''intergalactic'' concert to fool the masses, while ;D ;D ;D insiders like me  ;D ;D ;D know for a fact that it is totally impossible to have a real live concert between the ISS and planet earth ?

Who would dismiss this glaring fraudulent event as a minor footnote ??
Still wearing those NASAphobic glasses, I see!

When are all those like youself going to realise that NASA had nothing to do with "the shape of the earth".
The current, and well proven, Heliocentric Globe was firmly entrenched long before NASA turned up.

A few blowhards, like yourself, are not going to change anything.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 24, 2017, 05:49:51 PM
Still wearing those NASAphobic glasses, I see!

When are all those like youself going to realise that NASA had nothing to do with "the shape of the earth".
The current, and well proven, Heliocentric Globe was firmly entrenched long before NASA turned up.

A few blowhards, like yourself, are not going to change anything.
If one is caught in manipulating the smaller things of life for unknown reasons, one cannot be trusted with far more important things.
That is how i raise my children every day.
If you lie about small things for selfish reasons, nothing stops you from being a total liar.

Rabinoz i simply want to know if you, who i think is a believer in a Higher morality, agrees with these kind of fraudulent ''space'' marketing events.
Could you please shed your light on this ?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Alpha2Omega on May 24, 2017, 06:33:53 PM
The actual audio is for experts like me a post studio production in all aspects.

You're an audio expert. Noted.

Quote
Since you nor any other glober validate my expertise in this particular aspect of sound, recording and live music, i wonder if you really care about any truth at all.

??? Would you mind trying to say that again? Coherently this time, please.

Quote
I have proposed the credibility of this event with several recording and theater engeneres and all agreed it is impossible on several levels.

Cool. Have you asked any actual audio or video engineers (i.e. with engineering degrees from a real institution; additionally, holding PE licenses - which demonstrate basic competence in their specialty to an outside board - would be even better) about it? Do you know any of those?

Quote
The end result that was shown with accompanying video defies reality as WE the experts know as such.

Thanks for sharing. Can you provide anything convincing that suggests that any of this actually happened, and, if it did, that you and your expert friends actually know anything relevant?

There are a lot of self-proclaimed "audio experts" that have no real clue. If you doubt that, just cruise some of the "high-end audio" forums for topics waxing ecstatically about analog and digital audio or AC power cables, magic audiophile capacitors, and other forms of woo. Theater and studio sound guys may be good at what they do, but I would hesitate to consider them the final authority about what is and is not possible.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: rabinoz on May 24, 2017, 08:35:53 PM
Still wearing those NASAphobic glasses, I see!
If one is caught in manipulating the smaller things of life for unknown reasons, one cannot be trusted with far more important things.

Rabinoz I simply want to know if you, who i think is a believer in a Higher morality, agrees with these kind of fraudulent ''space'' marketing events.
Could you please shed your light on this ?
You claim that YOU are the expert and YOU claim that they were caught in manipulating the smaller things of life for unknown reasons.

I do not have to accept your claims if for no other reason than that you have a totally irrational and unjustified hatred of NASA and anything to with space exploration.
Especially as NASA and space exploration have not the slightest bit to do with the shape of the earth.

So I simply choose to regard all of your claims with a pinch of salt.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on May 24, 2017, 11:57:32 PM
It really funny what people get up to on this forum.....pretending that they are super sleuths and know stuff.....and can prove the moonlanding were all faked! Pretending they all know all the stuff to know about moon dust and how it should move and behave at 1/6 th G ....or is it 1/6th denpressure!.......hold on no air so no denpressure, in your face Sceptimatic explain that flat people.....in near vacuum conditions...total crap by the way...... people went to the moon .......I know I had a drink with one once........well a couple of drinks....

The only thing I know about the moon, other than it's not made from metal and stone as claimed by some other flat head looser,  is a long time ago on a trip to the USA, 1989/ 1990 I happened to meet a former astronaut who had been on the moon, I forget his name, I think he said Apollo15, but I'm not really sure, being on this forum has really fucked up my memory.....anyhow we were in a bar at a conference, he had done a talk on the Spaceshuttle and the future of space flight earlier that day.....and he says the moon was as boring as this bar we were in, and he started waving his hands around he was quite well on, I think his tipple was wild turkey, I was getting him to try some Bowmore the bar had!....anyhow he said boring boring boring, when I asked why? He smiled and said .....both lacked any atmosphere, he then almost pissed himself laughing, the funny thing is I didn't laugh either. He then promptly fell off his stool. I had to carry him back to his room, his wife (girlfriend?) was not happy. The other strange thing I remember thinking was odd at the time he asked me if I wanted to buy any stamps!

True story.
True is also that you and others shovel a recent ISS live event between an ISS guitar hero and a band+choir on earth under the carpet.
The actual audio is for experts like me a post studio production in all aspects.
Since you nor any other glober validate my expertise in this particular aspect of sound, recording and live music, i wonder if you really care about any truth at all.
I have proposed the credibility of this event with several recording and theater engeneres and all agreed it is impossible on several levels.
The end result that was shown with accompanying video defies reality as WE the experts know as such.

Why do i keep bringing this to the table again and again ?
Because it shows that space agencies have little morality in their ranks to spread the ultimate truth....it's just a marketing hype that has no real boundaries then to promote a certain template of space achievements and amusement.
Every sensible person agrees that the specific ''live'' event between the ISS and earth is fraudulent on all accounts, but no one taking part in the actuall event indicated such thing.
If NASA is willing to betray the general public this way, i wonder what their ''moral standards'' look like.
Is it allright to pretend a certain ''intergalactic'' concert to fool the masses, while insiders like me know for a fact that it is totally impossible to have a real live concert between the ISS and planet earth ?

Who would dismiss this glaring fraudulent event as a minor footnote ??

God your not still harping on about this are you, get real, they landed on the moon, get over it, why should that fact spoil your day? Why do you get so angry over those four letters NASA? Other things have also landed on the moon, the wee Chinese rover, are you over that?

What's wrong with you that you feel the need to belive all this crap you come out with? It sounds a bit like my new JCET theory... possibly you would like that, for it to is just a pile of crap.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: dutchy on May 25, 2017, 12:47:15 PM
God your not still harping on about this are you, get real, they landed on the moon, get over it, why should that fact spoil your day? Why do you get so angry over those four letters NASA? Other things have also landed on the moon, the wee Chinese rover, are you over that?

What's wrong with you that you feel the need to belive all this crap you come out with? It sounds a bit like my new JCET theory... possibly you would like that, for it to is just a pile of crap.
(http://)

Since this is clearly fake and you are not willing to answer any of it other than make me look like an unknowledgable whiner on purpose, i simply have to repeat it again and again.
Please ask some of your friends, relatives, sound guys or whatever ''google search'' and return with your comments if you are willing to give me the full details about how this could be a genuine ''live performance between the ISS and earth'' supported by scientific figures.

If not then we have the first clear attempt of ''NASA fakery'' in which you and i agree.
This is very important for any further discussion, because you constantly either redirect, ignore or deny that NASA is into any form of deliberate fakery.
Really it isn't that hard, is it ? Simply post all the scientific ''acoustic'' evidence why you think this is genuine !!
Don't bother answering if you change the goalpost once again and start mocking me for a supposed NASA obsession !

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
Post by: Lonegranger on May 25, 2017, 01:16:45 PM
God your not still harping on about this are you, get real, they landed on the moon, get over it, why should that fact spoil your day? Why do you get so angry over those four letters NASA? Other things have also landed on the moon, the wee Chinese rover, are you over that?

What's wrong with you that you feel the need to belive all this crap you come out with? It sounds a bit like my new JCET theory... possibly you would like that, for it to is just a pile of crap.
(http://)

Since this is clearly fake and you are not willing to answer any of it other than make me look like an unknowledgable whiner on purpose, i simply have to repeat it again and again.
Please ask some of your friends, relatives, sound guys or whatever ''google search'' and return with your comments if you are willing to give me the full details about how this could be a genuine ''live performance between the ISS and earth'' supported by scientific figures.

If not then we have the first clear attempt of ''NASA fakery'' in which you and i agree.
This is very important for any further discussion, because you constantly either redirect, ignore or deny that NASA is into any form of deliberate fakery.
Really it isn't that hard, is it ? Simply post all the scientific ''acoustic'' evidence why you think this is genuine !!
Don't bo