Moon conspiracy

Interesting little moon video.
#" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Hammer vs Feather - Physics on the Moon: Galileo and Apollo 15

So what is happening here for the conspiracy theorists?

Wires attached to feather? Doesn't look like it.
Slowed down video? Doesn't look like it.

To me it looks like those objects are falling slower than they would on earth due to reduced gravity.
Not that I am some fancy scientist... just that I trust, ye know, SCIENCE and use a little common sense.

That Galileo was a smart chap. Smarter than even Tom Bishop!!

Galileo didn't say objects would fall slower on the Moon 

Galileo didn't say objects would fall slower on the Moon 

Eh??

Did I say that he did say that??
The video is an experiment that took place on the moon to confirm Galileo's discovery of falling objects in gravity fields.

I stated that Galileo was a clever chap.

So... what exactly are you saying?

Also, any thoughts on the video??

Beorn, I think that little Smiley you posted might actually be a self portrait.

If you truly believe this FE nonsense then I wouldn't be surprised.




Uploaded with ImageShack.us[/img]

Quote from: Beorn on October 25, 2012, 06:09:12 AM

Galileo didn't say objects would fall slower on the Moon 

Eh??

Did I say that he did say that??
The video is an experiment that took place on the moon to confirm Galileo's discovery of falling objects in gravity fields.

I stated that Galileo was a clever chap.

So... what exactly are you saying?

I think that he's saying that you might be confusing Galileo with Newton.

Quote from: mexicanwave on October 25, 2012, 06:31:52 AM

Quote from: Beorn on October 25, 2012, 06:09:12 AM

Galileo didn't say objects would fall slower on the Moon 

Eh??

Did I say that he did say that??
The video is an experiment that took place on the moon to confirm Galileo's discovery of falling objects in gravity fields.

I stated that Galileo was a clever chap.

So... what exactly are you saying?

I think that he's saying that you might be confusing Galileo with Newton.

No, I am not. Watch the video. Also look up Galileo gravity. Newton wasn't the only one working on gravity theories.

Galileo, Newton, Kepler. All accepted the Copernicus system that the earth was a sphere, rotating on its axis around the sun.

Also all rather clever men who were seeking the truth, and had no motivation to be involved in a conspiracy that would some 400 years later be rejected by Internet idiots that still believe the earth to be flat.

So what of the video? What excuse can you concoct that would explain the not only lowered gravity, but the lack of air resistance.

Aside from of course arguing over whether or not Galileo cared about gravity. I don't want you to daintily prance around the answer, but instead try to answer it in a way that can actually convince people. Obviously if you are real then something convinced you of this. What is it?

So what is happening here for the conspiracy theorists?

Wires attached to feather? Doesn't look like it.
Slowed down video? Doesn't look like it.

To me it looks like those objects are falling slower than they would on earth due to reduced gravity.
Not that I am some fancy scientist... just that I trust, ye know, SCIENCE and use a little common sense.

That Galileo was a smart chap. Smarter than even Tom Bishop!!

This evidence proves nothing.  The feather could be weighted to overcome air resistance.  The film could have been recorded at higher speed so that it is slower on playback.

If you really "used a little common sense" then you would be looking for another argument.

The footage was shot in a vacuum-sealed room.

The person did say the objects will hit the ground at the same time, he did not say they would hit the moon.

a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity

a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity

Changing the speed of the film does.

Quote from: Flat Eric on October 25, 2012, 03:27:22 PM

a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity

Changing the speed of the film does.

But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast.  Especially in those gloves.

Not if the person in the suit opens his hands slowly.

Fair enough.

raising objections doesn't even start to disprove the movie!

It wont work, Flat Eric. Of course they won't believe a video. The whole theory is held up by the belief that NASA's videos are fake. You can't try to argue "Its real" to "Its not real"

But its real.

Quote from: jroa on October 25, 2012, 05:36:28 PM

Quote from: Flat Eric on October 25, 2012, 03:27:22 PM

a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity

Changing the speed of the film does.

But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast.  Especially in those gloves.

Look at 0.17 of the film.
Look how fast his hand moves.

If the vid was slowed his hand would be moving ridiculously fast here.
I see no evidence of the film being speeded up and slowed, then speeded up again.
This would be VERY noticable. Look at any example you can find in cinema. Or, even better, do a zetetic experiment!!

So, the video speed is normal, it is not in a vacum (coz this would make zero difference) the feather is not weighted, the hammer is not a feather. It was shot on the moon.

Any objections???

Quote from: Lorddave on October 25, 2012, 06:06:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on October 25, 2012, 05:36:28 PM

Quote from: Flat Eric on October 25, 2012, 03:27:22 PM

a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity

Changing the speed of the film does.

But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast.  Especially in those gloves.

Look at 0.17 of the film.
Look how fast his hand moves.

If the vid was slowed his hand would be moving ridiculously fast here.
I see no evidence of the film being speeded up and slowed, then speeded up again.
This would be VERY noticable. Look at any example you can find in cinema. Or, even better, do a zetetic experiment!!

So, the video speed is normal, it is not in a vacum (coz this would make zero difference) the feather is not weighted, the hammer is not a feather. It was shot on the moon.

Any objections???

If this was shot in a vacuum, it would make a difference. It would look just as it looks.

How does a vacuum affect human reflexes? It is not a vacuum inside the space suit.

Quote from: Lorddave on October 25, 2012, 06:06:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on October 25, 2012, 05:36:28 PM

Quote from: Flat Eric on October 25, 2012, 03:27:22 PM

a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity

Changing the speed of the film does.

But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast.  Especially in those gloves.

Look at 0.17 of the film.
Look how fast his hand moves.

If the vid was slowed his hand would be moving ridiculously fast here.
I see no evidence of the film being speeded up and slowed, then speeded up again.
This would be VERY noticable. Look at any example you can find in cinema. Or, even better, do a zetetic experiment!!

So, the video speed is normal, it is not in a vacum (coz this would make zero difference) the feather is not weighted, the hammer is not a feather. It was shot on the moon.

Any objections???

Lets try this from a different angle.  Write down all the reasons that you think it's impossible to have been shot on earth.  Now, as a thought experiment, pretend you think it's a fake and come up with explanations for each of your points.  Notice how childishly easy it is to dismiss each point.  Now, this does not prove that the landing was fake, but it may give you some perspective on what you accept as undeniable proofs when you should be pausing to think about them.

Same can be said for any FE point.

Same can be said for any FE point.

Sure, it can be said like how I can say that Ancient Egyptians invented microwave ovens. How these thins differ is that we have the ability to question ourselves and our standpoints aren't ridiculous. 

Also, I see that you have failed to divine the purpose of the thought experiment. Please try again.

Quote from: cartwheelnurd on October 27, 2012, 07:31:29 AM

Same can be said for any FE point.

Sure, it can be said like how I can say that Ancient Egyptians invented microwave ovens. How these thins differ is that we have the ability to question ourselves and our standpoints aren't ridiculous. 

Also, I see that you have failed to divine the purpose of the thought experiment. Please try again.

I have yet to see a single FE theory or point that cannot be jst as childishly dismissed as you say the moon landing video was.

Quote from: mexicanwave on October 26, 2012, 06:29:33 AM

Quote from: Lorddave on October 25, 2012, 06:06:32 PM

Quote from: jroa on October 25, 2012, 05:36:28 PM

Quote from: Flat Eric on October 25, 2012, 03:27:22 PM

a vacuum sealed room doesn't account for reduced gravity

Changing the speed of the film does.

But that would mean that the hands of the person dropping the objects would be going almost impossibly fast.  Especially in those gloves.

Look at 0.17 of the film.
Look how fast his hand moves.

If the vid was slowed his hand would be moving ridiculously fast here.
I see no evidence of the film being speeded up and slowed, then speeded up again.
This would be VERY noticable. Look at any example you can find in cinema. Or, even better, do a zetetic experiment!!

So, the video speed is normal, it is not in a vacum (coz this would make zero difference) the feather is not weighted, the hammer is not a feather. It was shot on the moon.

Any objections???

Lets try this from a different angle.  Write down all the reasons that you think it's impossible to have been shot on earth.  Now, as a thought experiment, pretend you think it's a fake and come up with explanations for each of your points.  Notice how childishly easy it is to dismiss each point.  Now, this does not prove that the landing was fake, but it may give you some perspective on what you accept as undeniable proofs when you should be pausing to think about them.

Ok

Here is why I think it is impossible that the moon videos were shot on earth.

1 - The utterly convincing reduced gravity. #noexternalembed" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 16 EVAs 2 (falling down on the Moon)
I have probably seen every big budget sci-fi film of the last 30 years. Not one of these films has ever been able to show a convincing reduced / zero g environment. Not with modern cgi and certainly not ones made in the 60's. In fact even to this day any attempt at filming zero g looks 100% fake. Have you seen Appollo 13 with Tom Hanks??

2 - The utterly convincing video and images from the moon landings. Similar point to the above, I think it was impossible for these to be recreated in any kind of convincing way at the time. #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo lunar module prepares for docking

3 - The sheer amount of people that would be required to stage and fake something of this scale and magnitude. I believe it would be impossible to keep them all quiet and prevent them from outing the secret.

4 - This image (amongst others)
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?http://lonewolfsden.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Earth-From-The-Moon-1-1024x768.jpg

Are you telling me this is a painting?

5 - The Russians. Who were obviously rather pissed at being beaten to the moon.
Would they not have loved to have exposed a hoax of this scale? Would they not have done everything in their power to do so?

Ok, I gotta go don't have time to do any more. Might add some later.

As for your thought experiment... sorry, I won't be doing that. I cannot even pretend to be that stupid.

Here is why I think it is impossible that the moon videos were shot on earth.

1 - The utterly convincing reduced gravity. #noexternalembed" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo 16 EVAs 2 (falling down on the Moon)
I have probably seen every big budget sci-fi film of the last 30 years. Not one of these films has ever been able to show a convincing reduced / zero g environment. Not with modern cgi and certainly not ones made in the 60's. In fact even to this day any attempt at filming zero g looks 100% fake. Have you seen Appollo 13 with Tom Hanks??

I have seen quite a few movies that are more realistic than real life. 

2 - The utterly convincing video and images from the moon landings. Similar point to the above, I think it was impossible for these to be recreated in any kind of convincing way at the time. #" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Apollo lunar module prepares for docking

See #1

3 - The sheer amount of people that would be required to stage and fake something of this scale and magnitude. I believe it would be impossible to keep them all quiet and prevent them from outing the secret.

Yes, and I am sure no secrets can ever be kept by more than 3 people, especially when money and death threats are involved.

4 - This image (amongst others)
http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?http://lonewolfsden.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/Earth-From-The-Moon-1-1024x768.jpg

Are you telling me this is a painting?

Are you telling me it is undeniable proof of anything?

5 - The Russians. Who were obviously rather pissed at being beaten to the moon.
Would they not have loved to have exposed a hoax of this scale? Would they not have done everything in their power to do so?

The Russians would not dare ruin our prank.  We had too much evidence of their shenanigans for them to expose us.

[/quote]

I have seen quite a few movies that are more realistic than real life. 


Which movies are those?
Which movies have you seen that showed realistic reduced / zero g?
I can give you examples of some that I have seen that do not even come close.

Apollo 13 with Tom Hanks.
The actors are clearly on wires and/or just moving their bodies a little slower to give the impression of zero g.
A big budget movie that of all of them should have got it right. It is very far from convincing.
#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Houston, We Have a Problem - Apollo 13 (4/11) Movie CLIP (1995) HD
Note, the bits that are convincing in this clip were filmed aboard a zero g jet in parabolic flight.

Yes, and I am sure no secrets can ever be kept by more than 3 people, especially when money and death threats are involved.

3 people? I think you might find that a moon conspiracy would involve thousands, probably tens of thousand of people to be involved. Also have you ever seen interviews of talks by those involved over the decades? They seem to be successful, fulfilled scientists and engineers. Proud of their achievements and in no way seem to be under duress or in fear of their lives.


Are you telling me it is undeniable proof of anything?

On it's own, no. But along with the mind boggling amount of other photographic and video evidence it is absolute undeniable proof!

Look at space images from the 60's, 70's and up until now, from the ISS & spacewalks. Just thousands upon thousands of images and videos that simply cannot ALL be faked. Impossible. Utterly impossible!
http://industrieclothing.tumblr.com/post/15941369437/gemini

Ask yourself. Do these pictures look fake?

The Russians would not dare ruin our prank.  We had too much evidence of their shenanigans for them to expose us.


Fair enough, so back to the other points.
Please, go look at as many space images as you can, and instead of seeing fake, actually consider that they are real.
Coz... they are.

You keep referencing Apollo 13.  You do realize that it was a movie meant for entertainment, right?

You keep referencing Apollo 13.  You do realize that it was a movie meant for entertainment, right?

What a snide and evasive comment.

Of course I do, and you know I do.
You also know fine well why I am referencing it. But seeing as you have made me, I will explain again.

You say the moon landings are a hoax. Staged and filmed, Much like a hollywood movie, no?
Surely using the same techniques?
It was you who said "I have seen quite a few movies that are more realistic than real life."
Really? What?

I am showing this movie and could show EVERY other sci-fi movie and nothing comes close to as convincing me it is anything other than staged and definitely shot on earth. In 1g with some tricks.

The actual moon videos on the other hand look real. Coz they are real.

Now please come back with another short, evasive, stupid response that answers nothing and only makes you look more of a fool.

The movie was not made to try to convince people that space flight was possible.  It was made for entertainment only.  Please do not try to use it to prove the Earth is round.  It only makes you look dumb.