Moon Hoax, Not

  • 1293 Replies
  • 189286 Views
?

MrT

  • 211
Moon Hoax, Not
« on: January 22, 2013, 08:12:29 AM »
Interesting video about the Moon landing hoax.  I particularly like the last minute or two. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">moon hoax not

The above is not meant to be an attack or inflammatory, it's just what I think.

Quote from: Tom Bishop
I don't understand

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #1 on: January 22, 2013, 09:13:16 AM »
Interesting video about the Moon landing hoax.  I particularly like the last minute or two. 

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">moon hoax not

That guy is clearly fake! Look greenscreen everywhere!!  ;)

This is an excellent video and sums up what I have been trying to get through to the conspiracists on here. It would have been EASIER to go to the moon than fake it and everything else required to convince the watching world, and other nations.

His last 2 minute summary perfectly describes the idiocy and ignorance of many FE'ers.

Thanks for posting this.


*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #2 on: January 22, 2013, 10:44:35 AM »
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #3 on: January 22, 2013, 10:59:46 AM »
Yeah, he just ignored the possibility of conventionally slowing video down and focused entirely on how overcranking wouldn't be feasible.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #4 on: January 22, 2013, 11:04:40 AM »
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.

No, he's saying that in 1969 it wasn't possible to shoot enough film or video at one time to show 143 continuous minutes of slow motion.  Please pay attention, will you Tom?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #5 on: January 22, 2013, 11:36:04 AM »
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.
This is textbook Strawman argument. The author said the exact opposite of what Tom Bishop is saying: in 1969 it was possible to slow video down to half speed according to the author What the author is saying is that the technology was not there to make a continuous slow motion video of several minutes. Any attempt at a slow motion video of such a length would be full of telltale splices, or would have at least a few scratches or particles of dust that would show that the slow motion was done with 35 mm film and then passed to video.

Creating a slow motion video was possible. Doing it so well that we cannot see the defects, even now that we have all the digital equipment that was thought impossible back then, is pretty close to impossible.

*

RealScientist

  • 417
  • Science does not care for Earth's shape
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #6 on: January 22, 2013, 12:48:03 PM »
Where is the 143 minute continuous footage of slow motion on the moon?
Exactly. The people like me who were alive at that time remember the continuous showing of long, unedited video. As far as I know, most of it was not preserved for posterity because it was just too difficult. The same goes for most local programming of that time's national television in my country and probably all others.

I can assure you, the quality of video from that time was really poor compared to today's video. The perfect cuts and scene changes we know just weren't possible. And the typical airing of weeks or months of programs without a single glitch, which is now the norm, was totally unheard of in those times. Video was full of problems. Films were frequently scratched, had visible marks, had visual signs for the operator to change reels, had white balance problems when changing scenes, and so much more. In fact, it was not uncommon to have long waits while the operator at your local cinema repaired the film after it had broken or got burned.

So, if you think they used 1969's technology for the videos, look for 1969's technologies' failures.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2013, 02:19:33 PM »
NASA is omnipotent.

*

Saddam Hussein

  • Official Member
  • 35374
  • Former President of Iraq
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2013, 02:31:42 PM »
Where is the 143 minute continuous footage of slow motion on the moon?
Exactly. The people like me who were alive at that time remember the continuous showing of long, unedited video. As far as I know, most of it was not preserved for posterity because it was just too difficult. The same goes for most local programming of that time's national television in my country and probably all others.

I can assure you, the quality of video from that time was really poor compared to today's video. The perfect cuts and scene changes we know just weren't possible. And the typical airing of weeks or months of programs without a single glitch, which is now the norm, was totally unheard of in those times. Video was full of problems. Films were frequently scratched, had visible marks, had visual signs for the operator to change reels, had white balance problems when changing scenes, and so much more. In fact, it was not uncommon to have long waits while the operator at your local cinema repaired the film after it had broken or got burned.

So, if you think they used 1969's technology for the videos, look for 1969's technologies' failures.

I think you may have misunderstood his post slightly.  He's quite literally asking where the footage is.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 17920
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2013, 02:32:37 PM »
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.

No, he's saying that in 1969 it wasn't possible to shoot enough film or video at one time to show 143 continuous minutes of slow motion.  Please pay attention, will you Tom?

Why not? At the beginning of the video the narrator says that NASA had their equipment specially built for the government from Westinghouse.

But rather than slowing the video is it more likely that they simply used wire supports, as described in the video sceptimatic posted.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2013, 02:34:34 PM by Tom Bishop »

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2013, 02:41:38 PM »
IF space travel is possible I am sure NASA wouldn't chance it to fake it.
You can tell this guy knows his cameras.

*

SamAkaviri

  • 7
  • Let's explore....Today!
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2013, 03:54:38 PM »
Indeed an intriguing topic, though admittedly a little outside of my specialty  :D

As a renown Canadian physicist, I can offer my research and extensive connections to NASA officials to clarify a couple of points regarding the moon landing.  Primarily, space travel in 1969 was, in fact, quite feasible, thanks largely to Dr. Spurtan Appratox's Phyllonium III engine (that which Apollo 11 used). 

Secondly, the moon landing did not actually take place; it is actually a hoax.  As their spacecraft was approaching the moon's surface, the astronauts were forced to jettison their FOURTH team-member, Fred Gurgleon, due to the excessive weight of their landing craft.  This is all contained in classified documents now maintained in NASA's archives and accessible only to the upper-most tier of leadership.  Rather than continuing the mission, the team decided to abandon the landing and head back to Earth.  The 'landing' was filmed in Casa Dunca, Mexico. 

Physicists at NASA completely underestimated the weight of the lunar vehicle due to their inability to grasp the concept of the Pintamoranian gas belts that surround the moon, creating vast areas of immense gravitational pull.

And that my friends, as they say, is history.  :-\

Dr. Samuel H. Akaviri
University of the Advanced Sciences of Toronto
Stellar Physics Department

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #12 on: January 22, 2013, 04:42:42 PM »
That video was great!! Thank you, Mexicanwave!

I loved that he did pack a political punch at the end.  People blame NASA for stuff they make up while they ignore the real problems of our government.
Quote from: Heiwa
You are ignoring this user. Show me the post.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #13 on: January 22, 2013, 07:29:03 PM »
When did we establish t wasn't a space agency? You saying it isnt a space agency doesnt mean we have established it isnt. ???And by the way it's aeronautics and space agency.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #14 on: January 22, 2013, 07:47:49 PM »
That video was great!! Thank you, Mexicanwave!

I loved that he did pack a political punch at the end.  People blame NASA for stuff they make up while they ignore the real problems of our government.
What do you think N.A.S.A is?
We have established it's not a real space agency, so what could it be?

Here's a clue.
People supposedly ignore the real problems of our government. But do we?
That is the real question.

You've "established" nothing until one of you Flat Earthers gets a job at NASA and reports your findings.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #15 on: January 23, 2013, 01:21:36 AM »
Sceptimatic, you seem to have trouble differentiating "what you think you know" from "truth". In most of the threads you post in.
Founder member of the League Of Scientific Gentlemen and Mademoiselles des Connaissances.
I am pompous, self-righteous, thin skinned, and smug.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #16 on: January 25, 2013, 10:26:33 PM »
Have not seen this posted.  Mythbusters explaining the weird shadows.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2013, 02:45:22 AM »
The main argument seems to be centered around the idea that in 1969 it was not possible to slow video down to half speed. I don't find this argument particularly compelling.

This guy seems to make a very good point about how film tech worked back then. Are you sayin what he says is wrong?
And dnt forget he addresses the mulitple light source and no stars claims.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2013, 02:51:07 AM by Pythagoras »

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2013, 07:54:08 AM »
Telling porkies? They have shown how the shadows we cast the way we see in the photo without using multiple light sources have they not? And as for the film itself the guy has show. How he original broadcast could not have taken place if it was a recording. Am I missing something?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2013, 08:04:36 AM »
Telling porkies? They have shown how the shadows we cast the way we see in the photo without using multiple light sources have they not? And as for the film itself the guy has show. How he original broadcast could not have taken place if it was a recording. Am I missing something?
They have proved absolutely nothing except that they are paid to manipulate tests. Simple as that.
I'm shocked that you expect people to just accept this.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #20 on: January 26, 2013, 08:13:27 AM »
The conspiracy says that the shadows are not all pointing in the same direction and this can only be the case if thier was multiple light sources. This video have proven the terain also causes shadows to point at different angles. It also nicely shows why stars can't be seen. Are you watching a different video or something? Their for these cannot be used as arguments for us not having been to the moon.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #21 on: January 26, 2013, 09:44:22 AM »
Flimsy space craft? Have you ever been in one? Have you studied the engineering drawings and load calculations?  Presumably they slept in the lander and what about air supply and batteries? Are you an expert in either? And why are no stars and shadows corner stones of a conspiracy argument one minuet and when proven wrong become flimsy little details?

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #22 on: January 26, 2013, 10:22:45 AM »
you making random numbers for the times they spent on the surface ??? they had 3 moon walks lasting roughly 7 hours each.
Flimsy space craft? Have you ever been in one? Have you studied the engineering drawings and load calculations?  Presumably they slept in the lander and what about air supply and batteries? Are you an expert in either? And why are no stars and shadows corner stones of a conspiracy argument one minuet and when proven wrong become flimsy little details?
In these back packs, the Astro liars supposedly had air to breathe, a heat exchanger and some kind of radio communication
I will be generous and say that the back packs hold 4 hours each of air/oxygen.

do you actualy know how many hours worth of air in the suits? you cant just be generous and guess. you need to know.
how big were apollos tanks? what psi where they at on take off? what recycaling equiptment did they have on board? what si the consumption rate of 2 humans for 3 days? do you know any of these? becuse you need to know all of them to be able to say they did not have enough oxygen on board.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #23 on: January 26, 2013, 10:44:38 AM »
no i know the anserw to non of these but im not the one saying its imposible you are. i woul like to mention that all desighn drawings schimatics traning manuals technical manuals have been posted online for all the world to see. and so far not a single person that i know off using these drawings as a source have found any reason why it wasnt techniqualy possible. so have you got any other reasons we didnt land on the moon? preferably ones you actualy have some facts and figures on this time?

http://www.apolloproject.com/diagrams/diagrams.html
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/LM10HandbookVol1.pdf
http://www.up-ship.com/drawndoc/drawndocspacesaturn.htm

this is a select few sources for technical details on all aspects of the apollo program.

*

Pongo

  • Planar Moderator
  • 6753
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #24 on: January 26, 2013, 12:59:11 PM »
Have not seen this posted.  Mythbusters explaining the weird shadows.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Mythbusters Moon Landing photo hoax 1

All this video shows is how easy it is to replicate a moon landing on nothing more than a cable TV show's budget.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #25 on: January 26, 2013, 01:04:52 PM »
yes a 21st centry tv show can replicate the filmed portions of the event. but this is the 21st centry not 1969 when the origional event took place. but what it does do is debunk every claim made by the conspiricy about shadows stars etc.

*

Genius

  • 2180
  • Professor of Geniustology
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #26 on: January 26, 2013, 01:13:51 PM »
yes a 21st centry tv show can replicate the filmed portions of the event. but this is the 21st centry not 1969 when the origional event took place. but what it does do is debunk every claim made by the conspiricy about shadows stars etc.
It doesn't debunk anything. It attempts to.

Just by the speed that the mythbusters actually do all the tests and confirm as busted tells me all I need to know about the show.

Eh, they do speed things up and skip time for the sake of viewing pleasure.
The earth is round because the space man said so.

Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #27 on: January 26, 2013, 01:15:39 PM »
you excuse is that becuse they managed to debunk the conspiricy that must mean they are wrong and not you? thats hilerious. you have me in stitches. no rebutal? no arguments based in science. just la la la they are wrong la la la. lol.

did you get a chance to look over any of the schematics i gave you links to? very detailed must be a gold mine for an expert in luner craft like you? ;D

*

Foxy

  • 3312
  • but it did happen
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #28 on: January 26, 2013, 01:43:34 PM »
The speed in which they achieve their results on the show is a direct result of editing out what is unnecessary. A 4 minute section of the show doesn't necessarily equal 4 minutes in real time. If there was no editing, we'd be watching them set up and prepare everything for hours.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11803
Re: Moon Hoax, Not
« Reply #29 on: January 26, 2013, 01:54:20 PM »
Sceptimatic, don't forget you are arguing against people who are.brainwashed from birth onward to believe the moon landings really happened. After looking into all the evidence I broke out of that brainwashing. Even if the astronauts confessed to the hoax, most people would not believe them.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth