Faking the moon landing impossible

  • 457 Replies
  • 23076 Views
Faking the moon landing impossible
« 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:

  • 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.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #1 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.
« Last Edit: July 20, 2017, 08:27:19 PM by Cartog »

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #2 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.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #3 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?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

sokarul

  • 17096
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2016, 05:39:34 AM »
Can't be faked.

Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #5 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.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39316
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2016, 04:20:49 PM »
You're assuming that the Russians weren't in on it too.
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.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #7 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

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #8 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?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16888
  • Or should I?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #9 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.
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

?

Kami

  • 993
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #10 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

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #11 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:

Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

Denspressure

  • 1821
  • What do you, value?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #12 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.

Watch me at: YouTube
Experience the past: Flickr
Support me on Patreon

*

disputeone

  • Ranters
  • 16888
  • Or should I?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #13 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.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2016, 03:08:03 AM by disputeone »
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this.

The reason I am consistently personally attacked here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #14 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
::)
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

rabinoz

  • 25621
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #15 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?

*

sokarul

  • 17096
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #16 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.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #17 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.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

sokarul

  • 17096
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #18 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.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #19 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.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

sokarul

  • 17096
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #20 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.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

?

frenat

  • 3503
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #21 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.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #22 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.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

?

Twerp

  • Gutter Sniper
  • Flat Earth Almost Believer
  • 6539
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #23 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.
“Heaven is being governed by Devil nowadays..” - Wise

*

sokarul

  • 17096
  • Discount Chemist
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #24 on: January 13, 2017, 08:27:46 PM »
So many posts full of nothing. Where is all the evidence?
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #25 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.



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!
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #26 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.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

?

frenat

  • 3503
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #27 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.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #28 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.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

?

frenat

  • 3503
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #29 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.