Faking the moon landing impossible

  • 457 Replies
  • 64246 Views
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #60 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".
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #61 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.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 03:17:02 PM by frenat »

*

sokarul

  • 19303
  • Extra Racist
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #62 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.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #63 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.
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

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #64 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?  ::)

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #65 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.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #66 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.
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

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #67 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.
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

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #68 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.

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #69 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?
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #70 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.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #71 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

*

MaNaeSWolf

  • 2623
  • Show me the evidence
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #72 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.
If you move fast enough, everything appears flat

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #73 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?
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 #74 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.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #75 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.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #76 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. 
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.
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.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #77 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.
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

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #78 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

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #79 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"?
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

*

4pir2

  • 28
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #80 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.
(  )

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #81 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

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #82 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.

*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • What do you, value?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #83 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!
):

*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • What do you, value?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #84 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!
):

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #85 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:



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.
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

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #86 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.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #87 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.
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #88 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? ???
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 #89 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:


B:


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:





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. ::)
I much prefer the sharpest criticism of a single intelligent man to the thoughtless approval of the masses - Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)