Faking the moon landing impossible

Quote from: observer on January 18, 2017, 09:08:23 PM

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

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

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

FYI:

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 18, 2017, 11:30:48 PM

Quote from: observer on January 18, 2017, 09:08:23 PM

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

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

Quote from: observer on January 18, 2017, 09:08:23 PM

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

FYI:

Sibrel tells you it is faked but he cut out part of the footage that proves him wrong and his explanation doesn't work.
there is no transparency and there is no cardboard cutout.  A transparency would not show movement over time which it does and would not show current weather patterns which it does.  A cardboard cutout would not show the entire globe or allow it to move around in the window.



http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny7.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibfunny8.html

Quote from: sokarul on January 18, 2017, 08:28:08 PM

Quote

• Video camera - available

Shown to not be availible to fake the footage.

Nothing has been shown that proves what you're saying. They stream video to Earth from the moon according to you right? And we say they pre-recorded it. Either way, the video camera WAS available according to both parties. Do you get this point now?

The only evidence posted in this thread showed the footage couldn't be faked. Understand?

Quote

Quote

• Extremely smart Hollywood producers - available

No one would keep it a secret in this day and age.

No one would? Still doesn't prove that no one "could" - it doesn't make it "impossible" - sticking to the point only. Nothing else.

You have to stretch so much to try and be right.

Quote

Quote

• Camera speed control - available

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

And as other videos and articles show, it can. So while there's evidence it can be done, the "possibility" still remains

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

Quote

Quote

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

Umm you may want to check with other people on that.If you can go to space you can go to the moon, this is using your logic.

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

And as pointed out by other people, you can't get the whole earth since you would be too close.

Quote

Quote

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

As the videos show, you cannot fake the footage with the technology of the time.

No it doesn't show that. You can keep telling yourself it does but it doesn't. Easy to say "technology not available" but without a list of technologies needed to fake it that wasn't available (as I've provided a list to fake it that was available) this claim is baseless. And the irony... no technology to fake footage but enough technology to reach the moon. Amazing.

Once again, the only evidence presented showed it couldn't be faked. You may want to try a tackle it.

Quote

Quote

This thread is about the possibility of faking it. Not whether it was faked or not.

"Correlation does not imply causation"

Invalid phrase. You might wanna read more on it.... here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

[/quote]

I'm really just pointing out that because something like film editing exists, that doesn't automatically mean it can be used to fake the moon landings.

The only evidence posted in this thread showed the footage couldn't be faked. Understand?

No evidence has been posted. Only theories and unconfirmed calculations so maybe it's time to stop claim evidence was posted until it actually is posted.

You have to stretch so much to try and be right.

Saying I'm sticking to the topic is stretching? How narrow is your reach!

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

1964 and you believers still think that a gigantic vacuum chamber would be needed. Also, you're not very good with reading. I didn't say it was posted. I said "as other videos and articles show" in response to your claim of videos showing it wasn't possible based on theoretical unconfirmed calculations.

And as pointed out by other people, you can't get the whole earth since you would be too close.

EXACTLY my point.. read the first post at the top on this page. I clarified and had to post it twice and you still miss the point. Pay attention or take a nap.

Once again, the only evidence presented showed it couldn't be faked. You may want to try a tackle it.

It's not evidence. When I see evidence I'll either agree or disagree based on the contents. I don't find cover up videos to be scientifically accurate and I won't start listing the holes in physics and theories here as it's already available all over the net.

I'm really just pointing out that because something like film editing exists, that doesn't automatically mean it can be used to fake the moon landings.

That's exactly what it means. It CAN be used. Give reasons why it can't be used. I'm saying it can be used because simulating gravity was possible years before, editing and camera tricks was possible decades before and don't start on it not being possible on live video because no one is claiming that. The claim is on pre-recorded to broadcast as live.


The truth of the matter is, this discussion is getting petty and nothing conclusive is being posted by these hardcore moon landing believers. Give actual replies to your claims otherwise I'm ready to conclude at this point that faking it was possible and the claim that it was "impossible" and "cheaper" to just land on the moon is grade A bogus.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 18, 2017, 01:15:31 PM

So, realistically, no.

Yet you're still not proving it was "IMPOSSIBLE" and it was easier and cheaper to "simply" go to the moon.

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

Even scientific proof is not possible. It's apparently time for this ol' fellow again..

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 18, 2017, 11:30:48 PM

Quote from: observer on January 18, 2017, 09:08:23 PM

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

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

Quote from: observer on January 18, 2017, 09:08:23 PM

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

FYI:

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

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

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

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


I'll repeat it again: it is not possible to film the entire Earth from LEO. It is not possible to see Earth rotate underneath you even in geostationary orbit. The only place that the footage Sibrel lied about could have been filmed is from cislunar space on the day it was broadcast.

1964



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

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

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

Related to the other conversation about pre-recording material and convincingly playing it back as "live", did everyone notice the artifacts that immediately identify this as film, not video (live or otherwise)? Spots on the film, scratches, a bit of up-and-down wavering, and some fuzz stuck in the upper left corner for part of it are dead giveaways. That's why convincingly faking a live telecast would require a pure video chain (no film), and videotape recorders of the time were much more limited than they are now.

Quote from: observer link=topic=68630.msg1860658#msg1860658

Quote

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

It would be available today if the moon landing was real. There'd be hundreds of official recordings as well as unofficial and they would have edited together every live recording for a seamless digital rendering of the GREATEST achievement in history. But they haven't because they didn't go to the moon. It really is that simple.

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

I have the sets from Apollo 8, 11 and 15.

But not everything, that has to be bought as Spacecraft Films.

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

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

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

A sufficiently large evacuated stage simply couldn't be built. Period.

Because you say so? Amazing, I guess we really did land on the moon!!

Quote from: observer on January 19, 2017, 12:48:18 AM

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 18, 2017, 11:30:48 PM

Quote from: observer on January 18, 2017, 09:08:23 PM

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

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

Quote from: observer on January 18, 2017, 09:08:23 PM

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

FYI:

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

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

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

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


I'll repeat it again: it is not possible to film the entire Earth from LEO. It is not possible to see Earth rotate underneath you even in geostationary orbit. The only place that the footage Sibrel lied about could have been filmed is from cislunar space on the day it was broadcast.

I have checked your work and there's way too many issues with it.. especially the cloud formations. When I get time I'll send you one or two basic questions that will hopefully clarify my suspicions. For now, the video is sufficient proof of >>>faking<<< the earth at a distance from LEO.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 19, 2017, 09:30:41 AM

A sufficiently large evacuated stage simply couldn't be built. Period.

Because you say so? Amazing, I guess we really did land on the moon!!

Yes, we did! Now we're getting somewhere! Where's the evidence that says otherwise?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: onebigmonkey on January 18, 2017, 11:24:22 PM

Quote from: observer link=topic=68630.msg1860658#msg1860658

Quote

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

It would be available today if the moon landing was real. There'd be hundreds of official recordings as well as unofficial and they would have edited together every live recording for a seamless digital rendering of the GREATEST achievement in history. But they haven't because they didn't go to the moon. It really is that simple.

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

I have the sets from Apollo 8, 11 and 15.

But not everything, that has to be bought as Spacecraft Films.

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

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

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

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

The point being made was that the footage was not available, my point was that it is and always has been. Spacecraft films are just one source, there are others. Some you pay for, some you don't.

I have checked your work and there's way too many issues with it.. especially the cloud formations. When I get time I'll send you one or two basic questions that will hopefully clarify my suspicions. For now, the video is sufficient proof of faking the earth at a distance from LEO.

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

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

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

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

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

https://archive.org/details/VJSC_1425G

You can even compare the Earth at the start and end of sequences and show a change in the terminator position.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 20, 2017, 05:52:29 PM

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

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

Quote

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

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

Physics checked. They both matter; which is more important depends on the physical characteristics of the objects. The classic demonstration of this is the feather and farthing.

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

Quote

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

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

No limits at all? Evidence, please.

Quote

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

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

No answers yet. Plenty of the usual evasion instead. Until shown otherwise the conclusion has to be that you have no answers.

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

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

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

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

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

How much pressure where and what?

No limits at all? Evidence, please.

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

Your lack of knowledge defeats you again.

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

The rover tyres were not inflated - they were a wire mesh, as can be seen very clearly in the images. There is no reason why inflated tyres would be an issue anyway - tyres on earth are inflated to considerably higher pressures than the atmosphere and manage just fine - including those on planes flying at high altitude.

Quote from: Alpha2Omega on January 21, 2017, 09:02:37 AM

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

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

Speculation without evidence.

Quote

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

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

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

The remark about the suits and wire-mesh tires is a red herring.

Quote

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

How much pressure where and what?

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

Quote

No limits at all? Evidence, please.

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

So you're backing away from this hyperbole?

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

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

It's a start.

Without checkpoints no u believe the lunar rovers tires were made out of piano wire. They were not inflated.

Real questions. First hand investigation. Excellent

Real questions. First hand investigation. Excellent

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

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

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

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

You can stop watching it right there, it's ill-informed ignorant crap produced by someone who fundamentally doesn't have a clue what he's talking bout.

What do you think about the UFO's we saw on the way Monkey?

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

Australian Aliens.

Quote from: observer on April 09, 2017, 10:56:24 PM

Real questions. First hand investigation. Excellent

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

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

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

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

You can stop watching it right there, it's ill-informed ignorant crap produced by someone who fundamentally doesn't have a clue what he's talking bout.

You appear utterly desperate. Calm down for crying out loud.
The whole thing was hoaxed. You know it and so does every other rational person who's seen enough of the footage.

What do you think about the UFO's we saw on the way Monkey?

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

Australian Aliens.

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

Check from 30:25 here:

https://archive.org/details/Apollo07And0816mmOnboardFilm

You appear utterly desperate. Calm down for crying out loud.

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

The whole thing was hoaxed.

Nope.

You know it

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

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

Anyone who has looked at all the evidence and still thinks it was hoaxed is not rational. QED.

Quote from: sceptimatic on April 09, 2017, 11:41:42 PM

You appear utterly desperate. Calm down for crying out loud.

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

Quote

The whole thing was hoaxed.

Nope.

Quote

You know it

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

Quote

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

Anyone who has looked at all the evidence and still thinks it was hoaxed is not rational. QED.

Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

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

Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

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

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

Ah yes, this is the part of your broken record where you find it impossible to distinguish real life footage from poor quality special effects and think everyone else has the same problem. Put some effort into your debunking, your current parroting is getting tedious. Don't tar everyone with the same brush of stupid you got covered in, not everyone is as gullible as you.

Quote

Are you the one with all the little Apollo models and what not?
Are you the one with the house full of posters and what not, on this 1960's laugh a minute production?

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

Quote

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

Ah yes, this is the part of your broken record where you find it impossible to distinguish real life footage from poor quality special effects and think everyone else has the same problem. Put some effort into your debunking, your current parroting is getting tedious. Don't tar everyone with the same brush of stupid you got covered in, not everyone is as gullible as you.

Ok, I just wanted to clarify that it was you that was the sci-fi fanatic. I fully understand why you'd want to believe in all the sci-fi of the old days of NASA and even today.
It doesn't make you a bad person or stupid or anything; seriously.

I like to watch a bit of sci-fi myself but I tend to just enjoy it for the fiction that it is.
Anyway, no bad feelings.

Quote from: disputeone on April 09, 2017, 11:37:44 PM

What do you think about the UFO's we saw on the way Monkey?

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

Australian Aliens.

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

Check from 30:25 here:

https://archive.org/details/Apollo07And0816mmOnboardFilm

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

It's just interesting.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on April 10, 2017, 01:41:46 AM

Quote from: disputeone on April 09, 2017, 11:37:44 PM

What do you think about the UFO's we saw on the way Monkey?

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

Australian Aliens.

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

Check from 30:25 here:

https://archive.org/details/Apollo07And0816mmOnboardFilm

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

It's just interesting.

It is genuine footage, but it's from Apollo 8 (not Apollo 7) and if you watch it from the time I mentioned in the video I linked to you'll see it in its proper context, which is one where the SIV-B panels have been explosively detached from the base of the part housing the CSM engine bell, which is what all the debris is, and with the almost the entire Earth covered by the shot. There is similar footage from most of the Apollo missions, with the ones after Apollo 9 using this manoeuvre to dock with the LM. For some of the missions this process was broadcast on live TV.

e2a: Not entirely sure where the 'Australian Aliens' bit fits in here? This footage is shot from above the Atlantic.