Faking the moon landing impossible

  • 457 Replies
  • 64243 Views
*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #360 on: May 02, 2017, 09:32:59 AM »
A burning volcano has lava reaching up to 1,200 °C and NO HUMAN can extract anything from it.
Incorrect.

My example wasn't great but that's a dormant volcano
LOL!!  Dormant volcanoes don't have lava streams coming out of them.
Don't you mean extinct volcanoes?
Neither dormant nor extinct volcanoes have lava streams coming out of them (the main difference being how long they've been inactive).  Even active volcanoes don't necessarily have lava streams coming out of them.  However, erupting volcanoes (like the one in the picture) sure do.
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 #361 on: May 02, 2017, 09:38:11 AM »
The default argument seems to be that the overwhelming proof of the moonlandings is a testimony in itself and the chances of fakery are extremely limited.
In the various discussions about the moonlandings, globers claim that NASA and sub contractors still have most of the data to re-built the Apollo machinery and the knowledge about how to do it again is recorded, preserved and known by every scientist in the field.

If that is the case then going back to the moon shouldn't be a problem.
Both Bush and Obama hinted about going back and the Chinese are getting close with far superiour computing power, equall financial resources and a whole lot of data that was tested, preserved and understood by the whole scientific world.

So what is the problem here ?
Why can't we go back ?.....the Chinese like to go there with a manned mission and so does NASA (step before going to mars according to a NASA spokesman before congress),
What is a realistic timeframe in which ''we moonhoaxer's'' will have a point in denying the initial moonlandings ?
IOW do our critics have more value in 2030 when no other nation has returned to the moon with a manned mission ?

The problem is money and politics. China currently has the money and political will. Private sector speculators have the money and don't have to worry about politics. There is no arbitrary default time limit after which you can declare it didn't happen. This isn't some sort of perishable food.

All you can do is look at the evidence that supports the missions as historical fact and weigh it against the claims that they didn't happen. In all my years of examining this, from whichever angle I look, the balance is overwhelmingly in favour of history. Claims that it didn't happen are either ill-informed or ill-intentioned and never stand up to scrutiny.

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 #362 on: May 02, 2017, 10:10:02 AM »
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...

?

Arealhumanbeing

  • 1474
  • Leader of the Second American Revolution
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #363 on: May 02, 2017, 10:22:38 AM »
The problem is money and politics.

What an opinionated response.

From a scientific standpoint it is becoming aparant that man has never set foot on the moon.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #364 on: May 02, 2017, 10:31:08 AM »
You've really cornered yourself now

The link you posted a couple of days ago? No. The game was played last summer. You're seeing a recording of the game played back from one of youtube's servers.
I will now post your sentence with reference to the moonlanding
"No. The moon landing was before July 1969. You're seeing a recording of the staged moon landing played back from NASA."

Quote
Unless the players are back on the field, commentators in the booth, and the fans in the stands recreating the game in exact detail every time you watch it, it's not live. Sorry.
You're not very smart are you? The video is a live stream, it's displayed as it's received from the person broadcasting it. The contents is the football match that was played before (i.e. not live)

Quote
Quote
In fact, I just played it and it's still live. You can't forward it as it's a LIVE stream.

Are you confusing streaming video with live streaming? Live streaming is a particular kind of streaming.
Nope, i never once said "streaming video" - I said "live stream" - 1 broadcast to the server that pushes it out to viewers. Still confused?
In TV terms, 1 broadcast (staged moon landing) to the TV station that pushed it out to viewers.

Live streaming refers to Internet content delivered in real-time, as events happen, much as live television broadcasts its contents over the airwaves via a television signal.

And your point is?

Streaming media is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a provider. The verb "to stream" refers to the process of delivering or obtaining media in this manner; the term refers to the delivery method of the medium, rather than the medium itself, and is an alternative to file downloading, a process in which the end-user obtains the entire file for the content before watching or listening to it.

Again, your point is? It's ok to try and feel clever.

Quote
Quote
But the contents are NOT live.

Then it's not a live broadcast (or a live stream). I'm glad that's settled. Was it really that difficult to understand?
Yes, it's still a live broadcast whether the contents are live or not. The broadcast is live, the contents are not live. Radio is live but the songs are not being performed that very second.

Quote
Quote
This has ALWAYS been possible with live broadcasts. That's the point. POSSIBLE

Not true. In the early days of television, it wasn't even possible to record video except on film. It wasn't until the late '50s that a practical video tape recorder was developed. For the first decade or so, TV broadcasts were either from movie film converted to video, or live - that is, with signals from a camera effectively connected directly to the transmitter (although the signal bound for the transmitter could be split and recorded to film at the same time, if desired). Note that the conversion from film to video produces recognizable artifacts, so passing off movie film as "live television" to a reasonably astute audience wouldn't work.

I don't know how old you are, but it might come as a surprise to you that youtube didn't exist at the time of the Apollo moon landings. There wasn't even an internet then, streams were flowing liquid, and servers were people working in restaurants or playing volleyball, tennis, and the like.

Youtube didn't exist in 1969? Oh no!!!!

Anyway, the more you try to be clever the harder you'll fall. The moon landing was not broadcast directly from the moon. It was not a live feed. You'll find that information from NASA. So you're wrong in pretty much every possible way in trying to be clever. Good effort though. The fact that the TV broadcast was provided by NASA (from Earth) - ANYTHING CAN be provided. That's all.

And for the millionth time, WHETHER they did or didn't isn't the argument, the point is simply that they COULD, POSSIBLE... Unless you can prove it's impossible, stick to the topic
The definition of a live broadcast is that what is shown is happening at the same time, ie. not recorded.  Yes, we know there are processing and transmission delays.  Seeing a replay/recording of a football match is not a live broadcast.

?

frenat

  • 3752
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #365 on: May 02, 2017, 10:37:18 AM »
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...
The camera was attached to the MESA arm that was lowered via lanyard before he started down the ladder.  And if you think the footage was perfect then I suggest you've never actually watched it.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #366 on: May 02, 2017, 10:38:47 AM »
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...
HAHAHA funny indeed.

1969 the great era of spacetechnologies....

When men were brave enough to put their personal life at risk
When The Van Allen Belts hardly influenced the analogue equipment of those days
When an amature astronomer had substancial meaning
When Russians admitted their losses
When resources welled from a dwelling fountain of dollars
When in the mids of a cruel war the greatest achievement of mankind took place
When a landline phone could easily contact the moon
When untested equipment/fuel worked flawlessly
When a rendezvous in space was a simple cosmic date
When moondust was invited into the LEM
When solar flares were applauding cosmic fireworks
When micro meteorites had no real business
When the whole world witinessed a huge step for mankind
When Nixon wasn't a crook
When astronauts didn't like the spotlights

I'm day dreaming about what was......... ::) ::) ::) ::)



*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #367 on: May 02, 2017, 10:45:34 AM »
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...

*sigh*
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.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #368 on: May 02, 2017, 11:20:58 AM »
One simple question: If Neil Armstrong was the first person that stepped onto the moon, then who set up the video camera to film it? Lol Guess they did it all robotically from the shuttle before hand, without ever needing to step out and adjust anything. To get that perfect footage. Back in 1969. While we simpletons were way back down here on Earth, adjusting our giant antennas and crappy box TV's to view all these vast technological achievements and accomplishments Lol Just a funny thought...

*sigh*

You have me convinced, those old farts surely knew their enhanced stuff...... ;D

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #369 on: May 02, 2017, 12:59:08 PM »
The definition of a live broadcast is that what is shown is happening at the same time, ie. not recorded.  Yes, we know there are processing and transmission delays.  Seeing a replay/recording of a football match is not a live broadcast.
That's not the definition of live broadcast. Live broadcast is when the signal being received is directly from the source. The TV you watch is also live. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo

It doesn't mean it's actually happening there and then. Where did you get that definition from? NASA?


See the 3 methods displayed in the BBC illegal TV license notice

LIVE, Catch-up and on-demand
Live refers to watching it as it's broadcast. Not that it has to be happening at the very moment

I mean it's so simple, type "what is live tv?" and the very first definition explains.

Quote
Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it's being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. ... An online TV service is any streaming or smart TV service, website or app that lets you watch live TV over the internet.
Who said it has to be happening at that very moment?

Yes, live also refers to when it's happening at that moment indicated with a LIVE icon/text notice in the corner. But that's not the soul definition of live otherwise there'd be no need to indicate it with LIVE.

When will you give up and realise how wrong you are and get back to topic which moon shills seem to be great at diverting like the above posts. Read the posts and understand the point being raised and then maybe a discussion with some benefit might come from it.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #370 on: May 02, 2017, 01:07:43 PM »
The problem is money and politics.

What an opinionated response.

As opposed to that opinionated response. Go back through the history books, see how when the political decisions were made to change the direction of space exploration and what that meant for NASA's budget.

Quote

From a scientific standpoint it is becoming aparant that man has never set foot on the moon.

The scientific standpoint completely vindicates every single fact about the Apollo landings. The idiot ignoramus standpoint is to ignore all that evidence and wallow in stupidity.
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 #371 on: May 02, 2017, 01:13:45 PM »
The definition of a live broadcast is that what is shown is happening at the same time, ie. not recorded.  Yes, we know there are processing and transmission delays.  Seeing a replay/recording of a football match is not a live broadcast.
That's not the definition of live broadcast. Live broadcast is when the signal being received is directly from the source. The TV you watch is also live. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo

It doesn't mean it's actually happening there and then. Where did you get that definition from? NASA?


See the 3 methods displayed in the BBC illegal TV license notice

LIVE, Catch-up and on-demand
Live refers to watching it as it's broadcast. Not that it has to be happening at the very moment

I mean it's so simple, type "what is live tv?" and the very first definition explains.

Quote
Live TV means any programme you watch or record as it's being shown on TV or live on an online TV service. ... An online TV service is any streaming or smart TV service, website or app that lets you watch live TV over the internet.
Who said it has to be happening at that very moment?

Yes, live also refers to when it's happening at that moment indicated with a LIVE icon/text notice in the corner. But that's not the soul definition of live otherwise there'd be no need to indicate it with LIVE.

When will you give up and realise how wrong you are and get back to topic which moon shills seem to be great at diverting like the above posts. Read the posts and understand the point being raised and then maybe a discussion with some benefit might come from it.

When the people pointing a satellite receiver at the moon, not just in the US but in receiving stations worldwide, receive a TV signal from the place those dishes are pointed, and those TV signals contain details that can only be coming from a live, not recorded, TV broadcast because it contains images of Earth that are exactly matched by weather satellite data, then you can be pretty certain it's live. Decades later when you look at what the TV signals show of the lunar surface and they reveal details that were not known about at the time but have been shown by modern probes from many countries, then you can be certain they were actually on the moon.

When not one single person can be found anywhere who will admit to having been in a film studio recording the lunar footage, or building the set, or operating the wires and pulleys, or wiring in the lighting and power, or transporting in the lunar surface simulant, or who destroyed it afterwards, then you can be pretty certain that claims it was all done in a TV studio on Earth in advance are made up desperate armwaving sacks full of bullshit.
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 #372 on: May 02, 2017, 01:44:31 PM »
The link you posted a couple of days ago? No. The game was played last summer. You're seeing a recording of the game played back from one of youtube's servers.
I will now post your sentence with reference to the moonlanding
"No. The moon landing was before July 1969. You're seeing a recording of the staged moon landing played back from NASA."

Nice strawman!

Here's the context you conveniently omitted.
It's not a recording for playback, the stream on YouTube was LIVE when I posted it.

The link you posted a couple of days ago? No. The game was played last summer. You're seeing a recording of the game played back from one of youtube's servers.


Here is the correction:

You: "It's not a recording for playback, the stream on YouTube was LIVE when I posted it."

Me: "No. The moon landing was in July 1969. You're seeing a recording of the live broadcast of the event as it was happening back then."

Quote
Quote
Unless the players are back on the field, commentators in the booth, and the fans in the stands recreating the game in exact detail every time you watch it, it's not live. Sorry.
You're not very smart are you? The video is a live stream, it's displayed as it's received from the person broadcasting it. The contents is the football match that was played before (i.e. not live)

Quote
Quote
In fact, I just played it and it's still live. You can't forward it as it's a LIVE stream.

Are you confusing streaming video with live streaming? Live streaming is a particular kind of streaming.
Nope, i never once said "streaming video" - I said "live stream"

I know. You use "live stream" when you meant "stream" or "streaming video". That's wrong.

Quote
- 1 broadcast to the server that pushes it out to viewers. Still confused?

Thoroughly. I don't understand how you could consider recorded content from last year to be "live" when you view it today. I have to admit - I'm mystified how someone could be confused about something as simple as this.

 - 1 stream of live content to a server that immediately pushes it out to viewers.

That's a live stream.

 - 1 (or more) stream(s) of previously uploaded content on the server that it pushes out to viewers.

That's a stream. See the difference yet?

Quote
In TV terms, 1 broadcast (staged moon landing) to the TV station that pushed it out to viewers.

"Broadcast" isn't exactly correct here since distribution of most such content to TV stations was point-to-point (which isn't "broadcast"), but close enough for this.

More accurately:
 - 1 broadcast of analog moon landing video, taking place at the time, to a TV station that pushed it out to viewers as it arrived.

That's a live broadcast.

Replay of recording of the above live broadcast pushed by a TV station out to viewers later.

Not a live broadcast of the event.

Got it?

Quote
Live streaming refers to Internet content delivered in real-time, as events happen, much as live television broadcasts its contents over the airwaves via a television signal.

And your point is?

You're confused about what a live stream is.

Live streaming is content that is streamed as it's happening. Did you miss "as it's happening" in the quote? Is that really hard to understand?

Quote
Streaming media is multimedia that is constantly received by and presented to an end-user while being delivered by a provider. The verb "to stream" refers to the process of delivering or obtaining media in this manner; the term refers to the delivery method of the medium, rather than the medium itself, and is an alternative to file downloading, a process in which the end-user obtains the entire file for the content before watching or listening to it.

Again, your point is?

Streaming is delivering content for immediate consumption as it's being transferred (viewing, in the case of video). Streaming makes no distinction whether the content is being transferred at the same time as it's being created (i.e. live), or from archive. If the content is live at the time it's also being streamed, that's a live stream.

Quote
It's ok to try and feel clever.

There's no use for me to be clever when you can't grasp the basics.

Quote
Quote
Quote
But the contents are NOT live.

Then it's not a live broadcast (or a live stream). I'm glad that's settled. Was it really that difficult to understand?

Yes, it's still a live broadcast whether the contents are live or not.

This is not correct.

Quote
The broadcast is live, the contents are not live.

It's not a live broadcast unless it has live content. Otherwise the term 'live broadcast' has no meaning. Shouldn't that be self-evident? This is getting tedious.

Quote
Radio is live but the songs are not being performed that very second.

Radio is live when someone is, for instance, speaking (or singing, etc.) into a microphone and the audio is going to the transmitter as it's generated. When a DJ is playing a record and that signal is going to the transmitter, that material is pre-recorded. When the DJ is talking over the music, the patter is live, but the music still isn't. You're going way into the weeds here.

You can have a live broadcast that contains some pre-recorded material, sure. If the broadcast is entirely pre-recorded, how could you justify calling it 'live'?

Quote
Quote
Quote
This has ALWAYS been possible with live broadcasts. That's the point. POSSIBLE

Not true. In the early days of television, it wasn't even possible to record video except on film. It wasn't until the late '50s that a practical video tape recorder was developed. For the first decade or so, TV broadcasts were either from movie film converted to video, or live - that is, with signals from a camera effectively connected directly to the transmitter (although the signal bound for the transmitter could be split and recorded to film at the same time, if desired). Note that the conversion from film to video produces recognizable artifacts, so passing off movie film as "live television" to a reasonably astute audience wouldn't work.

I don't know how old you are, but it might come as a surprise to you that youtube didn't exist at the time of the Apollo moon landings. There wasn't even an internet then, streams were flowing liquid, and servers were people working in restaurants or playing volleyball, tennis, and the like.

Youtube didn't exist in 1969? Oh no!!!!

Sorry! Since your argument seems to hinge on streamed content, I thought you should know.

Any more questions about the answer to your "ALWAYS POSSIBLE" claim?

Quote
Anyway, the more you try to be clever the harder you'll fall.

I try to keep it as simple as possible but sometimes it's not possible to make things simple enough for some people to understand. If this is still too complicated for you, I'm sure you'll let me know.

Quote
The moon landing was not broadcast directly from the moon. It was not a live feed. You'll find that information from NASA.

Are you referring to the scan conversion step? That doesn't matter. This was all happening in real time: camera on moon, signal transmitted to earth and received in Australia and converted from slow-scan to NTSC, NTSC signal is relayed to TV networks who distribute it for broadcast to homes. There are a lot of steps, but all this was happening as the signals were being generated. IOW, live.

Quote
So you're wrong in pretty much every possible way in trying to be clever. Good effort though. The fact that the TV broadcast was provided by NASA (from Earth) - ANYTHING CAN be provided.

There is no evidence that all the necessary equipment to fake the moon landings existed in 1969, only speculation based on misconceptions by you and others that it might have been possible.

Quote
That's all.

That's not much.

Quote
And for the millionth time, WHETHER they did or didn't isn't the argument

OK. Good. They didn't. No argument.

Quote
the point is simply that they COULD, POSSIBLE... Unless you can prove it's impossible, stick to the topic

"Prove"?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

Your assertion is that there's a conspiracy capable of faking anything it wants to fake, so anything can be faked. First, this conspiracy needs to exist. You need to show some evidence. Next, you need to show that they had all the equipment needed to accomplish what you claim they did. Otherwise your argument falls apart there.

Quote
You've really cornered yourself now

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

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #373 on: May 02, 2017, 06:02:11 PM »
The definition of a live broadcast is that what is shown is happening at the same time, ie. not recorded.  Yes, we know there are processing and transmission delays.  Seeing a replay/recording of a football match is not a live broadcast.
That's not the definition of live broadcast.

That certainly is a definition of live broadcast.

Quote
Live broadcast is when the signal being received is directly from the source. The TV you watch is also live. http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbctwo

It doesn't mean it's actually happening there and then.

It doesn't? Then why do real-time broadcasts of an event, like a football match, while it's happening, often sport a 'LIVE' icon in the corner of the screen, but not when they're broadcasting things like movies?

Quote
Where did you get that definition from? NASA?

I can't speak for inquisitive, but the first entry from Wikipedia on the topic is:

Quote
Live television is a television production broadcast in real-time, as events happen, in the present.

Quote
<image>
See the 3 methods displayed in the BBC illegal TV license notice

LIVE, Catch-up and on-demand
Live refers to watching it as it's broadcast. Not that it has to be happening at the very moment

In the context of a BBC iPlayer, they call it that.

Here's another news flash: those didn't exist at the time of the Apollo moon landings.

Recall that the thread is about faking the Apollo moon landings in the late '60s and early '70s.

Earlier in this thread you made this statement:

Video editing.... again this was POSSIBLE. As mentioned, it was POSSIBLE to prepare the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand. That's the ONLY point being made.

In 1969 and through the time of the Apollo moon landings, when a broadcast was said to be live, that meant it was happening as it was being televised to the public.

Some different meanings have been attached to the term 'Live' much more recently. This seems to have confused you.

Regardless of your understanding, or lack, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have "prepared the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" in 1969. Why? Because if the broadcast had been created and edited beforehand, it would not have been a LIVE broadcast. Spurious meanings applied to the term 'LIVE' to cope with later technology do not change this.

If you were misusing the term LIVE for the context, and when you said LIVE you didn't really mean LIVE, that's a problem. Correct that and we can go on.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #374 on: May 03, 2017, 07:57:10 AM »
Regardless of your understanding, or lack, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have "prepared the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" in 1969. Why? Because if the broadcast had been created and edited beforehand, it would not have been a LIVE broadcast. Spurious meanings applied to the term 'LIVE' to cope with later technology do not change this.

If you were misusing the term LIVE for the context, and when you said LIVE you didn't really mean LIVE, that's a problem. Correct that and we can go on.

Now this is on track to topic..

This is pretty much what I'm saying. It wasn't live. The LEO footage may have been live (and has every reason to be live which I don't really doubt) but the actual moon landing, surfacing etc. was all provided by NASA and NASA controlled the feed. Correct?

And while the footage was broadcast live, the contents of the footage was not live. It was rebroadcasted by the TV networks in real time. No TV station broadcast the feed as it was allegedly received from the moon. When the TV stations switched live to the moon, they were switching to NASA providing the "live" feed.

1. Technically speaking, just because it said "LIVE" does that mean it's impossible for it not be live?
2. Did the TV networks broadcast the feed directly as it was received from the moon?

*

Denspressure

  • 1947
  • What do you, value?
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #375 on: May 03, 2017, 08:05:42 AM »
Regardless of your understanding, or lack, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have "prepared the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" in 1969. Why? Because if the broadcast had been created and edited beforehand, it would not have been a LIVE broadcast. Spurious meanings applied to the term 'LIVE' to cope with later technology do not change this.

If you were misusing the term LIVE for the context, and when you said LIVE you didn't really mean LIVE, that's a problem. Correct that and we can go on.

Now this is on track to topic..

This is pretty much what I'm saying. It wasn't live. The LEO footage may have been live (and has every reason to be live which I don't really doubt) but the actual moon landing, surfacing etc. was all provided by NASA and NASA controlled the feed. Correct?

And while the footage was broadcast live, the contents of the footage was not live. It was rebroadcasted by the TV networks in real time. No TV station broadcast the feed as it was allegedly received from the moon. When the TV stations switched live to the moon, they were switching to NASA providing the "live" feed.

1. Technically speaking, just because it said "LIVE" does that mean it's impossible for it not be live?
2. Did the TV networks broadcast the feed directly as it was received from the moon?

Receiving stations (3 major ones) -> NASA -> TV stations

It would be difficult to setup a prepared 'live' broadcast for the three major stations (and many smaller ones) since their antenna's were aimed at... the moon

When Buzz Aldrin switched on the TV camera on the Lunar Module, three tracking antennas received the signals simultaneously. They were the 64-metre Goldstone antenna in California, the 26-metre antenna at Honeysuckle Creek near Canberra in Australia, and the 64-metre dish at Parkes.

In the first few minutes of the broadcast, NASA alternated between the signals being received from its two stations at Goldstone and Honeysuckle Creek, searching for the best quality picture.

A little under nine minutes into the broadcast, the TV was switched to the Parkes signal. The quality of the TV pictures from Parkes was so superior that NASA stayed with Parkes as the source of the TV for the remainder of the 2.5 hour broadcast.
):

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #376 on: May 03, 2017, 09:19:30 AM »
Regardless of your understanding, or lack, it would have been IMPOSSIBLE to have "prepared the entire LIVE broadcast beforehand" in 1969. Why? Because if the broadcast had been created and edited beforehand, it would not have been a LIVE broadcast. Spurious meanings applied to the term 'LIVE' to cope with later technology do not change this.

If you were misusing the term LIVE for the context, and when you said LIVE you didn't really mean LIVE, that's a problem. Correct that and we can go on.

Now this is on track to topic..

This is pretty much what I'm saying. It wasn't live. The LEO footage may have been live (and has every reason to be live which I don't really doubt) but the actual moon landing, surfacing etc. was all provided by NASA and NASA controlled the feed. Correct?

Mostly. NASA also provided live LEO footage to the networks, too. You seem to have no problem with this. Why the difference?

Quote
And while the footage was broadcast live, the contents of the footage was not live.

If that were true, then it wasn't a live broadcast of the lunar EVA. Period. This whole "live but not live" argument is silly.

Just because you claim the EVA video was pre-recorded doesn't mean it was.

Quote
It was rebroadcasted by the TV networks in real time. No TV station broadcast the feed as it was allegedly received from the moon.

It was scan-converted in real time at the receiving ground station. So?

Quote
When the TV stations switched live to the moon, they were switching to NASA providing the "live" feed.

And this was functionally different from the LEO live feeds how?

Quote
1. Technically speaking, just because it said "LIVE" does that mean it's impossible for it not be live?

Of course not. But, unless someone makes a mistake or is trying to deceive, why add it to a non-live broadcast?

Obviously you're trying to argue that NASA was lying, and the lunar EVA video was pre-recorded, not live. So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

Of course, you'll need to provide some evidence if you want to make any headway with that argument. Convincing evidence would be more effective, not the same tired ol' BS that's been around the block a few times. Do you have anything we haven't already seen before?

Quote
2. Did the TV networks broadcast the feed directly as it was received from the moon?

That depends on how you define "directly". If by "directly", you mean "from a central receiving station and distributed to networks, all in real time", then, yes. If you mean "their own antenna received the signal originating from the moon and pumped it out their transmitter", then, no.

Either of these are live if the signal from the moon was live (in the 1969 sense). Applying processing and relaying the signal from point to point doesn't change this fact if it's all done in real time.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #377 on: May 03, 2017, 11:28:09 AM »
So you create an argument and then you argue with yourself? Are you mentally ok?

Quote
This whole "live but not live" argument is silly.
Quote
So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

You're quoting these? Why? I never said that even once. These are your words. Moving on...

So you agree that NASA provided the video that was broadcast by TV claiming it's live?

So that's confirmed as well then. It was possible to give any feed and claim it was from such and such signal and so on. There's no way to prove it except their words.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #378 on: May 03, 2017, 01:07:58 PM »
So you create an argument and then you argue with yourself? Are you mentally ok?

Quote
This whole "live but not live" argument is silly.
Quote
So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

You're quoting these? Why? I never said that even once. These are your words. Moving on...

So you agree that NASA provided the video that was broadcast by TV claiming it's live?

So that's confirmed as well then. It was possible to give any feed and claim it was from such and such signal and so on. There's no way to prove it except their words.

How many times do I have to repeat it? There is far more evidence that 'just their words' when the live TV images contain images of Earth that can only have been taken at the time of the broadcasts? When the broadcasts are being received by dishes pointed at the moon? When the TV images of the moon show details no-one knew about but that have been confirmed today? When no-one can say where the alleged TV studios were, who built them and who crewed them?

If you insist on claiming that the only evidence of the TV broadcasts being live is the word "Live" in the corner then you are just willfully ignoring everything anyone ever posts that proves you wrong.
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 #379 on: May 03, 2017, 01:34:48 PM »
So you create an argument and then you argue with yourself?

???

Quote
Are you mentally ok?

Since I participate in a flat-earth forum, some might wonder. You're here, too.

At least I don't believe (or pretend to believe) the earth is flat, or that NASA, nearly every technical enterprise and large corporation, the US Government, and all the governments of the world are in on a vast conspiracy.

Quote
Quote
This whole "live but not live" argument is silly.
Quote
So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

You're quoting these? Why? I never said that even once. These are your words.

Quote marks are used for more than verbatim quotes.

Rule 8a. Quotation marks are often used with technical terms, terms used in an unusual way, or other expressions that vary from standard usage.

When paraphrasing self-contradictory statements, the result pretty much has to be unusual.

If I'm quoting you directly I'll generally use the quote tags, and the quoted text will be in a box labeled Quote, and sometimes with a link back to the source of the quote, like the citation above and the examples from your post, below.

Quote
Moving on...

So you agree that NASA provided the video that was broadcast by TV

Since it originated on the moon, using NASA equipment, operated by a NASA crew, well, duh! Did I ever suggest otherwise?

Quote
claiming it's live?

It was live, yes. Why shouldn't they describe it as such?

Obviously you're trying to argue that NASA was lying, and the lunar EVA video was pre-recorded, not live. So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

Of course, you'll need to provide some evidence if you want to make any headway with that argument. Convincing evidence would be more effective, not the same tired ol' BS that's been around the block a few times. Do you have anything we haven't already seen before?

You sidestepped that part. Why?

Quote
So that's confirmed as well then.

Yes. The video was live from the moon (in the stricter sense of "live video" from 1969).

Quote
It was possible to give any feed and claim it was from such and such signal and so on.

Since the video was taken in an environment with low gravity and no air, and the downlinked signal was coming from the direction of a point on the surface of the moon, no, not really. This conclusion is based on the video itself, backed up by an immense amount of corroborating evidence.

Quote
There's no way to prove it except their words.

There's much more evidence than that for it and nothing but speculation against it.

Prove? It's not possible to prove anything in science or engineering - only math.

Where's your evidence to the contrary? I'm not asking for proof, just evidence.

[Edit] Remove spurious tag.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2017, 01:37:15 PM by Alpha2Omega »
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

Babushka

  • 169
  • I can cook minute rice in 58 seconds
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #380 on: May 03, 2017, 02:57:32 PM »
If NASA really faked the moon landing, they wanted to hide something. If this is true, it's worth investigating.
I can communicate with vegetables, but only after hitting up some bath salts

https://runt-of-the-web.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/baby-taxidermy.jpg

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #381 on: May 03, 2017, 03:39:02 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.

my roommate was arguing that it would be impossible to fake because he heard that on a podcast. i had to disagree . its seems pretty easy to fake when the people back that took it at face value. now everything is coming out.

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #382 on: May 03, 2017, 06:11:38 PM »
Quote
Are you mentally ok?

Since I participate in a flat-earth forum, some might wonder. You're here, too.

This made me laugh.. in a good way. I'll leave it at that.

I'm satisfied with the discussion on the broadcast.

Just one answer to:
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Quote
Obviously you're trying to argue that NASA was lying, and the lunar EVA video was pre-recorded, not live. So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

Of course, you'll need to provide some evidence if you want to make any headway with that argument. Convincing evidence would be more effective, not the same tired ol' BS that's been around the block a few times. Do you have anything we haven't already seen before?
You sidestepped that part. Why?

I didn't sidestep it. The first part I answered with your idea of live but not live. Since you narrowed it down to physically live happening at that very moment there was no need to clarify further.

As for proof, providing proof is on the one making the claim. I'm not making a claim in this thread. This thread is merely about "possibility" to provide video feed to TV stations that was recorded beforehand and it WAS POSSIBLE. If they provided actual LIVE footage, it was possible to provide pre-recorded. Seriously, surely this has to be the end of this discussion?

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #383 on: May 03, 2017, 07:56:41 PM »
Quote
Are you mentally ok?

Since I participate in a flat-earth forum, some might wonder. You're here, too.

This made me laugh.. in a good way. I'll leave it at that.

That was the intent. ;)

Quote
I'm satisfied with the discussion on the broadcast.

Just one answer to:
Quote from: Alpha2Omega
Quote
Obviously you're trying to argue that NASA was lying, and the lunar EVA video was pre-recorded, not live. So why not just make that argument rather than waste time arguing "it's live but it's not live" by trying to apply a tortured definition of "live" that had no meaning at the time because the technology it refers to now didn't exist then?

Of course, you'll need to provide some evidence if you want to make any headway with that argument. Convincing evidence would be more effective, not the same tired ol' BS that's been around the block a few times. Do you have anything we haven't already seen before?
You sidestepped that part. Why?

I didn't sidestep it. The first part I answered with your idea of live but not live. Since you narrowed it down to physically live happening at that very moment there was no need to clarify further.

As for proof, providing proof is on the one making the claim. I'm not making a claim in this thread. This thread is merely about "possibility" to provide video feed to TV stations that was recorded beforehand and it WAS POSSIBLE. If they provided actual LIVE footage, it was possible to provide pre-recorded. Seriously, surely this has to be the end of this discussion?

I hoped to convey the idea that there can never be absolute proof - the best we can get is solid evidence one way or another. If better evidence for a different conclusion is presented, then that should prevail.

In my estimation, the solid evidence is on the side that the Apollo 11 video would have been impossible to fake. This is based on a large number of, often independent, factors. Observations, and answers to questions from a large number of independent (and sometimes hostile) sources, all form a coherent whole. Could any one piece of evidence have been fabricated? It's possible, but, like in a good court case, a vast amount of interlocked and mutually-confirming evidence becomes unassailable. Would it have been possible to fake all that evidence? That's so unlikely that it can be taken as impossible.

Is this absolute proof in the technical sense? No. Such a thing is not possible. It will take a lot of evidence (no need for 'proof', which ain't gonna happen for the same reasons), from multiple independent and verifiable sources, to make a convincing case against it, though.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #384 on: May 05, 2017, 01:48:07 PM »
NASA Astronaut Don Pettit claims :
We Cant Go Back To The Moon ''That Technology Was Destroyed''
The interview starts at 1.51 :
Spelled out for you :
I'd go to the moon in a nanosecond...
The problem is, we don't have the technology to do that anymore
We used to, but we ahhh destroyed that technology and ohhh it's a painfull process to built it back again
But going to mars should be one of the next steps that humans do


WAZZZ ?? Moon = impossible due to destruction of technology
                 Mars  = what humans do

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">
I read all over the place (here that is) as counter arguements about NASA destroying NASA data ,that they have basically everything, the tapes, the knowledge, can rebuilt everything...sure ???

You know whome i'm addressing, don't you ?
See ? don't ever rely on NASA's take on reality and history, it reflects badly on you too in the end......
« Last Edit: May 05, 2017, 02:30:28 PM by dutchy »

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #385 on: May 05, 2017, 09:43:25 PM »
You know whome i'm addressing, don't you ?
See ? don't ever rely on NASA's take on reality and history, it reflects badly on you too in the end......
And even if you managed to demolish NASA, the numerous other space agencies and the hundreds of companies using satellite technology, 
what have you managed to do?
The earth is still a Globe, as has been known for ages. Keep wasting your time pretending you are getting somewhere!

But, even if you managed to convince everyone thst the the earth really is flat, you still do not have a working flat earth model!
Not even a map or any idea of the "continental layout" - it's a laughable situation really.

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #386 on: May 06, 2017, 12:27:52 AM »
You know whome i'm addressing, don't you ?
See ? don't ever rely on NASA's take on reality and history, it reflects badly on you too in the end......
And even if you managed to demolish NASA, the numerous other space agencies and the hundreds of companies using satellite technology, 
what have you managed to do?
The earth is still a Globe, as has been known for ages. Keep wasting your time pretending you are getting somewhere!

But, even if you managed to convince everyone thst the the earth really is flat, you still do not have a working flat earth model!
Not even a map or any idea of the "continental layout" - it's a laughable situation really.
Your reply sounds more like someone who is aware about the cracks that suddenly appear in his worldview. We all went through the same process and are here to help you Rabinoz.
It always starts with NASA and their credibilty ,..... you are on the right track my friend, if i read between the lines correctly !!

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #387 on: May 06, 2017, 02:00:26 AM »
And even if you managed to demolish NASA, the numerous other space agencies and the hundreds of companies using satellite technology, 
what have you managed to do?
The earth is still a Globe, as has been known for ages. Keep wasting your time pretending you are getting somewhere!

But, even if you managed to convince everyone thst the the earth really is flat, you still do not have a working flat earth model!
Not even a map or any idea of the "continental layout" - it's a laughable situation really.
Your reply sounds more like someone who is aware about the cracks that suddenly appear in his worldview. We all went through the same process and are here to help you Rabinoz.
It always starts with NASA and their credibilty ,..... you are on the right track my friend, if i read between the lines correctly !!
I see no "cracks that suddenly appear in" my "worldview", but then I don't see that the shape of the earth is part of any worldview!

The shape of the the earth and whether it rotates or not are simply physical facts to be determined by observation and measurement.
That has been done long ago and from what I can see observations on earth, in astronomy and more recently in space simply confirm that.

So don't pretend to try your psychological analysis on me, it won't work.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 02:40:50 AM by rabinoz »

?

dutchy

  • 2366
Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #388 on: May 06, 2017, 03:52:15 AM »

I see no "cracks that suddenly appear in" my "worldview", but then I don't see that the shape of the earth is part of any worldview!

The shape of the the earth and whether it rotates or not are simply physical facts to be determined by observation and measurement.
That has been done long ago and from what I can see observations on earth, in astronomy and more recently in space simply confirm that.

So don't pretend to try your psychological analysis on me, it won't work.
Let me assist you !
Explaination about the appearing cracks.
1 Contrary to your and other globular statements NASA has completey faked a cosmic-earth live performance proving that certain marketing goals seem more important than presenting scientifically accurate reflections about the environment in outerspace and how real communication works with outerspace. Taking into consideration the speed (17.600. Km/h) and time delay.
2 Contrary to the claims you and your fellow NASA endorsee have made, NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon.
It is a longlist of nonsense in defence of the supposed technologies that are all archived and well known. It seems that NASA themselves strongly disagrees with this fantasy.
3 Your claims about the Greeks knowing that the earth was a globe, + tilt and precise calculated size considering their tools are bizare since the Greeks believed that ships dissapeared over the horizon based on eyesight only.
Not taking into account looming, lensing, refraction as we do today . Bringing back a ship through optic zoom is proof of our limited eyesight.
Despite all Greek accomplishments, we cannot take their idea about the shape of our earth serious, because their other claims (boats over the curvature) show their conclusions were a bit premature.That is not how the scientific method works and the Greeks should no longer be part of the rational debate about earth's shape, because you only want a rational debate. Not about religion or gut feeling.
Start youself with leaving the Greeks at peace. ;D

Conclusion:
NASA has failed as trustworthy organisation that has completely failed to preserve the greatest achievements of mankind and has showed marketing nonsense from the ISS more than once.
Also the Greeks could never scientiffically proof the shape of our earth, because of their limited tools and other nonsical observations about boats' mast slowly sinking behind the curvature.

With the Greeks and NASA out of the way as trustworthy sources of our globe, i wonder what the next source will be ?

Who scientifically is trustworthy and has come forward with repeatable and tested proof for a spinning globe ?
Looking forward to your next exhibets !!!
« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 03:59:31 AM by dutchy »

Re: Faking the moon landing impossible
« Reply #389 on: May 06, 2017, 05:08:13 AM »

I see no "cracks that suddenly appear in" my "worldview", but then I don't see that the shape of the earth is part of any worldview!

The shape of the the earth and whether it rotates or not are simply physical facts to be determined by observation and measurement.
That has been done long ago and from what I can see observations on earth, in astronomy and more recently in space simply confirm that.

So don't pretend to try your psychological analysis on me, it won't work.
Let me assist you !
Explaination about the appearing cracks.
1 Contrary to your and other globular statements NASA has completey faked a cosmic-earth live performance proving that certain marketing goals seem more important than presenting scientifically accurate reflections about the environment in outerspace and how real communication works with outerspace. Taking into consideration the speed (17.600. Km/h) and time delay.
2 Contrary to the claims you and your fellow NASA endorsee have made, NASA destroyed all technologies to make it possible to go back to the moon.
It is a longlist of nonsense in defence of the supposed technologies that are all archived and well known. It seems that NASA themselves strongly disagrees with this fantasy.
3 Your claims about the Greeks knowing that the earth was a globe, + tilt and precise calculated size considering their tools are bizare since the Greeks believed that ships dissapeared over the horizon based on eyesight only.
Not taking into account looming, lensing, refraction as we do today . Bringing back a ship through optic zoom is proof of our limited eyesight.
Despite all Greek accomplishments, we cannot take their idea about the shape of our earth serious, because their other claims (boats over the curvature) show their conclusions were a bit premature.That is not how the scientific method works and the Greeks should no longer be part of the rational debate about earth's shape, because you only want a rational debate. Not about religion or gut feeling.
Start youself with leaving the Greeks at peace. ;D

Conclusion:
NASA has failed as trustworthy organisation that has completely failed to preserve the greatest achievements of mankind and has showed marketing nonsense from the ISS more than once.
Also the Greeks could never scientiffically proof the shape of our earth, because of their limited tools and other nonsical observations about boats' mast slowly sinking behind the curvature.

With the Greeks and NASA out of the way as trustworthy sources of our globe, i wonder what the next source will be ?

Who scientifically is trustworthy and has come forward with repeatable and tested proof for a spinning globe ?
Looking forward to your next exhibets !!!

When I first came to this Forum I was very angry at Nasa and threw all my ammunition at them trying to prove them wrong - moon landings were a hoax, space walks took place in swimming pools and the whole space travel issue was a production in Hollywood studios - all that coming from a person who loved Nasa very much and dreamed of space since childhood, and a man preparing his daughter to go into this field (at her wish)!

Now, I realize that my opinion then and the opinion of many others had or will have no effect at all on the reality we are witnessing and the verity we are living > the space program is advancing day by day and aiming further than we have ever reached before, more super-power countries are taking serious steps into space exploration and moon mining, major contracting companies are getting enrolled in sharing their technologies and advancements in the development of the space program, space shuttles & moon bases.

How can we simply close our eyes and pretend all that doesn't exist, or even think is a global hoax?
That is really scary (and I just realized that) to think that ALL humans have been fooled and some elites have made a big joke out of them!

Personally, I can't stop moving or walk backwards while the rest of the world is going forward and advancing!

IT'S TOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH TO BE A JOKE!!!

« Last Edit: May 06, 2017, 05:10:27 AM by Hannibaal »
God—the knower—is non-dimensional.
God's thinking is two-dimensional.
God's creative actions are three-dimensional.