Author Topic: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation  (Read 83432 times)

Offline molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #315 on: July 07, 2018, 12:16:07 PM »
This video has the advantage of actually being shot in zero g. If you look carefully, you can catch the edits between parabolic arcs, but it does a lot better job than that joke of a video that cambo posted:


After trying to read through Cambo's "incomprehensible stream-of-consciousness" posts, I came back and rewatched that to relax myself again  8)

OK Go have made some incredible videos over the years, and this is definitely one of their best!
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #316 on: July 07, 2018, 12:48:48 PM »
Quote from: AtomicDog
“The wind tunnel guys wear helmets with face shields to keep their eyes from drying out and getting foreign objects blown into them at high speed.


Quote from: cambo
Ah, but don’t forget these people had the balls to climb aboard a rocket and get shot up into space, so I can’t honestly see a bit of wind bothering them.

It doesn't matter how brave you are, if wind and debris are blasted into your face at 120 plus miles per hour,  you're going to SHUT YOUR EYES. It's a reflex action.


Quote from: AtomicDog
“The wind tunnel guys are using the airstream to maneuver and to orient their bodies-like a skydiver would. On the other hand, the astronauts are moving in ballistic trajectories according to Newton's third law. They push off a surface or each other and do not stop until they encounter a surface or each other. Notice how the wind tunnel guys almost never touch the tunnel surface. They don't need to-they are using the wind as a brake.


Quote from: cambo
Those people are not trying to simulate weightlessness, and I’m sure they could perform the same manoeuvres as those Skylab performers, and vice versa.

You posted that video as an example of how weightlessness can be faked. When you are shown how it fails miserably to do just that, you turn around and say that they are not trying to simulate weightlessness. You can't have it both ways.
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #317 on: July 07, 2018, 12:53:44 PM »
Another thing. How can astronauts be "ballsy" enough to risk blindness to fake a zero g video, but not brave enough to pilot a LM down to the moon?
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #318 on: July 07, 2018, 01:09:27 PM »
Quote from: cambo
Whether or not the video is precise to the millisecond, isn’t the issue here. The video shows how easily the Apollo feather and hammer experiment can be replicated on earth, but having said this, I admit that the You Tuber didn’t manage to make his feather bounce.

You're finally admitting that the YouTuber couldn't replicate the Hammer and Feather experiment? Good to know.


Quote from: cambo
I don’t believe any of those images are of Apollo craft while in orbit, as if we watch the Apollo launches, we notice that the rockets always level out, and in some cases, they are on their way down again, towards the end of the footage. You could argue that it is just the angle of view, but I prefer to believe my eyes, rather than the BS excuses provided by NASA.

When an observer follows the Moon in its orbit, it heads down towards the horizon, too. Is the Moon fake?
Your paragraph shows me that you either have never seen a spacecraft in orbit (I have), or you have a basic inability to visualize an object orbiting the Earth. Probably both.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 02:02:51 PM by AtomicDog »
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #319 on: July 07, 2018, 01:46:19 PM »
. . . In this case it is my assumption . . . .

And there it is.  That's all that matters, here.

Cambo, your assumptions are worth nothing.  You have no evidence.  You have no education.  All you have is blather, assumptions, and arrogance.

As to your clips about The Shining, thanks--I've seen Room 237, and its problems are exactly the same as your posts.  Everyone talks a lot about their ideas, but no one has any evidence that Kubrick really believed their particular claim, and the movie doesn't show any of the reasons they're wrong.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #320 on: July 07, 2018, 08:01:53 PM »
[snip BS]
https://sizecalc.com

Well according to this calculator, the earth, seen during the second transmission should have appeared eight times the diameter of what the moon would appear from earth, while in its Apogee which makes the view in this image an impossibility.


And it would be seven times bigger during the third broadcast, which would render this image an impossibility also.


I am assuming that in both cases, the Apollo camera was fully zoomed out, and if not, then the fake earth would look even smaller in relation to the true size earth.


Firstly The Moon viewed from the Earth is approximately 1864 Arc Seconds in diameter.
whereas the Earth viewed from the Moon is approximately 6836 Arc Seconds, so no the Earth is not 8 times the size of the Moon.

Secondly the size of the Earth seen from the second broadcast (~128,000 Miles) has a diameter of ~12755 Arc Seconds (~3.54 degrees)  whereas the diameter from the third broadcast (~175,000) ~9331 Arc Seconds (~2.59 degrees).


Both images appear to be the correct size, both of your Earth images are FAR TOO BIG.
Quote

[snip more BS]
Quote
From molesworth  page 16  reply #233

“It may be that he still hasn't figured out how to use the quote feature, especially for multi-quotes.  The fact that he tends to put quoted text in inverted commas, even within the quote block, kind of implies something like that...”

Although I’ve never tried it, I can see how it works, but I’d rather do it at my own leisure rather than sit for hours trying to do it in one session, which is partly why the intervals between my posts are getting longer.

Quote
From Abaddon  page 16  Reply #239

From cambo
“You can post pictures of landscapes on earth, showing the same effect, but the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots,”

From Abaddon
“Is it? You have ignored the famous house rock. Not only does this sink your "few yards" bollocks, it also illustrates the ridge lines.”

It is no more than seventy yards from the camera to the point where the stage drops down into a pit, judging by the number of steps they take to get there. Then it is another thirty yards to the projected screen. The big rock is a prop in the pit. I thought about drawing a line to show where the edge of the stage drops away, but it’s so obvious that I will decline from insulting your intelligence.

What the hell do you see when you watch these clips? I still find it hard to comprehend how easy it is for some people to succumb to brainwashing. What has been done to you is evil, but as time goes on, more and more people are waking up and realising what a corrupt world we are living in. I am thankful that I never succumbed to this evil affliction which you all suffer from and due to this, I can put up with your ridicule, in the knowledge that I am not conversing with real people, but rather NASA’s stooges.


Up until the last of the post where you refer to individual posters you don't reference anything and that is why I snipped the convo, regardless of what was posted by other members or yourself.

Now if you would kindly post quotes of the other members it would be even better.  Don't know how?  Just open word pad and "quote" a post, copy everything into word pad and edit once you are finished, very easy or just open many instances of ApolloHoax, and then copy/add to your original.  Simple.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #321 on: July 09, 2018, 01:09:15 AM »
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline benparry

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 285
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #322 on: July 09, 2018, 05:34:10 AM »
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

that's exactly what i thought lol

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #323 on: July 09, 2018, 08:21:31 AM »
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

One could use the same phrase concerning manifesto.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline stutefish

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #324 on: July 09, 2018, 01:49:03 PM »
And I assume that "thing" has an NDA attached to it.

A truly terrifying one.
<puts up hand> Please sir, please sir, can I guess?  Is it faking the next moon landings?  ;D

My guess is flyrigs for Disney's new animatronic stuntmen.

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #325 on: July 10, 2018, 04:20:14 AM »
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

One could use the same phrase concerning manifesto.


manifesto is a "true believer" (even if he is dead wrong) and he is quite well researched (although not as well researched as he clams) despite the fact that he draws totally the wrong conclusions from what he sees and reads.

But this guy pretty much told us he was a troll in his opening few posts.

"Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable."

And then there was this post...
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1459.msg46704#msg46704

Once I saw that, I knew what we were dealing with. You could take this guy back in a time machine to 9:32 a.m July 16, 1969, park him inside Eagle and fly him all the way to the moon and back with Mike, Neil and Buzz and he would still claim it was faked. 
« Last Edit: July 10, 2018, 04:23:27 AM by smartcooky »
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #326 on: July 10, 2018, 08:13:12 AM »
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

One could use the same phrase concerning manifesto.


manifesto is a "true believer" (even if he is dead wrong) and he is quite well researched (although not as well researched as he clams) despite the fact that he draws totally the wrong conclusions from what he sees and reads.

But this guy pretty much told us he was a troll in his opening few posts.

"Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable."

And then there was this post...
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1459.msg46704#msg46704

Once I saw that, I knew what we were dealing with. You could take this guy back in a time machine to 9:32 a.m July 16, 1969, park him inside Eagle and fly him all the way to the moon and back with Mike, Neil and Buzz and he would still claim it was faked.

I have no issue with cambo being called a troll, as his post have indicated.  I'm not as sure about manifesto being a true believer, look at the mannerisms of his posts.  Made to bring forth emotional responses, not just a discussion response.  But we digress and perhaps this might be enough of a thread hijack.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1959
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #327 on: July 10, 2018, 04:30:25 PM »
Jeeze, you guys are still engaging this troll?

One could use the same phrase concerning manifesto.


manifesto is a "true believer" (even if he is dead wrong) and he is quite well researched (although not as well researched as he clams) despite the fact that he draws totally the wrong conclusions from what he sees and reads.

But this guy pretty much told us he was a troll in his opening few posts.

"Your knowledge of science counts for nothing, as it’s NASA’s own brand of science, made up to try and make the story more believable."

And then there was this post...
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1459.msg46704#msg46704

Once I saw that, I knew what we were dealing with. You could take this guy back in a time machine to 9:32 a.m July 16, 1969, park him inside Eagle and fly him all the way to the moon and back with Mike, Neil and Buzz and he would still claim it was faked.

I have no issue with cambo being called a troll, as his post have indicated.  I'm not as sure about manifesto being a true believer, look at the mannerisms of his posts.  Made to bring forth emotional responses, not just a discussion response.  But we digress and perhaps this might be enough of a thread hijack.

Agreed

I think cambo's behaviour is one of the worst cases of Dunning-Kruger Effect I have seen in a long, long time.... he thinks his commonsense is a substitute for the scientific method, and therefore trumps the combined engineering and scientific expertise of everyone he disagrees with.
If you're not a scientist but you think you've destroyed the foundation of a vast scientific edifice with 10 minutes of Googling, you might want to consider the possibility that you're wrong.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3107
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #328 on: July 11, 2018, 08:59:51 AM »
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3787
    • Clavius
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #329 on: July 11, 2018, 11:02:59 AM »
In addition cambo's wall-o-text without specific references is hard to follow.

Along with misattributed quotes.  I thought about replying, but I lack the energy to pick apart the wall of text and find where he might have addressed something I said.  And given that all the stuff I've challenged him on already is on my web site (which he either hasn't read or doesn't care to acknowledge), I'm not impressed with his research skills.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams