Author Topic: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation  (Read 83381 times)

Offline molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #180 on: May 15, 2018, 01:32:49 PM »
Second try.


And this tells us what, exactly?

Yes, it's a very well known picture of Stanley Kubrick on set, or are you claiming this is him filming the Apollo footage?

And I would like to ask - are you planning to address any of the points made in previous responses to your posts, or just going to drop in, post nonsense, and depart again?
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1823
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #181 on: May 15, 2018, 02:16:34 PM »
Second try.



Shock! Horror! Stop the press... influential film director photographed directing a film.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people – Sir Isaac Newton.

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline Geordie

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #182 on: May 15, 2018, 03:02:40 PM »
Second try.


  To be fair, he did say he was just fiddling with the insert image button.

  But Cambo, while I've got you on the line, what did you think of http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11 ? You mentioned that you've read it twice now; I'm very interested in hearing your report.

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 45
  • BANNED
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #183 on: May 15, 2018, 03:50:51 PM »
Quote
“The engines were the only thing worth salvaging”

“They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there.”

“I have no idea what this sentence means.”

I would spell it out for you, but I get the feeling, you are deliberately acting dumb.

Quote
“The only training we had gotten for a water landing was reading a few paragraphs in a manual and having a brief classroom discussion,”

“I am still very glad that we were able to save every life in such a sudden and intense crisis for which we had never been specifically trained.”

First he says he had training, and then he says he didn’t. Lying seems to be a bit of a trait among aircraft pilots.

Quote
“Dig this, if you haven't already:”

http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11

“Thanks so much for posting that story, I’ve read it before, but I enjoyed reading it again, so thanks again.”

“Excellent. You're welcome. Could we please have your thoughts on it?”

He managed to pick up a transmission emanating from the direction of the moon, what more can I say?

Quote
“I have actually spent many many hours poring through to provide exactly the kind of support for my conclusions that he seems to doubt”

At the beginning, when you said it was all your own work, I was under the impression you actually came up with the evidence. It wasn’t until you eventually posted the evidence, that I realised I’d seen that evidence many years ago. Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11. With all the other evidence available from both sides of the argument, this is about as convincing as the waving flag evidence.

OK boys and girls, pay attention. Here, the camera is allegedly up against a window, zoomed in on the alleged Earth.



Now the camera is zoomed out, away from the window. The entire earth is still in view. No glare to be seen around the edge of the window.



Now we see that same window, from the same viewpoint, with the lights turned up. Now we see glare.



And finally, we see this. There was allegedly only one window with a view of the earth, at the time of the alleged broadcast.



This is the effect we should see in the second image.



Well it looks like the hand waving is now on the other foot, if that makes sense, which it probably won’t, knowing you strange lot. The way you defend the indefensible is both sickening and at the same time, hilarious, as this is proof, that this footage is fake, which proves NASA were lying, which in turn suggests, that the whole Apollo project was probably a lie, and no amount of hand waving will change that. How does reconfiguring the camera for interior lighting, get us from the second image to the third and fourth images? Yes, it is old evidence, but it is solid evidence, which can only be debunked inside those deluded minds of yours. I would ask you what it’s like to be brainwashed, but it would be like asking what it would be like being dead.

I eagerly await your scathing insults and ridicule, as it shows just how insecure you all are. I call it “Buzz Syndrome”

Quote
“So, picture a full Moon in the sky, then imagine it about 7 times bigger - that's how big the Earth would have appeared out the window of the CM midway through transit. 

“That's pretty damned big, big enough to fill a window, especially as shot through a camera with its own limited field of view.”

That second image I posted doesn’t really agree with you, does it.

Quote
“More to be pitied than laughed at”

Right back at ya!

Quote
“They are hardly going to tell you they’ve salvaged something which shouldn’t be there”

“Why attempt any salvage at all? If it were all a "hoax", why carry out an extra hoax 50 years later and risk exposing the "hoax"? In any event the salvage operation was not a NASA operation at all. It was a private venture. NASA or "they" as you like to refer to them, had no control at all over it”

It’s a simple enough sentence, and it’s in English. I’m beginning to think English and American are two different languages. Everything in relation to NASA is controlled by NASA, which includes those primitive minds, you all possess.

Quote
“The engine was cut off before reaching the surface.”

The pads were allegedly on the ground when the engine was stopped, on the Apollo 11 mission. The other five missions cut their engines between three and six feet. The Apollo 11 crew reported billowing sand, I mean dust from 40ft above the surface.

Quote
“That "cardboard" you refer to is simply the outer thermal blankets. Know what was under those? This...”


Plastic?

Quote
“Are you a military test pilot? Do you even know what that entails?”

Lying?

Quote
“Science doesn't need to explain budget constraints”

“Just once, as opposed to nine?”

“Nine what?”

Really?

Quote
“Who flew the very first Boeing 747? How did they know it would work? Why didn't they do it remotely?”

It’s a plane, we know how they work in an earth environment. Boy, you lack intelligence, for want of a shorter word.

Quote
“Like the Apollo astronauts knew how their spacecraft worked and were confident of making a successful landing due to their training. Let us know when your foot recovers from the gunshot wound”

What training? That bullet ricocheted off my steel toecap and went straight up your nose, blowing your deluded brains out.

Quote
“Explain the parabolic arcs of the dust. How would that be achieved in an atmosphere?”

 For the last time, it’s sand! Kick up some sand, and it comes straight back down. This is the weakest evidence you could possibly come up with. And spare me those videos, with dune buggies going really really fast, as it just shows your ignorance.

Quote
“No billowing dust, no blowing flag, parabolic trajectories, hammer and feather.”

I stand corrected, the hammer and feather trick is even weaker evidence.



Quote
“Now your problem is even bigger. All of the engineers etc. would have to knowingly build non-functional hardware. All of them. All 400,000 of them. Your hush-money fund now has to pay all of them for life”

Why would they have to know?

Quote
“Oops, now you are contradicting yourself. If it was only so few, then all the scientists and engineers built actual working hardware.”

Your logic sucks, there’s definitely a language barrier here.

Quote
“Watch the whole clip. Afterward Sibrel sued and got laughed out of court”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2272321.stm

Here’s an extract from the news article.

“Beverly Hills police investigated the incident, which occurred 9 September, but said that the charges were dropped after witnesses came forward to say that Mr Sibrel had aggressively poked Mr Aldrin with the Bible before he was punched”

I suggest you watch the whole clip, as he never poked that liar with his bible. Sibrel handed the tape over to the police, but they decided to go with those lying witnesses, rather than the hard evidence. And what’s this about court? You’re just making things up as you go along, which makes you a liar.

Quote
“Well there was live TV of the rover being unpacked”

“What’s your point?”

“That you are hobbled by subject matter ignorance.”

Did it work after it was unpacked? Oh of course, we have footage of that too.

Quote
“the usually excuse is that those astronauts were a bunch of hard b#@t?rds.”

“They were. They were military test pilots.”

Test pilots, yes, kamikaze pilots, no.

Quote
“Nor would I expect to see a crater under a Lunar Lander.”

“Then you concede all of your claims in that regard. Great”

When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.

Quote
“I then watched the Lunar Module episode, which was a massive disappointment, lots of information, without actually explaining anything.”

“Your inability to understand is not our problem”

Here’s the episode. Point out some parts that show how they knew it would work, for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of. They say they used a simulator, and that was it. If that’s what you call informative viewing, it’s no wonder you take everything NASA tells you at face value.



Quote
“My youtube channel settings, I have the word aulis banned, I get at least two items in my spam folder every week because of that”

So you refuse to consider any arguments from the hoax point of view? How sad.

Quote
“And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.”

So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?

Quote
“and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is.”

You believe what you are told to believe, as in your deluded little fantasy world, there is only one side to every story.

http://www.whale.to/b/mullins6.html

Quote
“By the time Apollo was happening he was well-known enough that someone would have noticed him spending big chunks of time in the US that happened to coincide with Apollo missions, or the use of our studios to film the faked footage here, where he actually lived and worked.”

So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told.

Quote
“someone threw the CM out of a military transport plane while a carrier and its crew watched before retrieving the space craft after reentry.”

Re-entry? How high was the bloody plane? Seriously though, they’re still doing it now, courtesy of their friends over in Russia.

Quote
“There's no way Kubrick could have been the director simply because there's no way they could have forced him to travel to the US and no way the US government would have accepted filming the landings in the UK.”

Wow, most people could only assume stuff like this, but you people seem to know everything for a fact.

Quote
“When shown all the ways 2001 is clearly a film, and not a convincing fake”

We knew it was a film, because we were told so, and Apollo was only convincing to those deluded nut jobs.

Quote
“I used to learn ballroom dancing”

And where is your proof? It’s all done in a massive vacuum chamber.

Quote
“your skepticism about the ISS is just another example of your "humour"

Oh it’s fake alright. The real one is in a large pool of water, and they don’t need to be in a plane all the time, doing a series of dives to mimic zero gravity. All three of your videos involve the use of CGI.

Quote
“The whole Kubrick thing was an online joke that the conspiracy community blindly believed”

I must have missed that story. There was a gap in his film projects between Apollo 11 and a short while before Apollo 13, which could be the reason why they had to turn 13 into a failure.

Quote
“What Kubrick movies have you seen, Cambo?”

I’ve can remember seeing six of his films, why should it matter which films they are?

Quote
“The work involved in just one part of 2001”

Watch the movie and you will see how simplistic the Apollo footage is in comparison, or maybe you won’t, LOL.

I came here in the hope that I would be able to take part in some lively debates going on between NASA apologists and hoax believers, as the sites name would suggest, but this seems not to be the case. It is just a site for a very small minority of people to discuss amongst themselves, the latest fake news from NASA, and the never ending discussion regarding radiation. It seems I’m the only HB here, as the rest of them are kicking ass over on YT, which is a very scary place for you people, which is why you prefer to huddle together in the comfort of your own little communities, away from us naughty normal folk. I suppose I’ll stay until the discussion fizzles out, and you never know, we might even beat that incredibly boring radiation thread.











Offline molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #184 on: May 15, 2018, 04:06:57 PM »
By a strange coincidence, I've just been watching a program here in the UK on one of the BBC channels  - Tomorrow's Worlds: The Unearthly History of Science Fiction - which, amongst other things, has looked in detail at Kubrick's work on "2001: A Space Odyssey".

From talking to many people who were involved in the movie, apparently Kubrick made huge efforts to make it as accurate as possible, such as getting information from aerospace engineering companies of designs for likely spacecraft, finding out how they'd behave in space, designing the effects to look as real as possible, even if they didn't conform to the "accepted style" for science fiction at the time.

But despite all that, he was limited in what he could achieve.  It was better than most, but still didn't quite get there.  Any claim that somehow he could follow up with something much closer to reality, when he was already pushing the limits of what could be achieved at the time needs extraordinary evidence to back it up.

And also an explanation of why, even today, movies or TV shows can't get it right, despite nearly 50 years of ongoing special effects development.
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #185 on: May 15, 2018, 04:17:24 PM »
For the last time, it’s sand! Kick up some sand, and it comes straight back down. This is the weakest evidence you could possibly come up with. And spare me those videos, with dune buggies going really really fast, as it just shows your ignorance.

Have you ever actually been on a dirt road?  Because I have.  I've also seen people driving on beaches.  Which are sand, last I checked, and still had plumes of dust behind people driving.  Because sand comes in many particle sizes, down to dust caused by friction of particles rubbing against one another.  Take a geology class.  Take any class.

Quote
Why would they have to know?

Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints.  Especially not the ones designing the craft.  While I dispute that all 400,000 people would know (that number doesn't just count engineers), a substantial percentage of those would, because they would have to either be in on it or doing their level best to design to the mission specifications.  If the LM were plastic, the engineers would know that it would fail, because plastic is insufficient for mission requirements.  Hell, the people building the things who weren't engineers would've seen something fishy.

Quote
So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?

We're bored.

Quote
So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told.

I thought you were old enough to remember it.  If you were, you'd remember that a pivotal aspect of certain movements was distrust of the government.  Hell, I know that and I'm not old enough to remember it.

Quote
Wow, most people could only assume stuff like this, but you people seem to know everything for a fact.

No, just things that are obvious and documentable.  Kubrick was afraid of flying.  Once he settled in the UK, he didn't leave if he had to fly.  The Vietnam scenes of Full Metal Jacket are filmed in the UK.  If you do perhaps five minutes of research into his life, you will learn that there are no periods of his life when you can fit in filming the Apollo missions, given things like his filming style.  What do you know about his filming style?

Quote
I’ve can remember seeing six of his films, why should it matter which films they are?

Because seeing his films should have shown you that his work is nothing like the Apollo footage we see.  Not just that the sets for 2001 are (deliberately, because he preferred the fakes) nothing like the Moon but because of how he uses the camera, how he directs actors, how he lights things.  Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style?  It would be expensive, difficult, time-consuming, and frankly stupid.

Quote
Watch the movie and you will see how simplistic the Apollo footage is in comparison, or maybe you won’t, LOL.

Are you kidding?  How many people are involved in doing wire work for a single person?  How many people do you have to add in order to have two people crossing back and forth in front of and behind one another in front of the camera?  How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?  Just because you're too ignorant of film to know how incredibly complicated a shoot a faked Apollo mission would be doesn't mean those people wouldn't have been necessary on the set, much less your alleged special effects after the fact.

Quote
I came here in the hope that I would be able to take part in some lively debates going on between NASA apologists and hoax believers, as the sites name would suggest, but this seems not to be the case. It is just a site for a very small minority of people to discuss amongst themselves, the latest fake news from NASA, and the never ending discussion regarding radiation. It seems I’m the only HB here, as the rest of them are kicking ass over on YT, which is a very scary place for you people, which is why you prefer to huddle together in the comfort of your own little communities, away from us naughty normal folk. I suppose I’ll stay until the discussion fizzles out, and you never know, we might even beat that incredibly boring radiation thread.

Hoax belief is dying.  There aren't debates here anymore because the majority of people have realized that hoax belief doesn't hold water.  YouTube hosts all sorts of charlatans, but you've got it precisely backwards--they're afraid to come here because they'll have their ignorance shown for what it is, and they don't get to feel special anymore.
"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 Geordie

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #186 on: May 15, 2018, 04:18:12 PM »
Quote
Dig this, if you haven't already:

http://www.arrl.org/eavesdropping-on-apollo-11
Quote
Thanks so much for posting that story, I’ve read it before, but I enjoyed reading it again, so thanks again.”
Quote
Excellent. You're welcome. Could we please have your thoughts on it?
He managed to pick up a transmission emanating from the direction of the moon, what more can I say?
  Is it your contention that the signals Baysinger picked up came from somewhere near the moon, but not necessarily the moon itself?

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2211
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #187 on: May 15, 2018, 04:18:24 PM »
Molesworth, does the special talk about the actual features of the Moon as shown in the movie?  Because it was known at the time that the Moon wasn't all jagged peaks and so forth, but Kubrick went with that because he thought it looked more dramatic.
"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 Geordie

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 129
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #188 on: May 15, 2018, 04:31:42 PM »

Quote
And secondly, exactly how idiotic cambo's arguments actually are.
So here’s a question, why am I still receiving so much attention?
  Speaking in general terms, idiocy is much welcomed in western society for its rich entertainment value. One might say it gives so much and asks so little.

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1582
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #189 on: May 15, 2018, 04:34:00 PM »

At the beginning, when you said it was all your own work, I was under the impression you actually came up with the evidence.

It is and I did.

Quote

It wasn’t until you eventually posted the evidence, that I realised I’d seen that evidence many years ago.

I have been posting it on the internet for quite some years now. If you've seen other sources then good for you, that means more than one person has drawn exactly the same conclusions as I did.

Quote
Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11.

Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it. Satellite meteorology was very much learning from other instrumentation. Even today imagery does little to forecast the weather, it is still mostly based on instrumentation. If you bothered to read the links I posted above you will see an article about the SIRS instrument on board a NIMBUS satellite - that isn't an imaging device, it's an instrument. Photos show you how things are, not how they will end up being.

Quote
With all the other evidence available from both sides of the argument, this is about as convincing as the waving flag evidence.

Prove it wrong. Where is the evidence that says the image of Earth doesn't match the satellite record? Where is your evidence to suggest how weather data ended up in live TV broadcasts before the data were collected? Your only effort so far as "They guessed".

Quote

OK boys and girls, pay attention. Here, the camera is allegedly up against a window, zoomed in on the alleged Earth.



An entire Earth showing exactly what it should do for the time it was broadcast, from the weather to the shape of the terminator. Live on TV, described in detail by the people filming it.

Quote
Now the camera is zoomed out, away from the window. The entire earth is still in view. No glare to be seen around the edge of the window.



Now we see that same window, from the same viewpoint, with the lights turned up. Now we see glare.



And finally, we see this. There was allegedly only one window with a view of the earth, at the time of the alleged broadcast.



This is the effect we should see in the second image.


And you come to that conclusion how? Did you work it out for yourself? Let's see that working, or is it hidden away on microfilm somewhere?

There was more than one window through which Earth could be viewed, here they are:



Quote

Well it looks like the hand waving is now on the other foot, if that makes sense, which it probably won’t, knowing you strange lot. The way you defend the indefensible is both sickening and at the same time, hilarious, as this is proof, that this footage is fake, which proves NASA were lying, which in turn suggests, that the whole Apollo project was probably a lie, and no amount of hand waving will change that. How does reconfiguring the camera for interior lighting, get us from the second image to the third and fourth images? Yes, it is old evidence, but it is solid evidence, which can only be debunked inside those deluded minds of yours. I would ask you what it’s like to be brainwashed, but it would be like asking what it would be like being dead.

I eagerly await your scathing insults and ridicule, as it shows just how insecure you all are. I call it “Buzz Syndrome”

You are beneath every bit of contempt I have for you, and not worthy of any insults I could be bothered to type. You have presented no evidence, simply regurgitated verbatim long discredited nonsense put out by a liar and a fraud.

Offline molesworth

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #190 on: May 15, 2018, 04:51:39 PM »
Molesworth, does the special talk about the actual features of the Moon as shown in the movie?  Because it was known at the time that the Moon wasn't all jagged peaks and so forth, but Kubrick went with that because he thought it looked more dramatic.
Unfortunately it didn't get into that much detail about the sets or effects.  It was about 10 minutes out of the hour-long programme, and was looking more at his style, and his approach to filming and to directing.  It certainly didn't contradict what's been mentioned many times about his perfectionism, and why he'd be probably the worst choice for director if you wanted to film a fake moon landing on time and on budget  :D

The series is a repeat from a couple of years ago, and a very entertaining look at the history of science fiction  I'm not sure if it's available via BBC America, but there are ways to get around that using proxies etc.
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 #191 on: May 15, 2018, 04:59:56 PM »
Quote from: cambo
I stand corrected, the hammer and feather trick is even weaker evidence.




All that video shows is that someone does not know what they are talking about.

Both the youtuber video and the Apollo video use flight feathers, which are airfoils. As soon as the youtuber releases the feather, it reacts to the air it is passing through and starts to tumble, and is tumbling merrily by the time it hits the ground. On the other hand, the Apollo feather is released flat and keeps that orientation all the way to the ground - no tumbling or spinning. The only way to duplicate that is in a vacuum. It is also obvious that both times in the youtuber video, the hammer landed first.
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 05:11:34 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 AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #192 on: May 15, 2018, 05:07:22 PM »

Quote from: cambo
I would spell it out for you, but I get the feeling, you are deliberately acting dumb.

Nope, just confused. But if you refuse to clarify, I guess I'll just have to declare myself the winner and move on.

Ready to tell me why you need blueprints for the LRV when you can see it unfold, or do I have to declare victory on that point, too?
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1601
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #193 on: May 15, 2018, 05:55:27 PM »
Now we see that same window, from the same viewpoint, with the lights turned up.

The lights were not changed, the f-stop on the camera was, and that would be expected to change the way the window looks. I doubt you'll care since you're only trolling, but felt like pointing tat out anyway as it illustrates the drivel you are talking.

Quote
How does reconfiguring the camera for interior lighting, get us from the second image to the third and fourth images?

Very easily, in reality. And you know it.

Quote
It’s a plane, we know how they work in an earth environment. Boy, you lack intelligence, for want of a shorter word.

The LM is a spacecraft. We know how they work in space. Your own intelligence doesn't seem to be conspicuous at the moment.

Quote
For the last time, it’s sand!

Except for all the times it's seen not acting like sand at all.
Quote
I stand corrected, the hammer and feather trick is even weaker evidence.

And as usual with anyone who tries to replicate it, they fail to do it without stacking the odds in their favour by holding the feather vertical as opposed to horizontal. Why don't you go try doing it yourself?

Quote
When I made that remark, I was imagining something feet deep, rather than inches. I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.

Failure of the record to meet your expectations is irrelevant. Except of course when it comes to the usual question: if your expectations match how it should really have looked, why wasn;t it made to look that way if it was faked?

Quote
for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of.

Physics is a wonderful thing: it allows you to model and simulate without actual experience.

Quote
Quote
“and on top of that went down the 'cold war was fake' road. There's nowhere, literally, to go with that once you've highlighted how absurd that entire premise is.”

You believe what you are told to believe, as in your deluded little fantasy world, there is only one side to every story.

And you selectively edit to make a point. Sad really. What do you actually get out of this?

Quote
So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told.

Told? You claimed to have lived through it earlier.

Quote
All three of your videos involve the use of CGI.

Prove it.

Quote
I came here in the hope that I would be able to take part in some lively debates going on between NASA apologists and hoax believers,

Bullshit. No-one with a serious interest in a debate starts the debate by dictating that everything that contradicts him is fake, wherever or whoever it comes from.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 859
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #194 on: May 15, 2018, 10:46:48 PM »
As I was passing by the forum today I saw Duane Gish running out the side door, shaking his head, muttering, "The horror! The horror!" as he ran.