ApolloHoax.net

Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: bknight on April 30, 2018, 08:52:34 AM

Title: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on April 30, 2018, 08:52:34 AM
One of the more priceless bits of information concerning the A11 mission is the Jodrell Bank tracking of the mission as it landed.

One source of many

http://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: smartcooky on May 01, 2018, 04:24:10 AM
One of the more priceless bits of information concerning the A11 mission is the Jodrell Bank tracking of the mission as it landed.

One source of many

http://www.jodrellbank.net/20-july-1969-lovell-telescope-tracked-eagle-lander-onto-surface-moon/

I notice the audio player doesn't work on that site (well at least it doesn't for me), but no matter.

Here it is for anyone who wants to download it and listen

https://www.dropbox.com/s/chwtsiyzm544w6u/Luna15-Apollo11.mp3?dl=1
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 01, 2018, 12:38:47 PM
Here it is for anyone who wants to download it and listen

On the role of Jodrell bank, it was discussed that Doppler shift is evidence of Apollo's veracity. ka9q explained that it would be theoretically possible to fake the Doppler shift, but not possible to fool the operators at the DSN (??? if I recall). I cannot find his post. Does anyone remember exactly what he said on this point? I may have this completely incorrect.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 01, 2018, 01:26:40 PM
Here it is for anyone who wants to download it and listen

On the role of Jodrell bank, it was discussed that Doppler shift is evidence of Apollo's veracity. ka9q explained that it would be theoretically possible to fake the Doppler shift, but not possible to fool the operators at the DSN (??? if I recall). I cannot find his post. Does anyone remember exactly what he said on this point? I may have this completely incorrect.

That sounds like one of the Blunder's claims, along with as I recall, The Russians could not tune their DSN to Apollo's frequency.  In his mind the Russians could track nor listen in .  But I do remember a video of Leonov discussing how they were listening in on the landing live.   So much for the Grandson's ability to research facts.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 01, 2018, 01:49:07 PM
On the role of Jodrell bank, it was discussed that Doppler shift is evidence of Apollo's veracity. ka9q explained that it would be theoretically possible to fake the Doppler shift, but not possible to fool the operators at the DSN (??? if I recall). I cannot find his post. Does anyone remember exactly what he said on this point? I may have this completely incorrect.
As you add in more and more, and yet more pieces of evidence to collection of knowledge, it gets to the stage where there would have to have been a vast army of people working on it, and a hidden budget waaay more than the Apollo programme actually cost, to do all of it.  And you'd have to keep it all covered up for a very long time.

As often mentioned, it would be cheaper and easier to actually send people to the Moon...  ;D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 01, 2018, 05:47:58 PM
And as I've said, it is literally not possible, even with today's technology, to fake the footage.  Tim thinks I believe that because I don't know enough about movies (my fifth column on the movie site I write for debuts today), but I could tell you in exacting detail what's wrong with, for example, the segment in Apollo 13 where Jim Lovell daydreams about walking on the Moon.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 01, 2018, 06:12:48 PM
...but I could tell you in exacting detail what's wrong with, for example, the segment in Apollo 13 where Jim Lovell daydreams about walking on the Moon.

Oooo... please do. I've heard you and others talk about 2001: A Space Odyssey, and how that film provides evidence for the difficulty of filming Apollo on Earth. It would be interesting to hear your detailing of such a small segment from a film, let alone large portions from films such as 2001.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 02, 2018, 03:18:22 AM
Apollo 13 -- and From the Earth to the Moon -- are instructional in how they actually approached filming. It is in almost every detail entirely different from how the hoaxies describe it being done.

(Indirectly; the hoaxies can't be tasked to provide an actual narrative, but you can reconstruct the slapdash affair they appear to be imagining from the various "telling details" they believe they have discovered.)

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 02, 2018, 04:30:08 AM
And as I've said, it is literally not possible, even with today's technology, to fake the footage.  Tim thinks I believe that because I don't know enough about movies (my fifth column on the movie site I write for debuts today), but I could tell you in exacting detail what's wrong with, for example, the segment in Apollo 13 where Jim Lovell daydreams about walking on the Moon.

I would love to hear that. I know that the billowing dust clouds are a problem but I'm sure there are others.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 02, 2018, 11:49:55 AM
And as I've said, it is literally not possible, even with today's technology, to fake the footage.  Tim thinks I believe that because I don't know enough about movies (my fifth column on the movie site I write for debuts today), but I could tell you in exacting detail what's wrong with, for example, the segment in Apollo 13 where Jim Lovell daydreams about walking on the Moon.

I would love to hear that. I know that the billowing dust clouds are a problem but I'm sure there are others.

There are issues with how the suits move around.  Mythbusters did a segment where they showed that both overcranking and wire rigs resulted in movement of suit elements (helmet, hoses, camera harness, lanyards, flaps, etc.) that didn't match up with Apollo footage.  The only thing that resulted in matching movement?  Using a Vomit Comet to simulate 1/6 Earth gravity. 

In the "That's All There Is" episode of FTETTM, there's a shot of Dave Foley as Al Bean futzing with the TV camera with the "sun" directly behind him, and you see all kinds of dust floating around.   That's the clearest example, but there are others where you see dust floating in the air.  And, of course, every shot of a LM landing had huge billowing dust clouds. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 02, 2018, 12:32:08 PM
Give me time to do some research (as in, rewatch From the Earth to the Moon and Apollo 13), and I'll do a column about it for the film site I write for.  But the short version is, yeah, dust and movement.  I suppose you could CGI the dust, though it's awfully expensive and time consuming for something only a handful of people care about.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on May 02, 2018, 01:24:52 PM
Here it is for anyone who wants to download it and listen

On the role of Jodrell bank, it was discussed that Doppler shift is evidence of Apollo's veracity. ka9q explained that it would be theoretically possible to fake the Doppler shift, but not possible to fool the operators at the DSN (??? if I recall). I cannot find his post. Does anyone remember exactly what he said on this point? I may have this completely incorrect.
Vaguely rings a bell. Did you search the archive?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 02, 2018, 02:09:31 PM
Give me time to do some research (as in, rewatch From the Earth to the Moon and Apollo 13), and I'll do a column about it for the film site I write for.  But the short version is, yeah, dust and movement.
Thanks! If you do, it would make interesting reading.

Quote
I suppose you could CGI the dust, though it's awfully expensive and time consuming for something only a handful of people care about.
By the time "From the Earth to the Moon" was made, CGI technology was just about capable of effects like that, although as you say, they would be very expensive and time consuming.  There was nothing even vaguely up to the job at the time of Apollo.

I think I mentioned, either here or on CQ, that I spent many years working on graphics system software, and if anything remotely capable of those effects had been available in the 1960's, it wouldn't have stayed a secret for long, since the movie industry would have leapt on it (much as they did in the 1990's).

People who believe that the Apollo films, videos and photographs were faked seem to have done no research into what tools were available at the time, and apparently think Photoshop was developed in the 19th Century, probably running on Babbage's Analytical Engine...  :D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on May 02, 2018, 03:01:33 PM
Here it is for anyone who wants to download it and listen

On the role of Jodrell bank, it was discussed that Doppler shift is evidence of Apollo's veracity. ka9q explained that it would be theoretically possible to fake the Doppler shift, but not possible to fool the operators at the DSN (??? if I recall). I cannot find his post. Does anyone remember exactly what he said on this point? I may have this completely incorrect.
This the one?

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=998.msg34356#msg34356
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 02, 2018, 03:40:37 PM
Here it is for anyone who wants to download it and listen

On the role of Jodrell bank, it was discussed that Doppler shift is evidence of Apollo's veracity. ka9q explained that it would be theoretically possible to fake the Doppler shift, but not possible to fool the operators at the DSN (??? if I recall). I cannot find his post. Does anyone remember exactly what he said on this point? I may have this completely incorrect.
This the one?

http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=998.msg34356#msg34356

And in that thread was the video of Leonov discussing listening in on the landing.

h-dBQ&index=165
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Zakalwe on May 02, 2018, 03:48:24 PM
There was nothing even vaguely up to the job at the time of Apollo.

I think I mentioned, either here or on CQ, that I spent many years working on graphics system software, and if anything remotely capable of those effects had been available in the 1960's, it wouldn't have stayed a secret for long, since the movie industry would have leapt on it (much as they did in the 1990's).

People who believe that the Apollo films, videos and photographs were faked seem to have done no research into what tools were available at the time, and apparently think Photoshop was developed in the 19th Century, probably running on Babbage's Analytical Engine...  :D

The state of the art at the time was so limited that they couldn't even generate solid lines to separate the columns of numbers on the controllers screens. The idea of a graphics manipulation package similar to Photoshop in the 1960s is completely hilarious.

"The System/360 mainframes generated the requested data on a CRT screen using dedicated digital-to-television display generators; positioned over the CRT in turn was a video camera, watching the screen. For the oxygen status display example above, the mainframe would produce a series of numerical columns and print them on the CRT.

The numbers were just that, though. No column headings, no labels, no descriptive text, no formatting, no cell outlines, no nothing—bare, unadorned columns of numbers. In order to make them more understandable, an automated mechanical system would retrieve an actual physical slide containing printed column headings and other formatting reference information from a huge bank of such slides, and place the slide over a light source and project it through a series of lenses into the video camera positioned above the CRT. The mixed image, made up of the CRT's bare columns and the slide containing the formatting, was then transmitted to the controller's console screen as a single video stream.

This process was necessary to dress up and clarify the mainframes' sparse output, since the modern concept of a single unified graphical display consisting of mixed static and dynamic elements was impossible with the era's technology."


https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/going-boldly-what-it-was-like-to-be-an-apollo-flight-controller/2/
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 02, 2018, 04:00:00 PM
There was nothing even vaguely up to the job at the time of Apollo.

I think I mentioned, either here or on CQ, that I spent many years working on graphics system software, and if anything remotely capable of those effects had been available in the 1960's, it wouldn't have stayed a secret for long, since the movie industry would have leapt on it (much as they did in the 1990's).

People who believe that the Apollo films, videos and photographs were faked seem to have done no research into what tools were available at the time, and apparently think Photoshop was developed in the 19th Century, probably running on Babbage's Analytical Engine...  :D

The state of the art at the time was so limited that they couldn't even generate solid lines to separate the columns of numbers on the controllers screens. The idea of a graphics manipulation package similar to Photoshop in the 1960s is completely hilarious.

"The System/360 mainframes generated the requested data on a CRT screen using dedicated digital-to-television display generators; positioned over the CRT in turn was a video camera, watching the screen. For the oxygen status display example above, the mainframe would produce a series of numerical columns and print them on the CRT.

The numbers were just that, though. No column headings, no labels, no descriptive text, no formatting, no cell outlines, no nothing—bare, unadorned columns of numbers. In order to make them more understandable, an automated mechanical system would retrieve an actual physical slide containing printed column headings and other formatting reference information from a huge bank of such slides, and place the slide over a light source and project it through a series of lenses into the video camera positioned above the CRT. The mixed image, made up of the CRT's bare columns and the slide containing the formatting, was then transmitted to the controller's console screen as a single video stream.

This process was necessary to dress up and clarify the mainframes' sparse output, since the modern concept of a single unified graphical display consisting of mixed static and dynamic elements was impossible with the era's technology."


https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/10/going-boldly-what-it-was-like-to-be-an-apollo-flight-controller/2/

Sure, that's just what they want you to think...

/s
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 02, 2018, 04:56:20 PM
You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 02, 2018, 05:03:41 PM
You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.

You also don't need it to broadcast live footage of Earth from space. Just a TV camera being pointed by a person in space.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 02, 2018, 05:25:44 PM
And I’m sure they will do it one day.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 02, 2018, 06:19:05 PM
And I’m sure they will do it one day.

NASA already did it 6 times or do you not aree?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Peter B on May 02, 2018, 06:33:49 PM
And I’m sure they will do it one day.
Do what? Broadcast live footage of the Earth from space?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 02, 2018, 06:34:53 PM
You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.

Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 02, 2018, 06:45:26 PM
"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 02, 2018, 06:52:31 PM
"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!

And how much money could a movie technician make selling his proof of the hoax to the media?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 02, 2018, 09:15:24 PM
"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!
"OK, I take the money and make a deathbed confession to be read when I croak; that way any bad effects don't screw me over." said none of them . . . why?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on May 02, 2018, 09:23:22 PM
"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!
How much money would it take to silence one person? How many of those payments would be required?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 02, 2018, 09:50:52 PM
"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!
How much money would it take to silence one person? How many of those payments would be required?
And where is this money coming from. Let's say you paid 1,000,000 a year to everyone involved who knew. If only less than a 10th of people involved in Apollo got paid, not to mention however many were directly involved in faking,  that's 40 BILLION dollars a YEAR, which is over  twice NASA's current annual budget.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 02, 2018, 10:14:26 PM
"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!
How much money would it take to silence one person? How many of those payments would be required?
And where is this money coming from. Let's say you paid 1,000,000 a year to everyone involved who knew. If only less than a 10th of people involved in Apollo got paid, not to mention however many were directly involved in faking,  that's 40 BILLION dollars a YEAR, which is over  twice NASA's current annual budget.

And if you say that the NASA Death Squads keep the Apollo people from talking, those Squads have to be kept on salary for 50 years, they have to be let in on the hoax so they know what the people they are monitoring are NOT supposed to be talking about, and since those Squad members now know about the Moon Hoax, other Squad members now have to watch THEM to make sure that THEY are not tempted to cash in on revealing the Moon Hoax.

And of course, THEY have to know WHY they are watching their fellow Death Squad buddies, and now THEY have to be let in on the Biggest Secret Ever, and to keep THEM silent...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 02, 2018, 11:13:03 PM
And if you say that the NASA Death Squads keep the Apollo people from talking, those Squads have to be kept on salary for 50 years, they have to be let in on the hoax so they know what the people they are monitoring are NOT supposed to be talking about, and since those Squad members now know about the Moon Hoax, other Squad members now have to watch THEM to make sure that THEY are not tempted to cash in on revealing the Moon Hoax.

And of course, THEY have to know WHY they are watching their fellow Death Squad buddies, and now THEY have to be let in on the Biggest Secret Ever, and to keep THEM silent...
Great A'Tuin, it's death squads all the way down! :o
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 03, 2018, 12:41:33 AM
And I’m sure they will do it one day.

They did. I can prove it. Can you do the same for your claim?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 03, 2018, 12:56:28 AM
You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.

No, you don't.  However, to make it look like the footage we have is considerably more than "a man in a space suit on a movie set."
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Peter B on May 03, 2018, 08:16:37 AM
"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!

*smack forehead*

Of course!

Because no one has ever been motivated by a sense of honour to reveal national secrets - if only Daniel Ellsberg, Christopher Boyce, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden had been paid MONEY! then they'd have never released any secret documents...

Obviously MONEY! is some form of extra-attractive, extra-powerful currency.

[/sarcasm]
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Peter B on May 03, 2018, 08:36:18 AM
You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.

You don't for some footage, maybe.

But how was this footage faked:


Please watch all of it and explain how the footage includes evidence of low gravity and a vacuum, all recorded in a single cut.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 03, 2018, 08:51:38 AM
You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.

You don't for some footage, maybe.

But how was this footage faked: <snip>

Please watch all of it and explain how the footage includes evidence of low gravity and a vacuum, all recorded in a single cut.
And also explain how it could be faked using only early 1970's technology...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 03, 2018, 09:38:48 AM
"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!

Money from where?  How much?  Where's the paper trail for those payments?  Who approved those payments?  Show me in the annual federal budget where that money comes from, because it would be a lot, too much to hide behind a black program.  Literally thousands of people were involved with Apollo, from the astronauts all the way down to the machinists who fabricated the tools to build the spacecraft. 

You believe the landings were filmed on a sound stage, then find me evidence for that sound stage.  Not just "this digital image that's been repeatedly rescaled and reprocessed and cropped and converted between image formats to the point where the compression artifacts dominate looks funny to me, therefore it was shot on a stage." 

Who built the stage?  Where was it built?  Who worked the cameras?  Lighting?  Electrical?  People were contracted to work, money changed hands, there would be a paper trail somewhere.  Find that paper trail and we'll talk.  Until then it's fantasy.

To repeat myself again, some more - there's an old saying, "three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." 

There's been some discussion toward the end of the Radiation (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=1444.0) thread about how it's impossible to accurately replicate Apollo footage on a sound stage.  The movement of the astronauts cannot be accurately replicated either by overcranking or using wire rigs.  The behavior of the dust cannot be replicated outside of a vacuum chamber. 

The only way to accurately replicate the Apollo footage would be to a) build a vacuum chamber the size of a football field, b) build a set of the Lunar surface inside of it, complete with dirt, c) put it on an airplane that can do a parabolic dive to simulate 1/6 g, and d) maintain that dive for several minutes at a time.   

It wasn't faked. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: twik on May 03, 2018, 11:07:51 AM
And I’m sure they will do it one day.
If it's doable, why would you doubt they've already done so?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 03, 2018, 04:11:08 PM
“If it's doable, why would you doubt they've already done so?”
It’s called sarcasm.

I hate to have to point out something that is so obvious to all other people on this planet, but everything is about money.

I’ve seen that footage several times, but I decided to humour you and watch it again. Every time I see one of these videos, it becomes more apparent just how fake they really are. You are seeing things that just aren’t there, while blocking out the obvious fakery. First of all, it is definitely played back in slow motion. Played at 2x speed, it looks normal, although if I was being picky, I’d say it needs to be played back slightly slower. Secondly, I can see the obvious line where the stage ends and the fake scenery begins and towards the end when they disappear over the alleged hill, they are obviously walking around in a pit at the back of the stage. If you bother to open your eyes, you will notice you don’t see the astronaut’s feet. Go on, show me another, this is easy.

And as for jfb, there are things living at the bottom of ponds with more intelligence than some of you. This is my take on things, that is all, so why don’t you prove it wasn’t motivated by money. Can’t you see how ridiculous you sound? As for the dust you mention, it’s more than likely sand, as when you kick sand in the air, it doesn’t cloud or hang in the air. It comes straight back down again, exactly like you see in the alleged Rover footage. I say again, you lot only see what you’ve been told to see.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 03, 2018, 04:29:16 PM
I’ve seen that footage several times, but I decided to humour you and watch it again.

That's so very kind of you to humour us in this way.

Quote
Go on, show me another, this is easy.

See below.

Quote
And as for jfb, there are things living at the bottom of ponds with more intelligence than some of you.

If all you have are insults then your argument is weak.

Quote
As for the dust you mention, it’s more than likely sand, as when you kick sand in the air, it doesn’t cloud or hang in the air. It comes straight back down again, exactly like you see in the alleged Rover footage.

What, you mean the grey dust in the footage behaves as though it was filmed in a vacuum. I wonder why?  ???

Unlike the sand in this footage that billowed and held up in the atmosphere.



...and this footage



Go on, tell me another, this is easy.

 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 03, 2018, 04:36:31 PM
...there are things living at the bottom of ponds with more intelligence than some of you.

Stop it with the insults and attitude or you won't last long.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 03, 2018, 04:42:14 PM



I hate to have to point out something that is so obvious to all other people on this planet, but everything is about money.


So I repeat my question: why don't the people who worked on the hoax cash in on their knowledge by revealing it? A tell - all book "I Worked on the Moon Hoax" with proof (secret photos, work orders, pay stubs) would make the author a lot of MONEY!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 03, 2018, 04:47:56 PM
As a matter of fact, cambo, why don't you write your proof of the moon hoax into a book and have a best seller? Don't you want to make a lot of MONEY!?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 03, 2018, 05:14:08 PM
Let's test that claim, canbo. Any youtube video let's you alter the speed of the video to adegree, so here's some film of the LRV been driven from Apollo 16. Let's speed it up x2. I don't know about you, but that sure fudge does not look like how it would on Earth. For one, dust lingers when thrown into the air thanks to the drag from its high surface area, while the moon has no air, as I hope you are aware, so it falls back to ground much more quickly.

You'd need some video altering software to test whatever your exact value for 'slightly lower' is, but I'll leave that to you.
But wait, there's more!
Apollo 14 filmed an inadvertent pendulum that resulted from a hanging lanyard. Now, a pendulum's swing depends on local gravity and how long it swings depends on drag. One source of drag is air.
Not only would it speeding the video up so that the pendulum's motion match what it'd be in Earth gravity result in the astronauts  moving like we should be playing Yakety Sax, but, again, the length of time it swings is strong evidence there's  no atmosphere.

The difference in quality is because the former is actual film, while the latter is live, colour video being transmitted to Earth from the moon.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 03, 2018, 05:46:29 PM
And as for jfb, there are things living at the bottom of ponds with more intelligence than some of you.

True, but you really don't want to disturb the Old Ones.  They get ... cranky

Quote
This is my take on things, that is all, so why don’t you prove it wasn’t motivated by money. Can’t you see how ridiculous you sound?

Why don't you prove it was?  That's how this works, you take a position, and then you supply evidence to support your position.  You don't take a position and demand we prove you wrong, especially when you've signaled that you don't believe anything we have to say anyway. 

Serious question - how much money would it take to buy your silence for the rest of your life?  Think about it for more than a couple of minutes.  A hundred bucks?  A thousand?  A million?  A million a year?

There were literally thousands of people involved with the Apollo program.  How much would it cost to buy everyone's silence over the course of several decades?  What's to stop people from demanding ever more money over time? 

Where does that money come from?  How would you hide those payments in the federal budget so that they aren't immediately obvious to any second-year accounting student?  How do you convince subsequent Congresses to continue those payments over time?  You think the current Republican Congress wouldn't leap at the chance to discredit Kennedy and Johnson?     

How would you explain those payments to the IRS? 

How much money would the first person who could credibly expose the Apollo missions as a hoax make by comparison? 

Work the numbers, then get back to us.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 03, 2018, 06:11:09 PM
There were literally thousands of people involved with the Apollo program.

And countless more who didn't work for NASA at the time of Apollo, but still have (or will have) the capability to expose the hoax. I'm not sure cambo has thought this through. The secret of the hoax would have to be protected for the rest of time or eventually someone will expose it. NASA can't afford to bribe this problem away.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 03, 2018, 06:52:01 PM
There were literally thousands of people involved with the Apollo program.

And countless more who didn't work for NASA at the time of Apollo, but still have (or will have) the capability to expose the hoax. I'm not sure cambo has thought this through. The secret of the hoax would have to be protected for the rest of time or eventually someone will expose it. NASA can't afford to bribe this problem away.

And this means that to continue to protect the hoax, new generations have to be made privy to the secret as older generations die off; so continues the possibility of exposure.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: inconceivable on May 03, 2018, 06:59:00 PM
The one that gets me is the one about Muana Kea.  Those old pictures of the terrain and cinder cones from back in the day look just like the supposed backdrop photos most notably Apollo 15.   That is just uncanny!  After a road was built the Air Force purchased the land south of the summit ridge.  Nasa astronauts were training there also and returned to Hawaii after splashdown.  Weren't the HBs calculating if a light source were projected down into the park from this Air Force plot?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: smartcooky on May 03, 2018, 06:59:43 PM
You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.

You do if you don't want a First Year photography student to immediately recognize that you have taken a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set, on the earth.

This is one of the first things that I picked up on waaay back when HBs were bleating on about the sky not being full of stars in the photos taken on the Lunar surface. As someone who makes his living as a photographer and in dealing with image manipulation, I can say with certainty that if the sky had been full of stars in those photos, I would immediately recognise fakery.


(https://www.dropbox.com/s/pprt6oom2kxt4g7/LunarStars.png?raw=1)
This would be a clear and obvious fake purely because if the stars to even
a first year photography student



Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 03, 2018, 07:26:04 PM
The one that gets me is the one about Muana Kea.  Those old pictures of the terrain and cinder cones from back in the day look just like the supposed backdrop photos most notably Apollo 15.   That is just uncanny!  After a road was built the Air Force purchased the land south of the summit ridge.  Nasa astronauts were training there also and returned to Hawaii after splashdown.  Weren't the HBs calculating if a light source were projected down into the park from this Air Force plot?
Show me an example of it being 'exactly' the same. I have yet to see one. Besides, don't conspiracy theorists usually just  claim it was some kind of backdrop and the lack of change in the background of the image is somehow  proof of that as opposed to the lack of changes when the objects in the background are far away. You don't know how to keep your stories consistent do you? You can't even agree where it was filmed.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 03, 2018, 07:47:21 PM
The one that gets me is the one about Muana Kea.  Those old pictures of the terrain and cinder cones from back in the day look just like the supposed backdrop photos most notably Apollo 15.   That is just uncanny!  After a road was built the Air Force purchased the land south of the summit ridge.  Nasa astronauts were training there also and returned to Hawaii after splashdown.  Weren't the HBs calculating if a light source were projected down into the park from this Air Force plot?

They also trained in Meteor Crater, Arizona. Why isn't that suspicious?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 03, 2018, 07:56:12 PM
They also trained in Meteor Crater, Arizona. Why isn't that suspicious?
Wow, it's almost like training in environments that have certain analogies to the one being trained for is actually kind of smart idea. :o
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 03, 2018, 08:02:04 PM
The one that gets me is the one about Muana Kea.  Those old pictures of the terrain and cinder cones from back in the day look just like the supposed backdrop photos most notably Apollo 15.   That is just uncanny!  After a road was built the Air Force purchased the land south of the summit ridge.  Nasa astronauts were training there also and returned to Hawaii after splashdown.  Weren't the HBs calculating if a light source were projected down into the park from this Air Force plot?

Why would NASA publish photos of astronauts training at a site and then turn around and use the EXACT SAME SITE to film the hoax footage? That is beyond all kinds of stupid.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 03, 2018, 10:16:40 PM
The one that gets me is the one about Muana Kea.  Those old pictures of the terrain and cinder cones from back in the day look just like the supposed backdrop photos most notably Apollo 15.

Except for, you know, all the plants.

I've been to Mauna Kea.  Parts of it are pretty barren, but even in the most inhospitable parts you will find some plant doing its damndest to grow, even in the bare rock.   

Something I regret not getting a picture of is a small vent spewing steam - on the upwind side, hardy grasses and scrub brush.  On the downwind side, lush green ferns and mosses and other jungle-type vegetation.  Distance between the two environments?  On the order of a couple of feet. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 03, 2018, 11:35:04 PM
The one that gets me is the one about Muana Kea.  Those old pictures of the terrain and cinder cones from back in the day look just like the supposed backdrop photos most notably Apollo 15.   That is just uncanny!  After a road was built the Air Force purchased the land south of the summit ridge.  Nasa astronauts were training there also and returned to Hawaii after splashdown.  Weren't the HBs calculating if a light source were projected down into the park from this Air Force plot?

What gets me about the photographs and footage of the Apollo 15 landing site is how they look exactly like Mons Hadley, the lunar Apennines and Hadley Rille - down to the last tiny rock and crater, as demonstrated in photos taken by the LRO, Kaguya, Chang'e-2 and Chandrayaan. It's just uncanny. Almost as if they were there.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 04, 2018, 01:15:35 AM
A fun one to think about as well is the NewWho episode "Planet of the Dead." Untouched desert, completely bare of all plant life, footprints, anything. How did they do it? Sent a huge crew out to clear everything within camera view. And swept it again and again, after every take and after anyone, actor or crew, had stepped on it. A ridiculous amount of work the hoaxies are simply ignoring with their "they just filmed it on the slopes."

BTW that's a fun episode for a couple reasons, both showing how the art we get arises as much from constraints as from intent. First, while the principle photography was in Dubai the inside of the crashed alien ship was filmed at a steelworks in Newport during one of the coldest winters on record. With everyone's breath visibly fogging they had to add a line explaining why the inside of the ship was so cold, but that doesn't matter; what was lovely was the contrast; it made the ship more alien and it really sold the heat of the desert.

The original artistic vision was of a pristine and very British double-decker bus suddenly appearing in the middle of an alien desert. Unfortunately someone dropped the shipping container and it arrived in Dubai looking much the worse for wear. Which was great; the condition of the bus underlined why they needed the bus to survive going back through the wormhole. (They did some repairs of the dockside damage then went over it to add scorch marks and other fun stuff. Then did the same to the identical bus they had left home for studio filming.)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 04, 2018, 01:21:26 AM
Let's test that claim, canbo
[
Apollo 14 filmed an inadvertent pendulum that resulted from a hanging lanyard. Now, a pendulum's swing depends on local gravity and how long it swings depends on drag. One source of drag is air.
Not only would it speeding the video up so that the pendulum's motion match what it'd be in Earth gravity result in the astronauts  moving like we should be playing Yakety Sax, but, again, the length of time it swings is strong evidence there's  no atmosphere.

The difference in quality is because the former is actual film, while the latter is live, colour video being transmitted to Earth from the moon.

Or my little effort regarding pendulums..


Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 04, 2018, 02:30:14 AM
And countless more who didn't work for NASA at the time of Apollo, but still have (or will have) the capability to expose the hoax. I'm not sure cambo has thought this through. The secret of the hoax would have to be protected for the rest of time or eventually someone will expose it. NASA can't afford to bribe this problem away.
Adding to the problem, a lot of these people weren't in the USA, or American (see Cambo's "worldwide conspiracy" idea) and you have the same problem multiplied enormously.  Also, this includes countries where governments aren't as likely to want to keep paying to hide a US "hoax" for centuries, or where economic problems might mean they just can't pay their "conspirators".

The whole idea gets more and more preposterous with every wrinkle you add to it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 04, 2018, 03:29:45 AM
Or my little effort regarding pendulums..


Also a very educational video on the subject. Mind you, cambo probably counts gravity to be under the heading of 'NASA-science'.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Peter B on May 04, 2018, 05:33:39 AM
I hate to have to point out something that is so obvious to all other people on this planet, but everything is about money.

Or that hyper-powered alternative, MONEY!.

And of course, as already pointed out, money was the main reason why Apollo was stopped. Then, in the aftermath, thousands of NASA employees were laid off...and not one of them was cranky enough about that to spill the Apollo hoax to the media. I wonder why?

Quote
I’ve seen that footage several times, but I decided to humour you and watch it again. Every time I see one of these videos, it becomes more apparent just how fake they really are. You are seeing things that just aren’t there, while blocking out the obvious fakery. First of all, it is definitely played back in slow motion. Played at 2x speed, it looks normal, although if I was being picky, I’d say it needs to be played back slightly slower. Secondly, I can see the obvious line where the stage ends and the fake scenery begins and towards the end when they disappear over the alleged hill, they are obviously walking around in a pit at the back of the stage. If you bother to open your eyes, you will notice you don’t see the astronaut’s feet. Go on, show me another, this is easy.

Okay, so it's your contention that the video of the astronauts was faked on a stage by being recorded at roughly half speed. That means it  (a) had to be recorded beforehand, and (b) must have been used for all the footage. For point (a) how is it that Mission Control and the astronauts are occasionally heard talking about events of that day such as live sports results? Plus, even if the conversation was recorded live over pre-recorded actions, how is it that sound and action synch so perfectly?  And for point (b) are you seriously going to tell me that this video of Dave Scott tripping over a rock, flailing arms and all, works at roughly double speed?



Quote
And as for jfb, there are things living at the bottom of ponds with more intelligence than some of you. This is my take on things, that is all, so why don’t you prove it wasn’t motivated by money. Can’t you see how ridiculous you sound? As for the dust you mention, it’s more than likely sand, as when you kick sand in the air, it doesn’t cloud or hang in the air. It comes straight back down again, exactly like you see in the alleged Rover footage. I say again, you lot only see what you’ve been told to see.

Because there are some people who are motivated by things other than money. The Apollo workforce, including contractors, was around 400,000 at its peak. Even if money - or MONEY! - was good enough for 99.99% of those people, that still means there'd be 40 noble patriots who'd refuse the money and speak out. So far we're waiting for one credible person to step forward with evidence of Apollo being faked.

And as for the dusty sand, would you care to explain why the material on the ground looks and behaves like a cohesive powder - similar to flour or talcum powder? And would you care to explain how you create dust-free sand, especially when this stage of yours is going to require hundreds of tons?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 04, 2018, 06:40:34 AM
The one Another one that gets me, but not enough to bother actually returning to defend this absurd accusation because I'm just here for a laugh and to wind you lot up is the one about Muana Kea.

Fixed that for you...

Zero out of ten for originality, inconceivable. Another one I have to ask, why are you even here?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 04, 2018, 12:34:54 PM
Serious question - how much money would it take to buy your silence for the rest of your life?  Think about it for more than a couple of minutes.  A hundred bucks?  A thousand?  A million?  A million a year?

They never believe me when I say this, but there literally is not enough money in the world to buy my silence.  It's not just that I have a bit of a reputation as a talker; it's that I consider the kind of lying I'd have to do in order to keep Apollo secret if I had faked it to be a sin.  It would eventually weigh on my conscience so much that I would come forward.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 04, 2018, 01:02:10 PM
Serious question - how much money would it take to buy your silence for the rest of your life?  Think about it for more than a couple of minutes.  A hundred bucks?  A thousand?  A million?  A million a year?

They never believe me when I say this, but there literally is not enough money in the world to buy my silence.  It's not just that I have a bit of a reputation as a talker; it's that I consider the kind of lying I'd have to do in order to keep Apollo secret if I had faked it to be a sin.  It would eventually weigh on my conscience so much that I would come forward.

And you are not unique in that respect. 

I like to say I can be rented rather than bought outright, but even so, I occasionally get drunk, or stay up too late, or otherwise am in a position to where I may just blab any damned thing out loud.  After 50+ years, at least one person who could credibly expose a hoax would have done so. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: inconceivable on May 04, 2018, 02:09:47 PM
The one thing about the moon landings that I was thinking about the other day was that time and time again I read that NASA didn't discover inertia until walking on the moon.  The astronauts were 1/6 weight on the moon but still carried around 310 lbs of mass so to speak.  So we have the bunny hop explanation?  But what about the LRV and its mass with two occupants?  Was there a scramble to use this new found inertial knowledge on the LRVs already in testing?  I don't recall reading anything about inertial affects on the LRV.  I'll go looks through some more Youtubes.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 04, 2018, 02:33:42 PM
The one thing about the moon landings that I was thinking about the other day was that time and time again I read that NASA didn't discover inertia until walking on the moon...
NASA discovered inertia?!?!  Well, that puts right centuries of scientific misunderstanding on the concept.

Quote
I'll go looks through some more Youtubes.
... because, as everyone knows, that's where all the real knowledge is kept  ;D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 04, 2018, 02:33:58 PM
The one thing about the moon landings that I was thinking about the other day was that time and time again I read that NASA didn't discover inertia until walking on the moon.  The astronauts were 1/6 weight on the moon but still carried around 310 lbs of mass so to speak.  So we have the bunny hop explanation?  But what about the LRV and its mass with two occupants?  Was there a scramble to use this new found inertial knowledge on the LRVs already in testing?  I don't recall reading anything about inertial affects on the LRV.  I'll go looks through some more Youtubes.

Science fiction writers knew about low gravity inertia in stories they wrote in the 1940s and 50s. I'm quite sure that the avid readers of these stories remembered them when they were planning Project Apollo.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 04, 2018, 02:41:19 PM
The one thing about the moon landings that I was thinking about the other day was that time and time again I read that NASA didn't discover inertia until walking on the moon.  The astronauts were 1/6 weight on the moon but still carried around 310 lbs of mass so to speak.  So we have the bunny hop explanation?  But what about the LRV and its mass with two occupants?  Was there a scramble to use this new found inertial knowledge on the LRVs already in testing?  I don't recall reading anything about inertial affects on the LRV.  I'll go looks through some more Youtubes.

Do feel free to give us those quotes you have read 'time and time again'.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 04, 2018, 03:08:38 PM
The one thing about the moon landings that I was thinking about the other day was that time and time again I read that NASA didn't discover inertia until walking on the moon. 

Horseshit.  You read no such thing.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 04, 2018, 03:28:23 PM
The one thing about the moon landings that I was thinking about the other day was that time and time again I read that NASA didn't discover inertia until walking on the moon.

I rarely pay attention to your posts inconceivable, but even by your standards this is lamentable. NASA didn't discover inertia until walking on the moon.

Erm... so the astronauts walked on the moon then? That's what you are telling us.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 04, 2018, 04:07:00 PM
“Unlike the sand in this footage that billowed and held up in the atmosphere”

Thanks for those, there are a few seconds near the start of both those clips, when the buggies are moving slow, which look identical to the faked Rover footage, plus you do realise those things were outdoors and not on an enclosed movie set, right?

“Stop it with the insults and attitude or you won't last long”

Noted.

“A tell - all book "I Worked on the Moon Hoax" with proof (secret photos, work orders, pay stubs) would make the author a lot of MONEY!”

You’ve been given a ton of money to stay quiet, where is your logic?

“As a matter of fact, cambo, why don't you write your proof of the moon hoax into a book and have a best seller? Don't you want to make a lot of MONEY!?”

What proof?

The Apollo 16 Lunar rover video looks perfect at 1.5x speed and as for the pendulum video, the film, from what I can make out looks like 1x speed. The quality is so bad, that I don’t see how you would see this as evidence, as there could be a mechanical device doing the work and we wouldn’t be any the wiser.

“Serious question - how much money would it take to buy your silence for the rest of your life?  Think about it for more than a couple of minutes.  A hundred bucks?  A thousand?  A million?  A million a year?”

A couple of hundred grand would do me at my time of life, but for someone a lot younger, maybe five million.

“There were literally thousands of people involved with the Apollo program.  How much would it cost to buy everyone's silence over the course of several decades?  What's to stop people from demanding ever more money over time?”

Well let’s say there were a hundred people actually in on Apollo, which would be half a billion in English terms. And you don’t blackmail the government.

“Where does that money come from?”

NASA’s multibillion dollar budget of course. We are talking the American government here, if they want to hide something, it’s gone.

 “How much money would the first person who could credibly expose the Apollo missions as a hoax make by comparison?”

What good is money if you are dead?

“And countless more who didn't work for NASA at the time of Apollo, but still have (or will have) the capability to expose the hoax.”

You know the answer to that one, but I’ll humour you. The people making the nuts and bolts weren’t present on the movie set.

“And this means that to continue to protect the hoax, new generations have to be made privy to the secret as older generations die off; so continues the possibility of exposure.”

By new generations, do you mean the sons, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the film crew and NASA’s top brass? Surely only the CIA would need to know, as they are probably running NASA, and I’m sure some of them will be trained in special effects. Let the original hoaxers go to their graves, which would just leave those crafty CIA agents. It wouldn’t surprise me if the president himself wasn’t aware.

“Or my little effort regarding pendulums”

To me it looks like there is a drought causing the bag to continue swinging, and the little maths lesson at the end doesn’t disprove this.

“Mind you, cambo probably counts gravity to be under the heading of 'NASA-science”

In a way it is, not because it’s fake science, but because it’s bad science. Take the dark matter theory, it’s possible they just got gravity wrong, and if that turns out to be the case, then Apollo and any other missions involving planetary orbits, sling shots and the likes, all go in the hoax bin.

“how is it that Mission Control and the astronauts are occasionally heard talking about events of that day such as live sports results? Plus, even if the conversation was recorded live over pre-recorded actions, how is it that sound and action synch so perfectly?”

Only the voices needed to be live, although instances of other sounds were few and far between, and lip-sync wasn’t a problem for obvious reasons.

 “are you seriously going to tell me that this video of Dave Scott tripping over a rock, flailing arms and all, works at roughly double speed?”

So you think all the video would have to be played back at the same speed? This one is bang on at 1.5x speed.

“And as for the dusty sand, would you care to explain why the material on the ground looks and behaves like a cohesive powder - similar to flour or talcum powder?”

No it doesn’t, it looks like sand, you are only seeing what you want to see.

“And would you care to explain how you create dust-free sand, especially when this stage of yours is going to require hundreds of tons?”

I can’t, where did I say I could? But that’s irrelevant, as I already pointed out earlier in my post, that it can be simulated perfectly outdoors, thanks so much to whoever posted those priceless videos.

“They never believe me when I say this”

I wonder why?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 04, 2018, 04:20:44 PM
In a way it is, not because it’s fake science, but because it’s bad science. Take the dark matter theory, it’s possible they just got gravity wrong, and if that turns out to be the case, then Apollo and any other missions involving planetary orbits, sling shots and the likes, all go in the hoax bin.

They got gravity wrong? Really? Do you actually understand the reason for the proposal of dark matter and its relationship to the cosmological model?

I've pigeon holed you now. All we learned at school and college is wrong, those that use main stream science are sheeple and cannot possibly attain your mastery of critical thinking to overturn centuries of advancement in science, engineering and medicine. We're all establishment types here, unlike you with your superior knowledge.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 04, 2018, 04:49:23 PM

“A tell - all book "I Worked on the Moon Hoax" with proof (secret photos, work orders, pay stubs) would make the author a lot of MONEY!”

Quote
You've been given a ton of money to stay quiet, where is your logic?


I blew it all in Vegas, and I'm broke. But I know this secret that I can parley into millions of dollars. That's my logic.



“As a matter of fact, cambo, why don't you write your proof of the moon hoax into a book and have a best seller? Don't you want to make a lot of MONEY!?”

Quote
What proof?

So you don't have any proof of what you're saying, and you're just yanking our chain. Well, we knew that.



 “How much money would the first person who could credibly expose the Apollo missions as a hoax make by comparison?”

Quote
  What good is money if you are dead?

Here we go with the NASA Death Squads.



“And this means that to continue to protect the hoax, new generations have to be made privy to the secret as older generations die off; so continues the possibility of exposure.”

Quote
By new generations, do you mean the sons, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the film crew and NASA’s top brass? Surely only the CIA would need to know, as they are probably running NASA, and I’m sure some of them will be trained in special effects. Let the original hoaxers go to their graves, which would just leave those crafty CIA agents. It wouldn’t surprise me if the president himself wasn’t aware.

Correction: CIA Death Squads. Although, since they only handle external affairs, shouldn't that be the FBI Death Squads? No, I mean the descendants of the Death Squads. They have to know the secrets they are protecting, and we are well aware that Government agents have been caught selling secrets for MONEY! The threat of death has not stopped CIA agents from selling out their country;  what is stopping them from revealing the Moon Hoax for MONEY!?
And what stops the President from making himself a hero in the eyes of the nation by revealing the hoax?



Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 04, 2018, 05:17:07 PM
Well let’s say there were a hundred people actually in on Apollo...
Have you really spent any time thinking this through?  You'd need more than that just for the supposed filming!!  I guess you've never had anything to do with movie or TV production though.  Take a look at the credits for even a low budget production, and count how many people are involved.  (And generally, there are a lot of people who don't make it into the credits as well.)

Then you have layer upon layer of people working on other parts of the "hoax".  Making sure the multiple teams designing, building and launching the spacecraft did their jobs well enough, but somehow didn't realise it was faked.  Managing the communications by some black magic means to fool everyone listening in.  Faking the tracking data, telemetry, video and audio feeds.  Secret teams developing the robotic probes that launched unseen to set up the experiments, and returned kilogrammes of rock samples.

The list goes on and on, and you have to pay these people a lot of money for a long time to ensure silence.  (If it was me, I'd be looking for something like $250,000 a year for life, and at least $100,000 a year for each child for life, otherwise the lawyers open the envelope!  That seems reasonable to me...)


And for Cthulhu's sake, learn to use the quote reply feature.  It'll make your responses much easier to follow (or is that deliberate ploy as well?) .
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on May 04, 2018, 05:18:11 PM
i liked the comment 'the people making the nuts a bolts wernt present on the set' lol. would it not have occurred to all these people that something dodgy was going on if they were asked to build a movie set and a huge vacuum chamber
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 04, 2018, 05:18:19 PM
CIA Agent Smith, fresh out of the Academy,  meets with his supervisor to get his first assignment:

Quote
Supervisor Jones hands Smith a dossier. "Smith,  here's the file on Professor Stein. If he threatens to reveal the secret...take care of him."

"You mean kill him, right? I'm still trying to get the hang of CIA slang."

Jones looks exasperated. "Yes, I mean kill him. You sure you're up to it.?"

"Yeah, I was head of my class in assassination." Smith leafs through the folder. "Something's missing here."

"What?"

"What's the secret he can't reveal?"

"I can't tell you."

"So how am I supposed to know when to kill him?"

"Look, Smith, you just..." Jones stops. "Maybe I didn't think this through. "I guess I'll have to tell you." He leans over and whispers in Smith's ear.

Smith's eyes get big. "Wow!" He thinks of his meager CIA salary. He then thinks of his car payments and the girlfriend that his fiancee doesn't know about, and how they both have expensive tastes. He smiles and says "you can count on me, sir."

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 04, 2018, 05:21:16 PM
i liked the comment 'the people making the nuts a bolts wernt present on the set' lol. would it not have occurred to all these people that something dodgy was going on if they were asked to build a movie set and a huge vacuum chamber

There's also a good point that Jason made. We have evidence that a rocket was launched. We have evidence of a space ship operating in LEO. If you ask a bunch of engineers to build a space rocket, they are going to build a space rocket that works. If they can't, they're going to tell you they can't and then they are part of the hoax too.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 04, 2018, 05:25:43 PM
i liked the comment 'the people making the nuts a bolts wernt present on the set' lol. would it not have occurred to all these people that something dodgy was going on if they were asked to build a movie set and a huge vacuum chamber

There's also a good point that Jason made. We have evidence that a rocket was launched. We have evidence of a space ship operating in LEO. If you ask a bunch of engineers to build a space rocket, they are going to build a space rocket that works. If they can't, they're going to tell you they can't and then they are part of the hoax too.
And before long you have 400,000 people (plus the CIA death squads watching all of them) who want something like $100,000 a year each for life (conservative estimate).

That comes to something like 2 trillion dollars spent so far on covering up the "hoax".  It would definitely have been cheaper just to go to the Moon  ;D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 04, 2018, 05:28:30 PM
That comes to something like 2 trillion dollars spent so far on covering up the "hoax".  It would definitely have been cheaper just to go to the Moon  ;D

Before I am beaten to it this time...  ;D

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 04, 2018, 05:39:01 PM
God, I love British humor!

Sorry, I meant humour!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Count Zero on May 04, 2018, 05:56:13 PM
Give me time to do some research (as in, rewatch From the Earth to the Moon and Apollo 13), and I'll do a column about it for the film site I write for.  But the short version is, yeah, dust and movement.  I suppose you could CGI the dust, though it's awfully expensive and time consuming for something only a handful of people care about.

(Sorry I'm late)  They actually tried this in the IMAX movie "Magnificent Desolation - Walking on the Moon in 3D".  They used a hard floor sculpted to look like an uneven surface, and CGIed the dust kicked by the actors' boots and their footprints.  "A" for effort, but "C-" for results - They couldn't produce anywhere near the number of particles required for each step, and the footprints lacked resolution, especially in the spray of ejecta around them.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 05, 2018, 12:30:41 AM


“Or my little effort regarding pendulums”

To me it looks like there is a drought causing the bag to continue swinging, and the little maths lesson at the end doesn’t disprove this.


“Drought?” Taking account of the fact there is no atmosphere on the moon, let’s humour you and pretend there is. If there was a “draught” the bag would still have a periodicity closer to 1 swing per second in Earths gravity field. It is the period of the bag that proves it is in a reduced gravity field something that would be very hard to duplicate on Earth. Plus the lack of atmospheric drag is the reason the motion is not damped, which is indicative of it being in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Obviousman on May 05, 2018, 01:32:47 AM
Stop interrupting Cambo's fantasies with annoying facts!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: smartcooky on May 05, 2018, 02:16:02 AM
i liked the comment 'the people making the nuts a bolts wernt present on the set' lol. would it not have occurred to all these people that something dodgy was going on if they were asked to build a movie set and a huge vacuum chamber

There's also a good point that Jason made. We have evidence that a rocket was launched. We have evidence of a space ship operating in LEO. If you ask a bunch of engineers to build a space rocket, they are going to build a space rocket that works. If they can't, they're going to tell you they can't and then they are part of the hoax too.
And before long you have 400,000 people (plus the CIA death squads watching all of them) who want something like $100,000 a year each for life (conservative estimate).

That comes to something like 2 trillion dollars spent so far on covering up the "hoax".  It would definitely have been cheaper just to go to the Moon  ;D

It would be much, much cheaper to just send the CIA hit squads to take out all the high profile Hoax Believers. After all, the Deep State Alphabet Soup Military Industrial Complex can do anything, right? How hard could it be to have The Blunder and his ilk meet with a series of unfortunate accidents?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on May 05, 2018, 05:29:56 AM
i liked the comment 'the people making the nuts a bolts wernt present on the set' lol. would it not have occurred to all these people that something dodgy was going on if they were asked to build a movie set and a huge vacuum chamber
And there is a massive hole in CTist thinking, if such it can be called.

There were some 400,000 people directly involved in the Apollo project. They would have to all be in on the hoax.

No, the CT nutter claims, only a few at the top would have to be in on it. (50-100 is the usual guess).

Really? Well in that case, the other 399,900 were also deceived and thus built the Apollo vehicles to spec, right? And if they built the Apollo hardware to go to the moon then what the hell was to stop them going to the moon?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 05, 2018, 08:25:10 AM
I'm not even going to bother addressing cambo's Apollo stuff because he has already stated nothing from NASA or a third party is admissible as proof, and all of science is wrong. However:

In a way it is, not because it’s fake science, but because it’s bad science. Take the dark matter theory, it’s possible they just got gravity wrong, and if that turns out to be the case, then Apollo and any other missions involving planetary orbits, sling shots and the likes, all go in the hoax bin.

This is absolutely not how science works. If gravity is 'wrong' in relation to dark matter, invoked to explain the apparent 'missing mass' on a galactic scale, that makes no difference to the equations (Newtonian or Einsteinian) used to determine the observed behaviour of objects on a planetary system scale. Having to redefine gravity to better explain the apparent missing mass in galaxies doesn't stop it from working on this scale, and certainly doesn't confine all of spaceflight beyond LEO to the 'hoax' bin.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 05, 2018, 08:39:05 AM
This is absolutely not how science works. If gravity is 'wrong' in relation to dark matter, invoked to explain the apparent 'missing mass' on a galactic scale, that makes no difference to the equations (Newtonian or Einsteinian) used to determine the observed behaviour of objects on a planetary system scale. Having to redefine gravity to better explain the apparent missing mass in galaxies doesn't stop it from working on this scale, and certainly doesn't confine all of spaceflight beyond LEO to the 'hoax' bin.
Don't you understand - all of science is wrong!!  Apparently the Illuminati / lizard people / aliens have controlled all of human knowledge for millennia, convincing us with their wily equations that the Earth is a sphere, that gravity pulls things down, and that the Moon isn't made of cheese.

This ancient conspiracy was put in place to control the populace, and keep us from finding out the truth, since that would be a bad thing, because... erm... ah...  No, it's to keep us in our place and away from their precious MONEY!  Or something...

It's simple really :
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 05, 2018, 08:45:39 AM


In a way it is, not because it’s fake science, but because it’s bad science. Take the dark matter theory, it’s possible they just got gravity wrong, and if that turns out to be the case, then Apollo and any other missions involving planetary orbits, sling shots and the likes, all go in the hoax bin.

This is absolutely not how science works. If gravity is 'wrong' in relation to dark matter, invoked to explain the apparent 'missing mass' on a galactic scale, that makes no difference to the equations (Newtonian or Einsteinian) used to determine the observed behaviour of objects on a planetary system scale. Having to redefine gravity to better explain the apparent missing mass in galaxies doesn't stop it from working on this scale, and certainly doesn't confine all of spaceflight beyond LEO to the 'hoax' bin.

Absolutely, the two theories you mention being a case in point, relativity does not say that Newtonian physics or equations derived from Newton’s theories are wrong, but it does show why some observations of the universe are not exactly what you would expect from Newtonian physics in isolation.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 05, 2018, 08:58:13 AM
Absolutely, the two theories you mention being a case in point, relativity does not say that Newtonian physics or equations derived from Newton’s theories are wrong, but it does show why some observations of the universe are not exactly what you would expect from Newtonian physics in isolation.

This is something many HBs fail to understand. 'Science' is not some weird stuff done by men in white coats with nothing to do with the 'everyman' on the street. Newton's and Einstein's equations are not some obscure technobabble. You can literally apply them to anything you want to observe on a scale we can see without significant optical aid and see them work. I can use Newton's equations of motion to tell me how long a hammer will take to fall if I drop it, what path a ball will take if I throw it, how the Moon moves it its orbit, and when I should expect to see Mars in the sky. Whatever new theories may emerge from cosmology in regards to gravity on universal scale, it makes no odds to the methods used to calculate the trajectories of spacecraft.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: LunarOrbit on May 05, 2018, 11:54:03 AM
“Stop it with the insults and attitude or you won't last long”

Noted.

I also want you to start using the quote feature, please. It makes your posts easier to read, and it also let's us know who you're talking to. It's pretty easy to do, you just wrap the quoted text inside opening and closing quote tags. Like this:

Code: [Select]

[quote]
Quoted text goes here.
[/quote]


You can cite the person you're quoting by adding "author=username" to the opening quote tag, like this:

Code: [Select]

[quote author=cambo]
Quoted text goes here.
[/quote]


There is even a button in the post editor to simplify it for you so that you don't have to manually type the quote tags. It looks like this: (http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/Themes/ApolloHoax/images/bbc/quote.gif)

Just highlight the text you want to turn into a quote and then click that button.

Quote from: cambo
“A tell - all book "I Worked on the Moon Hoax" with proof (secret photos, work orders, pay stubs) would make the author a lot of MONEY!”

You’ve been given a ton of money to stay quiet, where is your logic?

I hate to bring current day politics into this, but Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal were given a ton of money to stay quiet, but they exposed their affairs with President Trump any way. Bribery doesn't guaranty silence if someone with more money comes along to entice you to speak.

You can deny or ignore all of the facts if you want, but you don't have logic on your side. If going to the Moon is impossible for some reason, NASA could have saved themselves a lot of money (and embarrassment) by just coming right out and saying so. Why was it necessary to fake it? To fool the Russians? But I thought the Russians were in on it too?

Quote
“As a matter of fact, cambo, why don't you write your proof of the moon hoax into a book and have a best seller? Don't you want to make a lot of MONEY!?”

What proof?

Exactly. You have no proof, so why should we take you, or your logically flawed argument, seriously? NASA says they went to the Moon, and they provided thousands of photos, hours of video and audio, and physical evidence like unflown spacecraft and Moon rocks to back up their claims. You have nothing but the greatest hits of Jarrah White that have been debunked for years.

Quote
“Serious question - how much money would it take to buy your silence for the rest of your life?  Think about it for more than a couple of minutes.  A hundred bucks?  A thousand?  A million?  A million a year?”

A couple of hundred grand would do me at my time of life, but for someone a lot younger, maybe five million.

And what if someone offered you $10 million to break your silence? Or what if, at the end of your life, you decided "hell, I don't need money anymore, so I'm going to throw a wrench in the machine and expose the hoax!"?

Quote
“How much money would the first person who could credibly expose the Apollo missions as a hoax make by comparison?”

What good is money if you are dead?

See my comment above regarding death bed confessions.

Quote
“And countless more who didn't work for NASA at the time of Apollo, but still have (or will have) the capability to expose the hoax.”

You know the answer to that one, but I’ll humour you. The people making the nuts and bolts weren’t present on the movie set.

Do you really think only the people present on the movie set would be capable of exposing a hoax like that?

If, for example, NASA claimed the Van Allen radiation didn't pose a risk when it really did, that would be a lie they can't control. They can't stop someone else 5 years, 10 years, 50 years, 100 years, or 500 years later from studying the radiation and discovering that NASA lied about it. They can't stop someone else from going to the alleged Apollo landing sites and discovering there are no footprints.

The hoax would be 100% guaranteed to fail eventually, and NASA would know that... so why do it? This is why the hoax theory fails the logic test, even if you ignore all of the other evidence that the Moon landings really happened.

Quote
“And this means that to continue to protect the hoax, new generations have to be made privy to the secret as older generations die off; so continues the possibility of exposure.”

By new generations, do you mean the sons, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the film crew and NASA’s top brass?

You're not thinking big enough. Why limit it to just the "friends & family" of people who worked for NASA? Why are they the only ones that you believe could expose the hoax?

Quote
Let the original hoaxers go to their graves...

Again, why do you believe the hoax would die with them? How do you stop other people with scientific curiosity, or commercial endeavors, from discovering the truth? And remember, the lie would have to be protected for the rest of time. It doesn't go away just because the original perpetrators have died.

Quote
“And as for the dusty sand, would you care to explain why the material on the ground looks and behaves like a cohesive powder - similar to flour or talcum powder?”

No it doesn’t, it looks like sand, you are only seeing what you want to see.

Have you never driven down a dirt road and left a mile long dust cloud behind you? That doesn't happen in the Apollo footage.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 05, 2018, 01:00:04 PM
Did Magic Sand just come back?

Quick, someone prep the Special Radiation Ovens, let them know they're up next.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 05, 2018, 01:17:15 PM
As it happens, I agree that 400,000 people wouldn't have had knowledge when making the Apollo missions that they were helping a fake, since those figures include people like "the people who made mission patches."  Mission patches for a fake mission would be exactly the same as mission patches for a real one!  On the other hand, I think about 100,000 people would have had the knowledge to be sure the missions they were working on were fake.  That's a lot of people to keep quiet.  I also agree that the alleged hundred people doesn't even include the people required to even approximate the Apollo footage, especially with 1969 technology.  Much less however many people it takes to fake all the other physical evidence, like rocks and soil samples and physical effects of space travel on astronauts.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 05, 2018, 02:43:51 PM
As it happens, I agree that 400,000 people wouldn't have had knowledge when making the Apollo missions that they were helping a fake, since those figures include people like "the people who made mission patches."  Mission patches for a fake mission would be exactly the same as mission patches for a real one!
Fair point.  A large percentage of the people working on it could have done their jobs very well without knowing they were contributing to a fake mission.

They would still, as has also been mentioned, have built a spacecraft and launch system capable of taking people to the Moon  :)

Quote
On the other hand, I think about 100,000 people would have had the knowledge to be sure the missions they were working on were fake.  That's a lot of people to keep quiet.  I also agree that the alleged hundred people doesn't even include the people required to even approximate the Apollo footage, especially with 1969 technology.  Much less however many people it takes to fake all the other physical evidence, like rocks and soil samples and physical effects of space travel on astronauts.
There is a huge amount of evidence that can't be explained away, and even if it was "only" 100,000 people (which I'd say was a conservative estimate) that's an awful lot of people to keep paying for their silence, and yet not one person in 50 years has ever even hinted at revealing the secret...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: mako88sb on May 05, 2018, 04:37:50 PM

There is a huge amount of evidence that can't be explained away, and even if it was "only" 100,000 people (which I'd say was a conservative estimate) that's an awful lot of people to keep paying for their silence, and yet not one person in 50 years has ever even hinted at revealing the secret...

Plus there's how many hundreds of thousands of people from numerous countries around the world who for the past 45+ years would have been educated and worked in all the relevant fields of science and engineering involved with Apollo who would be able to look at all the scientific evidence and know whether or not it stands up to scrutiny. I find it pretty amazing that hb's really don't comprehend what would be involved to pull off a hoax of this magnitude never mind being able to keep it going for so long.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 05, 2018, 04:46:16 PM
Anyone, anywhere on earth who works in, on, or studies space exploration would be knowledgable enough to expose Apollo as a hoax. That's a lot of MONEY! to be paid out yearly, and every one of them would need a Death Squadder following them around  24/7 to keep them quiet.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Allan F on May 05, 2018, 11:54:20 PM
That's a lot of deathsquadders, when you take 8-hour shifts and weekends and holidays into account. You'd need around 8 deathsquadders for each scientist, to ensure total coverage.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on May 06, 2018, 02:31:14 AM
That's a lot of deathsquadders, when you take 8-hour shifts and weekends and holidays into account. You'd need around 8 deathsquadders for each scientist, to ensure total coverage.
Yet somehow all these death squads evade the CTists. Odd that.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 06, 2018, 08:24:51 AM

There is a huge amount of evidence that can't be explained away, and even if it was "only" 100,000 people (which I'd say was a conservative estimate) that's an awful lot of people to keep paying for their silence, and yet not one person in 50 years has ever even hinted at revealing the secret...

Plus there's how many hundreds of thousands of people from numerous countries around the world who for the past 45+ years would have been educated and worked in all the relevant fields of science and engineering involved with Apollo who would be able to look at all the scientific evidence and know whether or not it stands up to scrutiny. I find it pretty amazing that hb's really don't comprehend what would be involved to pull off a hoax of this magnitude never mind being able to keep it going for so long.

Lunar samples are being analyzed to this day.  I wonder how incoming researchers are informed that everything they’re studying is fake, and how they get their cut of the hush money pie.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 06, 2018, 09:38:19 AM
Ok, first go with that quote button thingy, so if I’ve messed up, I promise I will keep going till I get it right, rather than giving up and faking it.

Quote
They got gravity wrong? Really? Do you actually understand the reason for the proposal of dark matter and its relationship to the cosmological model?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

Here’s a sentence from the first paragraph. “Gravitational effects that cannot be explained unless more matter is present than can be seen”

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

And here’s an extract from the second link. “Maybe there is something wrong with Einstein's theory of gravity and a new theory could include some kind of field that creates this cosmic acceleration. Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is” Do me a favour and go argue with who ever made those statements.

Quote
what is stopping them from revealing the Moon Hoax for MONEY!?
And what stops the President from making himself a hero in the eyes of the nation by revealing the hoax?

How do you reveal a secret to another party that already knows? Strange! You would not see your president as a hero, you little fibber, you’d label him a liar and then go and find a rope. Anyway, he would have to run it by those other countries first, to get their approval, but as he probably doesn’t know anyway, your comment is moot.

Quote
You'd need more than that just for the supposed filming

If I shoot a film with two people in it, that makes three people in total. Yes, I am oversimplifying it, but you are deliberately overcomplicating it. I’ll stick with my original figure. And as for the hundreds of thousands working on the project, a lot of those will be hoax believers themselves. One in four people asked in the street, that have an opinion will tell you they don’t believe, so do the maths.

Quote
robotic probes that launched unseen to set up the experiments, and returned kilogrammes of rock samples

 No need, everything they needed could be found on earth. Hang on, what experiments?

Quote
If it was me, I'd be looking for something like $250,000 a year for life, and at least $100,000 a year for each child for life, otherwise the lawyers open the envelope!

These people were under intense pressure to meet Kennedy’s goal, and when they realised they couldn’t do it, which was probably pretty early on in the programme, they knew they had no choice but to fake it, and money may not have been there main motivation, as they were duty bound to deliver at all costs. All they needed was a skilled film maker with knowledge of the latest film making techniques. This film maker may have seen this as the biggest challenge of his career, to make a movie that would fool the world. But unfortunately, because of this, he would never get the fame, he would truly deserve for his masterpiece. He may then have come up with the idea of placing clues within his later movie productions that the more intelligent people among us would be able to decipher. That’s one possible scenario anyway.

Quote
build a movie set and a huge vacuum chamber

Am I missing something? What would a vacuum chamber be in aid of?

Quote
We have evidence that a rocket was launched

I think you’re wrong, I reckon there is actual proof of that and I’m almost sure they could get stuff into orbit, not people though.

Quote
Drought? It is the period of the bag that proves it is in a reduced gravity field something that would be very hard to duplicate on Earth. Plus the lack of atmospheric drag is the reason the motion is not damped, which is indicative of it being in a vacuum.

Drought? I had to laugh at myself on that one, bloody dementia! Anyway, this is another example of people interpreting something the way they want to see it. Put the draught source behind the bag, pointing down toward the bottom of the bag. The motion of the bag would not be damped, as you put it, and simply alter the strength of the air flow and its angle to change the period of the motion. This is something you can try without going to the moon.

Quote
It would be much, much cheaper to just send the CIA hit squads to take out all the high profile Hoax Believers

You mean the people who post on YouTube? And the people who have dared to post their thoughts on sites such as this, only to be frightened off by the verbal abuse they receive? If it wasn’t for the deliberate ridicule, designed to fend off these people, there would be a hell of a lot of people needing slaughtered.

Quote
And if they built the Apollo hardware to go to the moon then what the hell was to stop them going to the moon?

 They built the Apollo hardware to fool people into thinking they were going to the moon, and what stopped them going was because it didn’t work. You think the components were all manufactured in the same place, or even assembled in the same place? Do you think the people doing the final assembly would have to know whether the finished article would work or not? It would just be a case of getting a few thousand people to assemble a very complex Airfix model with millions of parts, rather than a few dozen, following instructions from the designers, who knew it wouldn’t work.

Quote
Having to redefine gravity to better explain the apparent missing mass in galaxies doesn't stop it from working on this scale

If it’s wrong, then surely it has to be scrapped and rebuilt from the bottom up? If one part is wrong, surely we can’t just remove it and replace it with a different set of equations and expect it to fit? I’ve just realised, I’m actually asking a question here, rather than telling you you’re wrong. I must be getting soft in my old age.

Quote
Don't you understand - all of science is wrong!!  Apparently the Illuminati / lizard people / aliens have controlled all of human knowledge for millennia, convincing us with their wily equations that the Earth is a sphere, that gravity pulls things down, and that the Moon isn't made of cheese.

This ancient conspiracy was put in place to control the populace, and keep us from finding out the truth, since that would be a bad thing, because... erm... ah...  No, it's to keep us in our place and away from their precious MONEY!  Or something

Now you’re just being silly, unless you’ve managed to get your head around the concept of sarcasm. Surely not!

Quote
I can use Newton's equations of motion to tell me how long a hammer will take to fall if I drop it, what path a ball will take if I throw it, how the Moon moves it its orbit

It’s a big leap from dropping a hammer, to the moon orbiting the earth and another big leap from there to the rest of the universe, so I ask, what is the difference between our own solar system to the rest of the stars and planets? If there was a difference, we would have to categorise every single solar system inside every single galaxy with its own set of rules.

Quote
Anyone, anywhere on earth who works in, on, or studies space exploration would be knowledgable enough to expose Apollo as a hoax

I suspect like me, they would if they could prove it, but unlike me, they have a living and reputation to think about, so until someone gets there hands on that proof, they stay quiet. Out of the millions of scientists in the world, how many of them have spoken publicly in support of Apollo not being a hoax? I’ll give you a clue, you won’t need to take your socks off.

Quote
I wonder how incoming researchers are informed that everything they’re studying is fake

The rocks, for instance, possess the same qualities as what is perceived to be a moon rock.

 



 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2018, 10:30:41 AM
If it’s wrong, then surely it has to be scrapped and rebuilt from the bottom up? If one part is wrong, surely we can’t just remove it and replace it with a different set of equations and expect it to fit?

No. As with Einstein's equations, we replaced Newton's and made sure the Einsteinian ones worked just as well for everything Newton's worked for (which is pretty well everything in the solar system unless it's really close to the Sun), and explained the bits where Newton's theories fell down (like the precession of Mercury's orbit). Then it was tested with other observations (like the bending of light near the Sun during an eclipse) to make sure it worked. It did. But in terms of everything on Earth and in most of the solar system (including sending probes to the planets), Newton's equations work well enough, and are a lot simpler, so they are still taught and still used. If we have to have a new theory of gravity to explain the missing mass, that theory still has to fit the observed behaviour of everything else as well. It doesn't invalidate everything that went before it because the objects in the solar system aren't behaving any differently, so equations derived from literally centuries of observation don't get thrown in the bin.

Quote
It’s a big leap from dropping a hammer, to the moon orbiting the earth

Literally the entire premise of Newton's theory of universal gravitation is that it is not a big leap, and centuries of observation and experiment since then has confirmed this.

Quote
so I ask, what is the difference between our own solar system to the rest of the stars and planets?

Almost certainly nothing. Dark matter, or the possible need to redefine gravity to eliminate it, has nothing to do with stuff on a planetary system scale and everything to do with the galactic and universal scale.

Quote
If there was a difference, we would have to categorise every single solar system inside every single galaxy with its own set of rules.

Again, entirely wrong. Because we know how things work on a planetary and stellar scale, but things get uncertain when dealing with galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

All of which still comes back to the basic point: redefining gravity to eliminate the dark matter or missing mass problem makes no odds on the scale of a solar system, because we have centuries of experience observing on that scale and demonstrating the equations used are adequate, and any new theory will have to fit that observation just as well as Einstein's or Newton's did.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 06, 2018, 11:30:38 AM
Theorists still don't know what the correct explanation is” Do me a favour and go argue with who ever made those statements.

No, you don't get to shift your claim that gravity is wrong so all other missions can go in the hoax bin because you don't understand gravity and its equations.

When Einstein published a set of field equations that described gravity, he realised that solutions to his equations gave a model for the universe that expanded and he was uncomfortable with this idea as the view at the time was that universe was static. He introduced a cosmological constant so that his equations produced solutions that give a static universe. Shortly after Einstein produced his equations, Hubble showed that the universe was indeed expanding, which led Einstein to remark that the cosmological constant was his 'greatest mistake.'

Scientists use Einstein's field equations to develop cosmological models. The problem faced by theorists is that Einstein's equations to not provide solutions to the nature of the Universe, they provide a set of possible solutions. Scientists have to produce a metric that describes trajectories on a manifold. They then need to ensure that manifold and actions on that manifold, which are constrained by boundary conditions,  satisfy the general solutions to the field equations.

The cosmological model of an expanding universe, and manifolds to describe that universe are well known, well understood; and fit the observable universe. However, there is discrepancy between theory, the inflationary period of the universe and the current expansion of the universe that cannot be accounted by the observable matter. Discrepancies between theory and observable are not unique to the theory of gravity, after all, what is physics but a set of mathematical constructs that provide conceptual models to explain the observable.

Scientists believe the percentage of normal matter in the universe cannot account for its expansion and propose that dark matter may exist to overcome this discrepancy. There is also a proposal that as the universe expands, dark energy is created. This is linked to the interpretation of the cosmological constant and the vacuum potential. Dark matter has been proposed to explain why observations do not fit with the model, not that the theory is incorrect.

In fact, Einstein's general relativity successfully accounts for the precession of Mercury's perihelion, enables us to understand the corrections need to make to clock in GPS satellites, explains the bending of light by stars, explains the stability of rapidly rotating neutron stars and gravitational lensing.

Einstein's theories reduce to Newton's theories in weak local gravitational fields, so there is nothing wrong with the description of gravity under those conditions. If you notice, in Einstein's field equations and Newton's equations, there is letter a G. This is the gravitational constant. The gravitational constant is exactly that, a constant that defines the strength of the field according to the mass that produces the field. Any new theory has to incorporate this constant into its framework, and also reduce to Newton's equations.

So no, you don't get to throw away centuries of understanding because you don't understand the subtle nature of the theories, their history and how they have been tested and validated.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 06, 2018, 11:59:43 AM

rought? I had to laugh at myself on that one, bloody dementia! Anyway, this is another example of people interpreting something the way they want to see it. Put the draught source behind the bag, pointing down toward the bottom of the bag. The motion of the bag would not be damped, as you put it, and simply alter the strength of the air flow and its angle to change the period of the motion. This is something you can try without going to the moon.
 

It will not work like that the duration of the swing is dependent on the gravity field no amount of draught will make it swing quicker.

As for the dark matter argument, it is still nonsense to presume that refinements of theories negates all that has been theorised before. If a new theory of gravity is produced redefining our ideas of dark matter, it doesn’t mean that planes will suddenly fall out of the sky. The very idea of postulating, that this proves Apollo was faked, is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 06, 2018, 12:19:30 PM
Cambo, pick out your favourite movie.  Watch the credits.  How many people are in them?  Which ones can you eliminate for a technically complicated shoot like faking the Moon footage?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 06, 2018, 12:25:52 PM
Cambo, let's see if this analogy works for you.
Let's say you're watching friends place a game moving little figures on a black and white board. You don't know the rules, but you're working them out as you watch from observation, like, ah, that row of pieces in the front, they move one space. Suddenly, you see one of them move two spaces on its first move. Does that invalidate what you knew before? Does the rule 'those pieces only move one space' have to be 'thrown out'.
No. Under most circumstances, a pawn can indeed only move one space. Just in some circumstances, they can move two, namely, their first move. Likewise, as we discover additional edge cases that require additional rules or even new explanations entirely while having the old rules work well enough as not to have any noticeable effect in the old circumstances. Newton's laws usually work well enough on the relatively small and slow scale of spaceships orbiting most moons and planets.
Only when we get to a very large scale, like galaxies, does dark matter start to, well, matter.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 06, 2018, 01:29:23 PM

rought? I had to laugh at myself on that one, bloody dementia! Anyway, this is another example of people interpreting something the way they want to see it. Put the draught source behind the bag, pointing down toward the bottom of the bag. The motion of the bag would not be damped, as you put it, and simply alter the strength of the air flow and its angle to change the period of the motion. This is something you can try without going to the moon.
 

It will not work like that the duration of the swing is dependent on the gravity field no amount of draught will make it swing quicker.

As for the dark matter argument, it is still nonsense to presume that refinements of theories negates all that has been theorised before. If a new theory of gravity is produced redefining our ideas of dark matter, it doesn’t mean that planes will suddenly fall out of the sky. The very idea of postulating, that this proves Apollo was faked, is just ridiculous.

To be fair, you could modulate by giving a timed series of hard pushes. Except then the swing wouldn't be natural. And you'd probably notice if you were firing off an air cannon at regular intervals into the dirt around the set.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 06, 2018, 01:37:27 PM

To be fair, you could modulate by giving a timed series of hard pushes. Except then the swing wouldn't be natural. And you'd probably notice if you were firing off an air cannon at regular intervals into the dirt around the set.

True, but as you say that would have to be deliberate intent to make the swing period faster, which excludes a bag caught in a draft. It would be a simpler exercise not to allow any motion like this to be shown. Besides this is only one example of a pendulum the one highlighted by the ALSJ is probaby a better example.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14pendulum.html
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 06, 2018, 01:44:02 PM

Quote from: AtomicDog
what is stopping them from revealing the Moon Hoax for MONEY!?
And what stops the President from making himself a hero in the eyes of the nation by revealing the hoax?


Quote from: cambo
How do you reveal a secret to another party that already knows?

There are dozens of publications that would pay handsomely for an Apollo-Era scientist or technician coming forward with airtight proof of a Moon Hoax.

Quote from: cambo
Strange! You would not see your president as a hero, you little fibber, you’d label him a liar and then go and find a rope. Anyway, he would have to run it by those other countries first, to get their approval, but as he probably doesn’t know anyway, your comment is moot.


I see that you have problems remembering your own words:

Quote from: cambo
By new generations, do you mean the sons, grandchildren and great grandchildren of the film crew and NASA’s top brass? Surely only the CIA would need to know, as they are probably running NASA, and I’m sure some of them will be trained in special effects. Let the original hoaxers go to their graves, which would just leave those crafty CIA agents. it wouldn’t surprise me if the president himself wasn’t aware.

You're the one who brought up the President knowing about the hoax, not me. Make up your mind.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 06, 2018, 01:50:57 PM
Meh. I think by the time someone has drunk enough of the koolaid they think it's worth focusing on one tiny moment out of the surface video record in hopes their efforts with a crappy YouTube copy and a hand-held stopwatch will reveal an error in gravity...

I say just back out one step, and ask how an entire unbroken ten-minute clip in which astronauts are moving fifty meters or more from the camera and all of it consistent with low gravity can possibly be explained.

There can always be some reason why one tiny bit in isolation looks weird or behaves paradoxically. A stray sound. A corner flap or a sleeve moving. A broken shadow, a kicked-over track.

I wish these idiots would spend more time on IMDB. Movies with 70 million dollar budgets, and there are long long lists of errors and screw-ups, of crews caught in a mirror, buttons getting re-buttoned during a cut, boom mics in shot (to be fair...I've played with a wee fishpole boom and my hat is off to the guys and gals who do that professionally!)

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 06, 2018, 01:59:47 PM

To be fair, you could modulate by giving a timed series of hard pushes. Except then the swing wouldn't be natural. And you'd probably notice if you were firing off an air cannon at regular intervals into the dirt around the set.

True, but as you say that would have to be deliberate intent to make the swing period faster, which excludes a bag caught in a draft. It would be a simpler exercise not to allow any motion like this to be shown. Besides this is only one example of a pendulum the one highlighted by the ALSJ is probaby a better example.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14pendulum.html

There's another rant buried here.

The hoaxies generally come on with an assumption that there is no appropriate expertise. The cambot has made it more explicit than most; he appears to assume there is some special "NASA Science" that both is constrained to and contains all of the science necessary to understand Apollo. With this in mind, the hoaxies are able to approach the clues they think they've discovered as if on a level playing field; that all are equally skilled as an observer.

Now take this board. Outside of specific specialist expertise in aerospace (which should by itself close the argument, but leave that aside for now) we aren't generic observers, equipped with only the same common sense and common life experience as the hoaxie. We have people who study and who work professionally with photography, with history, with film lighting, with astronomical observation, with thermal engineering, with radio...

So when a hoaxie comes up and says the motions of astronauts in the surface video is completely compatible with just "slowing the film down," they don't get that they are in discussion with people who dance professionally, who are skilled gymnasts, who have done animation and film editing; all people who frequently have to analyze human movements in a professional capacity.

Cue the Dara Ó Briain quote.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 06, 2018, 03:03:56 PM
Quote
build a movie set and a huge vacuum chamber
Am I missing something? What would a vacuum chamber be in aid of?
Really?  You  don't think a vacuum chamber would be required??

It becomes more obvious with every post that you haven't thought this through at all...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 06, 2018, 03:12:12 PM
Cue the Dara Ó Briain quote.

Ask and ye shall receive...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 07, 2018, 11:02:21 AM
Quote
It will not work like that the duration of the swing is dependent on the gravity field no amount of draught will make it swing quicker.

I’ve seen it happening, it will slow down slightly quicker on the back swing, due to the flow of air, but each swing is exactly the same, and since we are seeing the bag from the front, rather than the side, and in very poor quality, it wouldn’t be noticeable. Cranking up the air and adjusting the angle to catch the bag at the end of its back swing, will lengthen the swing and its duration.

Quote
pick out your favourite movie.  Watch the credits.  How many people are in them?  Which ones can you eliminate for a technically complicated shoot like faking the Moon footage?

The people setting it up, such as laying the sand, and bringing in the equipment and props, would think it was for training purposes, look at the lengths they went to at the Langley Research Centre, and more recently the NBL, which is also allegedly for training purposes. All in the full view of the public, they must be laughing their tits off.

There is no big epic script to write, as it was just a series of situations, they probably dreamed up overnight. Then there’s the film producer, working with a handful of NASA/CIA staff, trained in the use of his new state of the art equipment, and that’s about it. Twenty people tops. Comparing it with a full length movie with an actual storyline, with dozens of actors, and many locations, as appose to two actors in one location, isn’t really a fair comparison.

Quote
“but as he probably doesn’t know anyway”

“ it wouldn’t surprise me if the president himself wasn’t aware.”

How do these two sentences contradict each other? They both point to my assumption that the president may not know. You are just being over critical.

Quote
I say just back out one step, and ask how an entire unbroken ten-minute clip in which astronauts are moving fifty meters or more from the camera and all of it consistent with low gravity can possibly be explained.

I stated earlier, after watching the short clip, when they were just standing in one spot, I thought it looked like 1x speed. However, after watching the full footage, it becomes obvious it is being played back at around 2x speed, with the aid of wires to produce that floating effect. Also, the end of the stage, or should I say horizon, is only a few yards away. Contrary to popular belief, Apollo wasn’t all rocket science.

Quote
So when a hoaxie comes up and says the motions of astronauts in the surface video is completely compatible with just "slowing the film down

You forgot the wires.

Quote
Really?  You  don't think a vacuum chamber would be required??

Correct.

And finally, regarding dark matter, as you all know, I do not possess the knowledge to discuss that particular subject, as all I have are my own assumptions. This is not an admission of defeat, but rather, as I can’t find any evidence to back up my assumptions, I begrudgingly have to back down and accept your arguments.



Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 07, 2018, 11:38:53 AM
I stated earlier, after watching the short clip, when they were just standing in one spot, I thought it looked like 1x speed. However, after watching the full footage, it becomes obvious it is being played back at around 2x speed, with the aid of wires to produce that floating effect. Also, the end of the stage, or should I say horizon, is only a few yards away. Contrary to popular belief, Apollo wasn’t all rocket science.

What do you mean around? Provide a precise number please. Is it 2 x, 1.98 x? 1.95 x? Please be exact.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 07, 2018, 11:45:17 AM
I stated earlier, after watching the short clip, when they were just standing in one spot, I thought it looked like 1x speed. However, after watching the full footage, it becomes obvious it is being played back at around 2x speed, with the aid of wires to produce that floating effect. Also, the end of the stage, or should I say horizon, is only a few yards away. Contrary to popular belief, Apollo wasn’t all rocket science.

Your first problem there is that a 10 minute unbroken clip is really just a short segment. EVA footage goes on for hours. Your next problem is telling us where the wires were attached. Who was operating the pulleys? How did they coordinate that when astronauts repeatedly crossed paths?

You said you'd consider any solid proof. You're still ignoring mine.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 07, 2018, 12:36:06 PM
The people setting it up, such as laying the sand, and bringing in the equipment and props, would think it was for training purposes, look at the lengths they went to at the Langley Research Centre, and more recently the NBL, which is also allegedly for training purposes. All in the full view of the public, they must be laughing their tits off.

There is no big epic script to write, as it was just a series of situations, they probably dreamed up overnight. Then there’s the film producer, working with a handful of NASA/CIA staff, trained in the use of his new state of the art equipment, and that’s about it. Twenty people tops. Comparing it with a full length movie with an actual storyline, with dozens of actors, and many locations, as appose to two actors in one location, isn’t really a fair comparison.

No, it isn't--most full-length movies are shorter than the Apollo EVAs and take place on Earth, with Earth gravity.  They don't range over several miles.  So either you have to build an enormous soundstage or you have to worry about weather.  Either of which comes with its own problems.  Even the simplest film shoot requires at least twenty people, and you've got wiring involved.  So you have to factor in the people in charge of the wiring.  You've got the lighting people--they don't need to have the lights set up for training, but you'd certainly notice if the light were wrong in the footage, if you knew anything about lighting.  So by having them do their job at all, you've let them in on the hoax.  You've only got to have one cameraperson, it's true, for large amounts of it.  Or you can do what Apollo did and set it up without a human running it, though I wouldn't want to risk that, honestly.  It was one thing on Apollo, but in your hoax scenario, the camera falling over or whatever could show the stuff you aren't meaning to film.

You cannot simply say, "Oh, the people doing the work will just think they're building another training center."  There are several problems with that scenario, and not just how many people you'll need on the shoot itself, which is more than you think it is.  Another is that people recognize their work.  I grew up in LA and notice when places I knew are in movies, and I've never worked in the industry--though several of my friends do.  But my Ren faire boss makes jewelry that has been used in a few movies, and I notice his work.  So if you're the guy who made a specific rock, you may not need to be in on the hoax, but you'll certainly notice when a rock exactly like the one you made just happens to be on the Apollo footage.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 07, 2018, 01:08:15 PM
Quote
Really?  You  don't think a vacuum chamber would be required??

Correct.
So you think the effects we see which indicate the whole setup was in a vacuum were done with the amazing, but somehow secret, 1960's / 1970's CGI?

You've still to respond to the question of what you think the state of the art in CGI was in 1969.  Believe me, it wasn't up to creating effects at that level...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 07, 2018, 01:33:40 PM
Here's an example of some state of the art computer graphics from shortly after Apollo ended.

It's stunning for the time, but it's decades too primitive to fake Apollo even half-convincingly.
And let's pretend for a moment that some  engineers managed to pull off such a feat of completely impossible computer animation. After Apollo was over, they'd be out of work. Naturally, some of them would return to their original work in the computer imagery. After all, it was their area of expertise. Even with massive bribes to keep silent, would they be able to resist the temptation to use some of the techniques learned in their own animation? Instead, a decade after the above, we get animation like this.

A massive improvement (thank you Moore's law) but no Apollo.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 07, 2018, 01:56:15 PM
Here's an example of some state of the art computer graphics from shortly after Apollo ended.

snip examples

A massive improvement (thank you Moore's law) but no Apollo.

Ah, but see, here's the genius - they were in on the hoax too.  They deliberately used suboptimal equipment and algorithms to make it look like the state of the art was far more primitive than it really was. 

Because of all the MONEY.  The unlimited amounts of money that comes from nowhere, is not tracked by anybody, and magically winds up in the bank accounts of hundreds of thousands of people, all without leaving a trace anywhere at all. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 07, 2018, 02:03:58 PM
Here's an example of some state of the art computer graphics from shortly after Apollo ended.

snip examples

A massive improvement (thank you Moore's law) but no Apollo.

Ah, but see, here's the genius - they were in on the hoax too.  They deliberately used suboptimal equipment and algorithms to make it look like the state of the art was far more primitive than it really was. 

Because of all the MONEY.  The unlimited amounts of money that comes from nowhere, is not tracked by anybody, and magically winds up in the bank accounts of hundreds of thousands of people, all without leaving a trace anywhere at all.
Oh, and which they don't spend, invest, or pass on in wills, because that would make it clear something was afoot.
I don't know about you, but a bribe I can't use would have as much weight as photon to me.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 07, 2018, 02:48:18 PM
Here's an example of some state of the art computer graphics from shortly after Apollo ended.

snip examples

A massive improvement (thank you Moore's law) but no Apollo.

Ah, but see, here's the genius - they were in on the hoax too.  They deliberately used suboptimal equipment and algorithms to make it look like the state of the art was far more primitive than it really was. 

Because of all the MONEY.  The unlimited amounts of money that comes from nowhere, is not tracked by anybody, and magically winds up in the bank accounts of hundreds of thousands of people, all without leaving a trace anywhere at all.
Oh, and which they don't spend, invest, or pass on in wills, because that would make it clear something was afoot.
I don't know about you, but a bribe I can't use would have as much weight as photon to me.

As a though experiment, (purely as a fantasy!) I have wondered, if I happened upon a million dollars cash, (from an untraceable source, like falling out of a drug courier's plane while I was hiking in the wilderness) how could I keep it from the attention of the IRS. My conclusion is that it is hard as hell to spend gobs of MONEY! without garnering unwanted attention, official or otherwise. And if I can't spend it, what good is it?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 07, 2018, 02:58:55 PM
As a though experiment, (purely as a fantasy!) I have wondered, if I happened upon a million dollars cash, (from an untraceable source, like falling out of a drug courier's plane while I was hiking in the wilderness) how could I keep it from the attention of the IRS. My conclusion is that it is hard as hell to spend gobs of MONEY! without garnering unwanted attention, official or otherwise. And if I can't spend it, what good is it?
Which comes back to my comment about the missing hordes of NASA people who live in the Bahamas, drive Ferraris etc.   :D

The fact is, there's no trace of these very rich, bribed to stay silent, people, and despite Cambo's assertions that there would be very few, in reality there would have to be thousands spread through all areas of the project.  The whole idea is completely ludicrous...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 07, 2018, 03:08:26 PM
Quote
It will not work like that the duration of the swing is dependent on the gravity field no amount of draught will make it swing quicker.

I’ve seen it happening, it will slow down slightly quicker on the back swing, due to the flow of air, but each swing is exactly the same, and since we are seeing the bag from the front, rather than the side, and in very poor quality, it wouldn’t be noticeable. Cranking up the air and adjusting the angle to catch the bag at the end of its back swing, will lengthen the swing and its duration.


Make a video and show this then. :)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 07, 2018, 03:42:04 PM
Here's an example of some state of the art computer graphics from shortly after Apollo ended.

snip examples

A massive improvement (thank you Moore's law) but no Apollo.

Ah, but see, here's the genius - they were in on the hoax too.  They deliberately used suboptimal equipment and algorithms to make it look like the state of the art was far more primitive than it really was. 

Because of all the MONEY.  The unlimited amounts of money that comes from nowhere, is not tracked by anybody, and magically winds up in the bank accounts of hundreds of thousands of people, all without leaving a trace anywhere at all.
Oh, and which they don't spend, invest, or pass on in wills, because that would make it clear something was afoot.
I don't know about you, but a bribe I can't use would have as much weight as photon to me.

As a though experiment, (purely as a fantasy!) I have wondered, if I happened upon a million dollars cash, (from an untraceable source, like falling out of a drug courier's plane while I was hiking in the wilderness) how could I keep it from the attention of the IRS. My conclusion is that it is hard as hell to spend gobs of MONEY! without garnering unwanted attention, official or otherwise. And if I can't spend it, what good is it?

For me, it would be going-out money - fancy dinners, top-shelf booze, that sort of thing.  No, you probably wouldn't be able to spend all of it (unless you were buying 30 year old single malts by the case every week, in which case your liver would be the limiting factor), but that's basically how I'd task it.  Travel, cars, and other stuff draws too much attention. 

This of course assumes that the bills aren't marked or otherwise traced.  And there's really no good way to know that.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 08, 2018, 03:47:52 AM
This is not an admission of defeat, but rather, as I can’t find any evidence to back up my assumptions, I begrudgingly have to back down and accept your arguments.

Semantics. Trying to weasel out of a discussion you started with no sound footing, finding out you can't actually bluff your way through it here, and backing down without losing face. I don't care how 'begrudgingly' you accept the arguments, if you don't have the necessary knowledge don't try and debate the issue with a bunch of scientists.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on May 08, 2018, 05:42:52 AM
And finally, regarding dark matter, as you all know, I do not possess the knowledge to discuss that particular subject, as all I have are my own assumptions. This is not an admission of defeat, but rather, as I can’t find any evidence to back up my assumptions, I begrudgingly have to back down and accept your arguments.
Right. You have wild uninformed assumptions for which you have zero evidence at all, nor can you find any evidence, but you are going to stick to those no matter what because...why? How exactly would you describe a person who clings to a crank belief despite all evidence?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 08, 2018, 07:06:32 PM
Quote
“What do you mean around? Provide a precise number please. Is it 2 x, 1.98 x? 1.95 x? Please be exact”

You want a precise figure? Ok, I downloaded the file and played around with different frame rates and came to this figure. 1.84135784213333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333. Ask a silly question aye!

Quote
“You said you'd consider any solid proof. You're still ignoring mine.”

Stop playing games sonny, you haven’t presented anything on this thread, which you claim is proof. Either tell me or butt out.

Quote
“How did they coordinate that when astronauts repeatedly crossed paths?”

You obviously think the gantries would be side by side, pointing in the direction of the camera. The gantries would be on either side, and coupled with some well-rehearsed choreography from the wire men, I can’t really see a problem. If Stanley Kubrick were alive, he could probably have explained it better, but he died only hours after submitting his final print for his final film “Eyes Wide Shut” which was released on the 16th of July 1999. Does the 16th of July ring any bells?

Quote
“Even the simplest film shoot requires at least twenty people, and you've got wiring involved”

And you know that for a fact? Ever heard of multitasking?

Quote
“but in your hoax scenario, the camera falling over or whatever could show the stuff you aren't meaning to film.”

That would be true if it were filmed live.

Quote
“Another is that people recognize their work”

I definitely wouldn’t, from that poor quality black and white footage. The footage from Apollo 11 is deliberately very low quality and yet still looks fake. If they could have involved more people, they may have done a better job.

Quote
“So you think the effects we see which indicate the whole setup was in a vacuum were done with the amazing, but somehow secret, 1960's / 1970's CGI?”

No, what gave you the idea CGI existed back then?

Quote
“You've still to respond to the question of what you think the state of the art in CGI was in 1969.  Believe me, it wasn't up to creating effects at that level...”

It looks like you’re getting your threads mixed up. YAWN!

Quote
“Make a video and show this then”

This is one of those things you should know without seeing it in action, it would be as easy to imagine, as holding a ball out in front of you and imagining which way it would travel if you released it. You are being incredibly awkward, and I thought we would be onto the juicy stuff by now, but I can wait.

Quote
“if you don't have the necessary knowledge don't try and debate the issue with a bunch of scientists”

Sorry, I didn’t realise you lot were scientists, and I’m sorry you think I am trying to weasel out, as you put it, so we’ll continue for as long as it takes, if it makes you happy, so here goes. NASA can’t even put a man on the moon, so how will they ever work out where all this theoretical matter is coming from? To me, they got gravity wrong, and gravity is gravity, whether on a planetary or a cosmic scale, so you prove me wrong without using theories from those liars at NASA.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 08, 2018, 07:51:47 PM
NASA can’t even put a man on the moon, so how will they ever work out where all this theoretical matter is coming from?

What makes you think NASA has a monopoly on research into gravity and dark matter? WHy don't you go off and do some basic research into this before you even try arguing it? Dark matter was theorised to exist as a result of cosmological observation before NASA even existed, and the scientists who published the research that cemented it as a real problem in cosmology were not NASA scientists.

Quote
To me, they got gravity wrong,

Since you clearly haven't actually grasped any of the basics of gravity, your interpretation is irrelevant.

Quote
and gravity is gravity, whether on a planetary or a cosmic scale,

Funny, earlier on you argued that it was a big leap from small scale to planetary scale to cosmic scale...

Quote
so you prove me wrong without using theories from those liars at NASA.

Newton and Einstein have nothing to do with NASA, and we have already explained why their theories are still useful, even if we may have to modify them to apply on a galactic scale somehow.

NASA is not the only entity that has anything to do with space. Centuries of observation on a planetary system scale confirm the calculations used to predict the behaviour of objects in gravity fields work on those scales well enough, and that was before NASA even existed.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 08, 2018, 08:08:21 PM
So the twelve-person film crew is running cranes, too. With that other free hand. (After already doing the job of three or four people. Pity Hollywood has never thought of multitasking. Think of how much cheaper catering would be!)

Someone should tell Broadway, too, where the minimum crew for a single-track flight is two, plus spotters. Of course you can always go the Cirque route...but in 1968?

Hella cranes, too...or has the bot missed seeing shots like House Rock, or the Grand Prix?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 08, 2018, 08:24:06 PM
Oh, of course. I totally forgot they already had at least one crane; for lowering the Rover on to the set!

Funny, thing, though. About how those "missing tracks" are on high detail, near-IMAX quality still frames that can be matched moment to moment, angle to angle, item to item with the video record, and can with minimum effort be linked to exact moments in the transmitted audio which was intercepted live by amateur radio enthusiasts.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cos on May 08, 2018, 09:06:59 PM
Well the EVA's on J missions would require 6 hrs of continuous live wire work (as it has been pointed out amateur radio ham's listened in). Funnily enough the 360 degree pans from the rover camera never showed the studio and how do you get the dust from the rovers wheels to follow a parabolic curve if not in a vacuum? And coincidentally the photographic record exactly matches the radar topography from the Selene satellite sent decades later (not a Nasa mission I believe). How did they get that right without actually being there? You'll need to wave your hands especially fast to dismiss these questions because you sure as hell can't explain any of it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nickrulercreator on May 08, 2018, 10:55:40 PM
There's no way 12 people could've faked the entire thing. It would have taken hundreds at the very least.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 09, 2018, 12:43:12 AM
I just want to re-visit the "nobody is an expert so my opinion is as good as yours rant" to point out both Jay and I have done wire-work for the stage. I have to humbly admit I never got to run a rig myself, but I was rigging assistant to at least one Foy and the people from the other major company in the business (whose name escapes me on this long night). Jay I believe has an even better connection.

Cool story from one of those productions. The Foy walks in to meet with the director. "So, you need this, this, and this. Single point rig for Dorothy in the tornado. Double point for start of Scene 3, which gets re-used in Act II. Now how many monkeys do you have?"

Director is just standing there agape. "What happens in Scene 3?" he starts off.

"Glinda's entrance. I have the hoop in my truck."

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Obviousman on May 09, 2018, 05:10:32 AM
My, my - there is so much handwaving going on by cambo that I think I'll have to issue a gale warning!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 09, 2018, 07:47:34 AM
My, my - there is so much handwaving going on by cambo that I think I'll have to issue a gale warning!

Of course, that's what trolls do. I hope when I reach his apparently advanced age I can find better things to do with my time than post to online forums just to wind people up. He has no genuine interest, as is clear from the fact that any and all evidence that disagrees with him is either from NASA (liars) or from a third party supporting NASA (also liars). That's why I'm not bothering with any pictures or video, despite the obvious wrongness of his statements regarding them.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: inconceivable on May 09, 2018, 09:42:17 AM
Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 09, 2018, 09:48:44 AM
Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

Wait, what?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on May 09, 2018, 10:05:41 AM
Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

Wait, what?

lol i thought the same. why do people engage with people like inconceivable.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 09, 2018, 10:36:04 AM
Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

Wait, what?

Of course!  That was to make the black hole less dangerous if it escaped.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 09, 2018, 10:58:12 AM
You want a precise figure? Ok, I downloaded the file and played around with different frame rates and came to this figure. 1.84135784213333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333.

So, not the 2x  Dave Percy proposes, or indeed the 1.67x Jarrah White proposes, but a a completely different number? Why do different theorists offer different numbers for the film speed argument? Please explain the inconsistencies.

How does the process below warrant proof of the film speed claim?

1) Speed up film A to 1.5 x original speed.
2) Render the sped up film and call this B.
3) Slow down B by 2/3.
4) Compare A and 2/3 x B side by side.
5) Say compared films look the same
6) Conclude the film was slowed down by 2/3

Quote
Ask a silly question aye!

You initially arrived at this board claiming we were dealing with the serious accusation of a hoax. OK, you want to be dealt with in a serious manner, then we'll do that. I'm fine with that. That also means we get the chance to ask serious questions. The question was not silly, as explained above, it's central to the claim. If you cannot be consistent between claimants, then you have no claim. I'm going to ask more questions, and I want answer to all of them.

1   The radiation claim is central to the hoax, why was travel through the VABs prohibitive? Please cite integrated flux and discuss
      the issues of secondary radiation in your answer.
2   How problematic were SPEs for the Apollo missions?
3   What is the difference between an H-alpha flare and SPEs events?
4   What do the H-alpha indexes quantify?
5   Why was GCR prohibitive to the Apollo missions? Again, cite integrated fluxes.
6   Why do you think the LM was a cardboard box? Do you understand how foils, insulation and tapes are used in the aerospace
      industry?
7   Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?
8   Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?
9   How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition.
10 What radiation shielding did the CM offer?
11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?
12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?
13 Is the C-rock evidence of props, and explain how this can be the case.
14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away.
15 Do you believe the waving flag is evidence of fakery?
16 Are all shadows parallel in nature?
17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 09, 2018, 11:02:36 AM
Maybe... snip

Maybe my mother was the grip for the shoot. Maybe my father ran the wire wig. Maybe if my grandma had male genitals, she would have been my grandfather. Maybe doesn't cut the mustard. It's called speculation. Proof dear boy, proof. We demand proof, not maybes.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 09, 2018, 12:08:55 PM
Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

No.  Just...no. 

Yes, g is not constant over the Earth's surface; however, it varies by less than 1%.  Not enough to account for your "discrepancies". 

And, as I pointed out in your comment about Mauna Kea, even places like Los Alamos have plants growing all over the place, which you don't see in any of the Apollo footage. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 09, 2018, 12:58:26 PM
You obviously think the gantries would be side by side, pointing in the direction of the camera. The gantries would be on either side, and coupled with some well-rehearsed choreography from the wire men, I can’t really see a problem. If Stanley Kubrick were alive, he could probably have explained it better, but he died only hours after submitting his final print for his final film “Eyes Wide Shut” which was released on the 16th of July 1999. Does the 16th of July ring any bells?

Oh, great, another idiot who doesn't know anything about Stanley Kubrick.

Quote
And you know that for a fact? Ever heard of multitasking?

Actually, yes, I do know that for a fact.  You cannot "multitask" certain jobs on a set, because they all take full concentration.  Anyone who knows even very little about filmmaking knows that, so your insistence that "multitasking," ye Gods, is sufficient to resolve that is merely proof that you don't know anything about filmmaking, either.

Quote
That would be true if it were filmed live.

Which it must have been, given that they were discussing live events.  Seriously, watch the footage.  Not just clips of Apollo 11 but the full footage of multiple missions.

Quote
I definitely wouldn’t, from that poor quality black and white footage. The footage from Apollo 11 is deliberately very low quality and yet still looks fake. If they could have involved more people, they may have done a better job.

Which merely proves you haven't done anything worth recognizing.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 09, 2018, 01:14:29 PM
I love 2001:A Space Odyssey, but it is so full of technical inaccuracies that they pull me out of the movie. For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer.

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/2001/images/3/3d/2001-Clavius-Astronauts-714391.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100829162455)

If you told me that image was supposed to be taken at Grimaldi, I might believe it. Clavius? No way.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Geordie on May 09, 2018, 04:01:16 PM
That's a lot of deathsquadders, when you take 8-hour shifts and weekends and holidays into account. You'd need around 8 deathsquadders for each scientist, to ensure total coverage.
  You'd also need supervisory and management teams, and an entire infrastructure (ordnance, training and skills upgrading, HR, payroll, pension administration, etc.)

  I would put USMC Lt. Col. Oliver North (ret'd) in charge of it all, or maybe G. Gordon "I am not subject to coercion" Liddy.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 09, 2018, 11:54:35 PM
I love 2001:A Space Odyssey, but it is so full of technical inaccuracies that they pull me out of the movie. For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer.

(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/2001/images/3/3d/2001-Clavius-Astronauts-714391.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100829162455)

If you told me that image was supposed to be taken at Grimaldi, I might believe it. Clavius? No way.

Sorry about the poor quality of the photo. Here's a better one:
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/headhuntersholosuite/images/d/d1/Clavius_Base.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20100724181234)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 10, 2018, 12:59:38 PM
And I've said for years, you couldn't have had Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick working on the same project without major personality conflict.  All other considerations aside.  (And there are a lot of other considerations.)  Kubrick's directorial style would have driven Aldrin up the wall.  At about take seventy-five, he would have lost it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Ranb on May 10, 2018, 02:39:38 PM
Well maybe when he was younger.  :)  Didn't Buzz lose it on take two when director/producer Bart Sibrel was trying to tell him (you're a fraud....) how to act?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 11, 2018, 12:15:38 PM
I mean, all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools.  Since Kubrick's style was to antagonize his stars as much as possible--emotionally abusing Shelley Duvall, deliberately triggering Malcolm McDowell's ophidophobia--and to do take after take, not because he was a perfectionist but because he wanted to drive all emotion out of the performance, I can't see Buzz putting up with it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 11, 2018, 12:40:32 PM
I mean, all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools.  Since Kubrick's style was to antagonize his stars as much as possible--emotionally abusing Shelley Duvall, deliberately triggering Malcolm McDowell's ophidophobia--and to do take after take, not because he was a perfectionist but because he wanted to drive all emotion out of the performance, I can't see Buzz putting up with it.

When did this happen?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 11, 2018, 01:55:09 PM
A Clockwork Orange.  Alex doesn't have a snake in the book, but he does in the movie because Kubrick found out somehow that McDowell's scared of them.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 11, 2018, 02:00:53 PM
A Clockwork Orange.  Alex doesn't have a snake in the book, but he does in the movie because Kubrick found out somehow that McDowell's scared of them.

He would have had a field day with my lepidopterophobia. I was once persuaded to go in a butterfly house. The results were hilarious. The worst moment? Lowering my camera after taking a photo... to find a butterfly nestled on the lens.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 11, 2018, 02:08:04 PM
I mean, all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools.  Since Kubrick's style was to antagonize his stars as much as possible--emotionally abusing Shelley Duvall, deliberately triggering Malcolm McDowell's ophidophobia--and to do take after take, not because he was a perfectionist but because he wanted to drive all emotion out of the performance, I can't see Buzz putting up with it.

All those retakes where he makes him say "No Neil, after you..."
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 11, 2018, 05:15:04 PM
Quote
“the scientists who published the research that cemented it as a real problem in cosmology were not NASA scientists”

Point taken.

Quote
“To me, they got gravity wrong”

“Since you clearly haven't actually grasped any of the basics of gravity, your interpretation is irrelevant”

Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained. Here’s a few quotes from the link below, from people who think they know what they are talking about.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory

“We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.”

“As others have noted, the law relates to observations, not explanations, and that requires a theory. Whether our theory is correct remains to be seen”

“For gravitation, General Relativity is a theory that tries to explain how gravitation arises and works.”

Quote
“Funny, earlier on you argued that it was a big leap from small scale to planetary scale to cosmic scale”

It certainly is, what’s your point?

Quote
“Centuries of observation on a planetary system scale confirm the calculations used to predict the behaviour of objects in gravity fields work on those scales well enough

Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.

Quote
“Hella cranes, too...or has the bot missed seeing shots like House Rock, or the Grand Prix?”

Oh I’ve seen them, so what makes them stand out for you?.

Quote
“Oh, of course. I totally forgot they already had at least one crane; for lowering the Rover on to the set”

It had wheels, what the hell are you on?

Quote
“Funny, thing, though. About how those "missing tracks" are on high detail, near-IMAX quality still frames that can be matched moment to moment, angle to angle, item to item with the video record, and can with minimum effort be linked to exact moments in the transmitted audio which was intercepted live by amateur radio enthusiasts”

If you say so, but again, what is your point?

Quote
“Funnily enough the 360 degree pans from the rover camera never showed the studio

The studio? The stage including backdrop scenery is no more than a hundred yards across, and that scaled down model of the LEM is pathetic. It’s not even obvious, that the camera is panning, as it may just be moving sideways across the stage in front of a false panoramic backdrop. Either way, it’s fake.

Quote
“how do you get the dust from the rovers wheels to follow a parabolic curve if not in a vacuum”

Ah, so that’s where you’re coming from, with the vacuum chamber argument. I just assumed we’d covered that, so in a nutshell, it is sand we are seeing, you are seeing only what you’ve been told to see.

Quote
“the photographic record exactly matches the radar topography from the Selene satellite sent decades later (not a Nasa mission I believe)”

So another space agency allegedly confirmed NASA’s depiction of the lunar terrain, so what?

Quote
“any and all evidence that disagrees with him is either from NASA (liars) or from a third party supporting NASA (also liars)”

So find a way around it and think for yourselves for once.

Quote
“That's why I'm not bothering with any pictures or video, despite the obvious wrongness of his statements regarding them.”

Please specify, and we’ll discuss it.

Quote
“Why do different theorists offer different numbers for the film speed argument? Please explain the inconsistencies”

It is all down to what each individual perceives it to be. Give a few people a slow motion video and ask them to speed it up until it looks right, and they will all come up with different framerates. And yet again, you fail to see the sarcasm in the figure I gave you, I’ll take my intellect over that dodgy education of yours any day.

And so to the rest of your post. I can only see four, maybe five of your questions, that I would feel I had an obligation to answer, as the rest of your questions seem to be aimed at HB’s in general, rather than me personally. You think we all share the same thoughts, as you people do, but unlike you, we have our own individual minds. So ask those questions again, and this time, give a reason for each one, as to why you think I need to justify you with an answer.

Quote
“Oh, great, another idiot who doesn't know anything about Stanley Kubrick”

Which bit did I get wrong, oh clever one.

Quote
“Which it must have been, given that they were discussing live events.”

And which live events were these, which they wouldn’t have known the day before? Were they TV transmissions or just sound broadcasts? Get a grip!

Quote
“You cannot "multitask" certain jobs on a set, because they all take full concentration.”

Explain what twenty people couldn’t manage to do, taking into account the obvious simplicity of the footage. What do you mean by “full concentration”? If a mistake was made, they would just reshoot.

Quote
“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”

He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?

Quote
“And I've said for years, you couldn't have had Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick working on the same project without major personality conflict”

Is that a fact, or are you just making your own assumptions? So you think that actor in the space suit was Buzz Aldrin?

Quote
“all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools”

It was Buzz Aldrin who was the fool. The rest of his life was wrecked by his foolish decision to take part in this huge fraud.


Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 11, 2018, 05:53:33 PM
Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained. Here’s a few quotes from the link below, from people who think they know what they are talking about.

That views in that link are an assemblage of nonsense written by the lay person.

Of course how gravity it works is only a theory, not one disputes this point. However, as explained, the theories fit observation accurately, and have been tested and verified to high degrees of certainty. The Michelson Morley experiment that provided the foundation for SR and the leap to GR has been tested to high levels of precision. Inertial mass and gravitational mass are considered equivalent in recent tests to extremely high precision.

There are also aspects of Einstein's theories that fall over in highly curved space time. We also don't have a theory of a force carrying particle for gravity in the standard model. Gravity does not fit well into that model as it is extremely weak compared to the other fundamental forces, yet acts over much longer distance.

I raise this quote:

Quote
We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.

This is nonsense, it's a case of the cart leading the horse. As explained, Einstein's equations are field equations. They adequately describe the fields produced by gravity at a local scale. However, they do not provide solutions or boundary conditions to the universe. The metrics that cosmologists use are based on theoretical ideas, and the metric has to obey a set of boundary conditions that are consistent with the field equations. Dark matter is proposed to explain inconsistencies between the observed expansion of the universe and the theoretical expansion.

It may be the case that GR has to be modified if dark matter proves to be a dead end, but a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws and Einstein's equations for local gravity. This would not mean that LEO missions and deep space probes are consigned to the hoax bin because there are issues of representing gravity at the galactic scale. Throughout history there are many examples of theories that have bee refined, but they still have to incorporate the previous theory that has held  true in the limit.  In the early 20th century, physics was turned upside down by quantum mechanics. This didn't consign Newton's equations to the bin.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 11, 2018, 06:00:09 PM
Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.
I presume you're referring to the Rosetta mission here?  (A mission I took a great deal of interest in for several reasons, and which is still producing a lot of very interesting science.)

What exactly is so unbelievable about being able to compute the effects of close passes to planets, and use that information to manoeuvre a spacecraft to its final destination?  It's basically an extension of simple ballistics, which was developed for figuring out how to fire cannons to hit targets several hundred years ago...

If you're going to dismiss such fundamental maths and science, then there's really no way to explain anything to you...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 11, 2018, 06:05:12 PM
Picking a nit...  ;)

Dark matter is proposed to explain inconsistencies between the observed expansion of the universe and the theoretical expansion.
Isn't it dark energy that's proposed as an explanation of the peculiarities in the expansion rate?

I thought dark matter was initially proposed to explain anomalies in galactic rotation curves, although there's now lots of additional evidence for it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: MBDK on May 11, 2018, 06:09:16 PM
Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.

Your logical fallacy of an Argument from Ignorance is duly noted.  This site does not provide a course for you  in celestial mechanics, nor would it necessarily prove to be anything you could understand, anyway.  The step-by-step successes and failures of every space program were all caused by the unbending physical laws of the universe.  With each of those successes and failures, lessons were learned, understandings made, and verifiable calculations rigidly proven.  Minor course corrections and other contingency maneuvers are also part of the plan for every mission.  The macro-cosmic scale gravitational mysteries have yet to be seen to influence our micro-cosmic journeys through the solar system.  Just because you don't understand how the math and science works does not mean other people don't, or more accurately, that MANY other people don't.  Other than the fact that the math is too hard for you to comprehend in the slightest, you have no argument here.  You just don't know enough to explain your claim in realistic numbers.  I say that confidently, because if you DID have such knowledge, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim, unless you were flat-out lying.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 11, 2018, 06:25:38 PM
It is all down to what each individual perceives it to be.

If your argument comes down to perception then you have no argument.

Quote
Give a few people a slow motion video and ask them to speed it up until it looks right, and they will all come up with different framerates.

Except Percy offered 2x rate based on perception and the 1.67x rate was worked out following a complete blunder. You are aware of that right? You are aware that Jarrah White claimed the 2x speed, made a complete and utter fool of himself, and then was forced to perform a monumental u-turn with the 1.67x speed.

So, I ask again, do you think that speeding up the jump salute video to 1.67x speed, rendering that video, reducing it's speed by 2/3 and then comparing it with the original is a valid approach? This process is not based on perceptions, but an attempt to formally apply science. My question about consistency is not simply about perception, but the circular logic of this particular claim.

Quote
And yet again, you fail to see the sarcasm in the figure I gave you, I’ll take my intellect over that dodgy education of yours any day.

I saw the sarcasm. Don't make assumptions about my failure to interpret your writing, I refused to respond in kind to your obvious and transparent attempts at sarcasm. As explained, you came to board on the pretext that we were addressing the seriousness of a hoax, so I addressed your seriousness in honesty and good spirit. Keep up will you? If you want to engage in verbal jousting and patronising remarks about my education then I'll sure enough post a moderator report. Be warned, I've acted in good faith so far.

Quote
And so to the rest of your post. I can only see four, maybe five of your questions, that I would feel I had an obligation to answer, as the rest of your questions seem to be aimed at HB’s in general, rather than me personally. You think we all share the same thoughts, as you people do, but unlike you, we have our own individual minds. So ask those questions again, and this time, give a reason for each one, as to why you think I need to justify you with an answer.

You are a member of the board, you claim the landings were hoaxed. I am interrogating your claims, your expertise and the your credentials by asking you a series of questions that are relevant to your claims. My justification is based on forum rules and the spirit of your claim. I have a right ask to ask questions that are pertinent and relevant to the Apollo hoax. That is the topic addressed at this forum. Please answer the questions. If LO does not judge the questions justified and relevant, then I'll retract them.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 11, 2018, 06:46:35 PM
Quote from: AtomicDog
“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”

Quote from: cambo
He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?


What in blazes are you talking about? You don't need NASA to tell you that the Earth is not on the lunar horizon from Clavius crater! All you need are a pair of eyes!  Any Moon map will show you that Clavius is 30 degrees latitude and 70 degrees longitude from the lunar limb and that the Earth is not going to get near the horizon from that location.  Do YOU think that NASA is the be-all and end-all of all astronomical knowledge? Any amateur astronomer alive knows where the Earth can be seen from the Moon!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 11, 2018, 06:48:45 PM
I thought dark matter was initially proposed to explain anomalies in galactic rotation curves, although there's now lots of additional evidence for it.

That is correct, although some scientists believe that the existence of brown dwarfs which are difficult to detect might offer an insight into the extra mass. Further, as you know, there are regions in space where gravitational lensing occurs but there is an abscence of 'normal matter' to account for the lensing.

This was my previous discussion earlier in the thread.

Scientists believe the percentage of normal matter in the universe cannot account for its expansion and propose that dark matter may exist to overcome this discrepancy. There is also a proposal that as the universe expands, dark energy is created. This is linked to the interpretation of the cosmological constant and the vacuum potential. Dark matter has been proposed to explain why observations do not fit with the model, not that the theory is incorrect.

In this post, although not clear, my understanding is dark matter decays into the dark energy field which drives the expansion (I cannot find my reference, but I do recall reading about this). So dark matter and energy are intrinsically linked in this sense. I was writing in the context of cambo's discussion of dark matter which would imply some rethink of GR at the cosmological level, although this might already be there as the cosmological constant which could be derived from the dark energy field. So yes, I've not been clear. Thanks  ;)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 11, 2018, 06:58:54 PM
Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 11, 2018, 07:02:17 PM
Quote
“the scientists who published the research that cemented it as a real problem in cosmology were not NASA scientists”

Point taken.

Quote
“To me, they got gravity wrong”

“Since you clearly haven't actually grasped any of the basics of gravity, your interpretation is irrelevant”

Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained. Here’s a few quotes from the link below, from people who think they know what they are talking about.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory

“We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.”

“As others have noted, the law relates to observations, not explanations, and that requires a theory. Whether our theory is correct remains to be seen”

“For gravitation, General Relativity is a theory that tries to explain how gravitation arises and works.”

Quote
“Funny, earlier on you argued that it was a big leap from small scale to planetary scale to cosmic scale”

It certainly is, what’s your point?

Quote
“Centuries of observation on a planetary system scale confirm the calculations used to predict the behaviour of objects in gravity fields work on those scales well enough

Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.

Quote
“Hella cranes, too...or has the bot missed seeing shots like House Rock, or the Grand Prix?”

Oh I’ve seen them, so what makes them stand out for you?.

Quote
“Oh, of course. I totally forgot they already had at least one crane; for lowering the Rover on to the set”

It had wheels, what the hell are you on?

Quote
“Funny, thing, though. About how those "missing tracks" are on high detail, near-IMAX quality still frames that can be matched moment to moment, angle to angle, item to item with the video record, and can with minimum effort be linked to exact moments in the transmitted audio which was intercepted live by amateur radio enthusiasts”

If you say so, but again, what is your point?

Quote
“Funnily enough the 360 degree pans from the rover camera never showed the studio

The studio? The stage including backdrop scenery is no more than a hundred yards across, and that scaled down model of the LEM is pathetic. It’s not even obvious, that the camera is panning, as it may just be moving sideways across the stage in front of a false panoramic backdrop. Either way, it’s fake.

Quote
“how do you get the dust from the rovers wheels to follow a parabolic curve if not in a vacuum”

Ah, so that’s where you’re coming from, with the vacuum chamber argument. I just assumed we’d covered that, so in a nutshell, it is sand we are seeing, you are seeing only what you’ve been told to see.

Quote
“the photographic record exactly matches the radar topography from the Selene satellite sent decades later (not a Nasa mission I believe)”

So another space agency allegedly confirmed NASA’s depiction of the lunar terrain, so what?

Quote
“any and all evidence that disagrees with him is either from NASA (liars) or from a third party supporting NASA (also liars)”

So find a way around it and think for yourselves for once.

Quote
“That's why I'm not bothering with any pictures or video, despite the obvious wrongness of his statements regarding them.”

Please specify, and we’ll discuss it.

Quote
“Why do different theorists offer different numbers for the film speed argument? Please explain the inconsistencies”

It is all down to what each individual perceives it to be. Give a few people a slow motion video and ask them to speed it up until it looks right, and they will all come up with different framerates. And yet again, you fail to see the sarcasm in the figure I gave you, I’ll take my intellect over that dodgy education of yours any day.

And so to the rest of your post. I can only see four, maybe five of your questions, that I would feel I had an obligation to answer, as the rest of your questions seem to be aimed at HB’s in general, rather than me personally. You think we all share the same thoughts, as you people do, but unlike you, we have our own individual minds. So ask those questions again, and this time, give a reason for each one, as to why you think I need to justify you with an answer.

Quote
“Oh, great, another idiot who doesn't know anything about Stanley Kubrick”

Which bit did I get wrong, oh clever one.

Quote
“Which it must have been, given that they were discussing live events.”

And which live events were these, which they wouldn’t have known the day before? Were they TV transmissions or just sound broadcasts? Get a grip!

Quote
“You cannot "multitask" certain jobs on a set, because they all take full concentration.”

Explain what twenty people couldn’t manage to do, taking into account the obvious simplicity of the footage. What do you mean by “full concentration”? If a mistake was made, they would just reshoot.

Quote
“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”

He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?

Quote
“And I've said for years, you couldn't have had Buzz Aldrin and Stanley Kubrick working on the same project without major personality conflict”

Is that a fact, or are you just making your own assumptions? So you think that actor in the space suit was Buzz Aldrin?

Quote
“all speculations about Buzz's actions require him to be the sort of person who would be willing to fake a Moon landing, which I don't believe he was.  But supposing he was, nowhere in the narrative did he suffer fools”

It was Buzz Aldrin who was the fool. The rest of his life was wrecked by his foolish decision to take part in this huge fraud.

If you think that gravity is only a theory, jump off your roof and report back to us.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 11, 2018, 07:06:33 PM
Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained. Here’s a few quotes from the link below, from people who think they know what they are talking about.

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory

“We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.”

“As others have noted, the law relates to observations, not explanations, and that requires a theory. Whether our theory is correct remains to be seen”

“For gravitation, General Relativity is a theory that tries to explain how gravitation arises and works.”
Well, reading through that Quora page gave me a completely different impression than your very selectively cherry-picked quotes above.  Did you actually read, or more importantly, understand, the point being made repeatedly about the nature of a scientific "theory" as opposed to the use of the word in common parlance?

If all you got from those answers, most of which are very carefully thought out and well presented, is that "gravity's just a theory and we've no idea if it works the same everywhere" then I think you really need to spend a bit of time learning the basics of science, the scientific method, and exactly what is meant by words like "theory", "hypothesis" etc.

And to provide perspective, we can be pretty certain that we don't know, and likely will never know, all of the details of how gravity works.  Just as Einstein advanced on Newton's ideas (although Newtonian theories are fine for landing on the Moon or rendezvousing with a comet) we can expect further refinements in the future.  That's an essential part of doing science - new ideas supersede older ones, new theories expand and refine older ones, and nothing is ever "set in stone".

And relevant to the debate - I live quite close to St Andrews, which is a bit of a hotbed for research into alternative theories of gravity, such as MOND.  At the local astronomy club we've regularly had speakers visiting to explain their work, and to discuss the implications.  These however are people taking a careful and scientific approach to their research, not just going "I don't think the theory's right, so I'll make up some weird nonsense to replace it." but developing mathematical frameworks and models, running simulations, making observations of what's happening on large scales in the universe.  And they must, at every step, look at whether their ideas match observed reality - to paraphrase Feynman "If your theory doesn't match observed reality, it's wrong!"...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 11, 2018, 07:12:06 PM
In this post, although not clear, my understanding is dark matter decays into the dark energy field which drives the expansion (I cannot find my reference, but I do recall reading about this). So dark matter and energy are intrinsically linked in this sense. I was writing in the context of cambo's discussion of dark matter which would imply some rethink of GR at the cosmological level, although this might already be there as the cosmological constant which could be derived from the dark energy field. So yes, I've not been clear. Thanks  ;)
Ah, I haven't heard about this, hence my confusion.  It's a bit late to start now, but I can see me spending some time on Sunday looking into the latest dark matter / dark energy research  :D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 11, 2018, 07:18:18 PM
In this post, although not clear, my understanding is dark matter decays into the dark energy field which drives the expansion (I cannot find my reference, but I do recall reading about this). So dark matter and energy are intrinsically linked in this sense. I was writing in the context of cambo's discussion of dark matter which would imply some rethink of GR at the cosmological level, although this might already be there as the cosmological constant which could be derived from the dark energy field. So yes, I've not been clear. Thanks  ;)
Ah, I haven't heard about this, hence my confusion.  It's a bit late to start now, but I can see me spending some time on Sunday looking into the latest dark matter / dark energy research  :D

It's known as the dark fluid. It's a minefield with proposals that dark energy is connected to the Higg's field, dark matter are super symmetric particles, dark matter are neutrinos, WIMPs...  I'm no expert, but if the Higg's field was the connection between the standard model and GR, that would be mind blowing!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cos on May 11, 2018, 09:27:40 PM
Quote
Quote
“how do you get the dust from the rovers wheels to follow a parabolic curve if not in a vacuum”

Ah, so that’s where you’re coming from, with the vacuum chamber argument. I just assumed we’d covered that, so in a nutshell, it is sand we are seeing, you are seeing only what you’ve been told to see.

How are we "told to see"? I can see that the dust describes a parabolic path. It is unlike anything you can observe in an atmosphere (such as on planet Earth). I KNOW (as a result of my education NOT faith) that this can only be in a vacuum. You say it is sand. Please show me an experiment where sand/dust in an atmosphere behaves like this and I'll believe everything you claim. Now that is a very low bar. Go on, break the HB tradition, do an actual experiment to prove your hypothesis and bring the whole house of Apollo tumbling down.

I won't be holding my breath.

Quote
Quote
“the photographic record exactly matches the radar topography from the Selene satellite sent decades later (not a Nasa mission I believe)”

So another space agency allegedly confirmed NASA’s depiction of the lunar terrain, so what?

So you are saying that they launched the probe to fake the topography of the moon? Hmmm.. how did the funding proposal for that go? "We'd like to launch a probe to map the moon. Only we are going to have to fake it in order to match terrain shown by the Apollo missions". "Great idea! Here's $100M".   Simpler to not bother, perhaps?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 11, 2018, 09:37:27 PM
Quote from: AtomicDog
“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”

Quote from: cambo
He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?


What in blazes are you talking about? You don't need NASA to tell you that the Earth is not on the lunar horizon from Clavius crater! All you need are a pair of eyes!  Any Moon map will show you that Clavius is 30 degrees latitude and 70 degrees longitude from the lunar limb and that the Earth is not going to get near the horizon from that location.  Do YOU think that NASA is the be-all and end-all of all astronomical knowledge? Any amateur astronomer alive knows where the Earth can be seen from the Moon!

Plus he had PLENTY of support. If Kubrick was anything, it was meticulous. There's lots of documentation about the consulting he did with technical experts (and futurists). The visible Earth in the Clavius shot is obviously an intentional error made for dramatic effect, just as he asked for a craggier, more dramatic moonscape than the very good information and skilled depictions (such as Chesly Bonestall) described.

Oh, yeah. And Kubrick would let, "...small step for man..." get into the final cut?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 11, 2018, 10:34:49 PM
Oh, yes.  No, Kubrick was such a perfectionist that, if he had faked the Moon landing, there would be no room for flubbed lines.  (There also obviously would've been even more takes than Cambo realizes.  Can you imagine how long it would take to film a Kubrick-approved landing, given how long some of the uncut sequences are?)  I'll admit to not being sure how certain visuals would meet with expectations--because, as mentioned, he was quite capable of going against what he knew to be accurate because he didn't like it.

It also would have been shot in the UK.  This is a minor detail that HBs never get.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 12, 2018, 03:32:29 AM

The studio? The stage including backdrop scenery is no more than a hundred yards across, and that scaled down model of the LEM is pathetic. It’s not even obvious, that the camera is panning, as it may just be moving sideways across the stage in front of a false panoramic backdrop. Either way, it’s fake.

And you base this on...? How would you explain a rover driving towards that scenery for quite some time and never apparently getting any nearer? If it's panning sideways how do you explain the changes in view that are consistent with a rotation, not a lateral motion? How do you explain views of Earth in those pans entirely consistent with the day's meteorological observations?

Quote
Ah, so that’s where you’re coming from, with the vacuum chamber argument. I just assumed we’d covered that, so in a nutshell, it is sand we are seeing, you are seeing only what you’ve been told to see.

No. The particle size distribution is clearly not just sand, an even if it was it would still be subject to Earth gravity. You have obviously never done any soil sample grading to get to specific size fractions, you would know how how long it would take to get the amount of "sand" required.

Quote
So another space agency allegedly confirmed NASA’s depiction of the lunar terrain, so what?

The fact is that the Apollo photographic, video and live TV record reveal details that were not known about prior to the landings. The lunar orbiter probes that preceded the missions were very good but not good enough to reveal the level of information shown in the surface photography (or indeed orbital photographs) taken by astronauts.

The fact is that probes sent by India, Japan and China all corroborate Apollo's imagery, and the 3D models you can create using their data also corroborate the views shown in Apollo photographs.

The probes from those three nations also confirm evidence of human activity on the lunar surface exactly as shown by th LRO and by images taken by Apollo.

Quote
So find a way around it and think for yourselves for once.

Some of us already do - I don't know, for example, that the live TV broadcast made by Apollo 11 on July 16th shows Hurricane Bernice in a unique configuration for that day because someone told me, I know because I discovered it myself. I don't know that India, China and Japan photographed human activity on the surface because they told me it did, I downloaded the images and processed them myself. Exactly what efforts have you gone to to prove your point?

Quote
And which live events were these, which they wouldn’t have known the day before? Were they TV transmissions or just sound broadcasts? Get a grip!

Football scores, weather reports, news headlines. Read the transcripts. The astronauts in turn provided descriptions of the view of Earth that they could not possibly have known about in advance.


Quote
He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?p

I think you need to read that comment back to yourself and take it on board. There are other technical errors about the view of Earth - particularly the one where he can't make up his mind which way round Earth should be in two different shots from the same place.


Quote

Is that a fact, or are you just making your own assumptions? So you think that actor in the space suit was Buzz Aldrin?

The photographs and TV say yes.

Quote
It was Buzz Aldrin who was the fool. The rest of his life was wrecked by his foolish decision to take part in this huge fraud.

If you followed him on social media, you would know that Buzz Aldrin has not had his life wrecked at all - quite the opposite. Have some words of wisdom from him:

“I personally don't waste very much of my time on what is so obvious to a really thinking person.”
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 12, 2018, 04:02:30 AM
Gravity is a fact, but how it works, is only theoretical, as it cannot be fully explained.

Not in dispute, but if you think 'just a theory' means the same in science as it does to anyone else you really don't know what you're talking about. A scientific theory has to a) fit the available evidence, and b) survive rigorous testing. Newton's theories fit observation remarkably well in all but deep gravity wells, Einstein's cover everything that newton's cover and a few more bits. It's a refinement, not a complete re-writing that means everything done using Newton's equations is wrong.

Quote
“We have no evidence whatsoever for dark matter, other than otherwise inexplicable gravitational; effects, but these are only inexplicable if gravity follows the law we have written.”

“As others have noted, the law relates to observations, not explanations, and that requires a theory. Whether our theory is correct remains to be seen”

“For gravitation, General Relativity is a theory that tries to explain how gravitation arises and works.”

And once again, none of this is in dispute. The point you are failing (or refusing) to grasp is that whatever refinements to our theory of gravity that are required to explain the galactic scale problems will not affect the theories and equations used on the scale of anything within our solar system to any significant degree.

Quote
Quote
“Funny, earlier on you argued that it was a big leap from small scale to planetary scale to cosmic scale”

It certainly is, what’s your point?

Can't you even follow your own arguments? I point out that Newton's theories allow me to predict the behaviour of everything from a dropped hammer to a planetary orbit and you say it's a big leap, now you're arguing that gravity is gravity. Make up your mind, or present your arguments more coherently.

Quote
Quote
“Centuries of observation on a planetary system scale confirm the calculations used to predict the behaviour of objects in gravity fields work on those scales well enough

Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.

I presume or assume nothing. I conclude based on my own observations and understanding. Your incredulity that some specialists could pull off such a mission is irrelevant to the reality of the situation. If you can't figure out how observing the behaviour of literally thousands or even millions of objects within and beyond the solar system over centuries using ever more precise and accurate techniques provides a solid foundation for calculating the trajectory to launch a spacecraft to rendezvous with a comet that is really your problem, and no-one else's.

Quote
that scaled down model of the LEM is pathetic.

Thank you for demonstrating how little of the record you have actually seen. That would be the 'scaled down' model that every TV broadcast from every mission includes footage of the astronauts working next to, climbing up and into or out and down from, yes?

Quote
It’s not even obvious, that the camera is panning, as it may just be moving sideways

If you can't tell the difference between a tracking and panning shot, again, not our problem. But again, as always, everything is fake that might possibly contradict you.

Quote
Quote
“any and all evidence that disagrees with him is either from NASA (liars) or from a third party supporting NASA (also liars)”

So find a way around it and think for yourselves for once.

I did, and I do. You, on the other hand, are parrotting practically verbatim some long-debunked crap.

Quote
And which live events were these, which they wouldn’t have known the day before?

For someone who claims to have drawn their own conclusions, you consistently demonstrate the (sadly expacted and all-too-familiar) near total lack of familiarity with the record. I'm pretty comfortable in saying that everyone on this discussion has seen and heard more of the record for Apollo than you even know exists.

Quote
Quote
“For example: the Earth is NOT on the lunar horizon as seen from Clavius. Kubrick was not an astronomer”

He didn’t have guidance from those people at NASA on that one. Do any of you actually put any thought into this drivel you are spouting?

I'm also going to assume you've never taken the time to look at the Moon yourself and figure out where Clavius is, or had sufficient grasp of geometry to figure out the implications for what anyone standing there would see. Input from NASA is not required.

Quote
So you think that actor in the space suit was Buzz Aldrin?

Further ignorance of the record noted.

Quote
It was Buzz Aldrin who was the fool. The rest of his life was wrecked by his foolish decision to take part in this huge fraud.

Ever met the man? I have. His life sure as hell isn't wrecked.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 12, 2018, 04:43:06 AM
Quote
So another space agency allegedly confirmed NASA’s depiction of the lunar terrain, so what?

So you are saying that they launched the probe to fake the topography of the moon? Hmmm.. how did the funding proposal for that go? "We'd like to launch a probe to map the moon. Only we are going to have to fake it in order to match terrain shown by the Apollo missions". "Great idea! Here's $100M".   Simpler to not bother, perhaps?

Which would also mean yet more people who have to be added to the pay-off-payroll.  You need to buy the silence of the people getting the initial data from the probes, since they'll see when things are changed, then the team of artists doing the image modifications, terrain modelling, rendering etc.  And keep paying them.  And persuade multiple governments to pay for the hoax and keep paying them for decades.  And hope none of them get a better offer, or new incoming governments don't change their minds about paying.

It soon gets into the silly territory...

As an afterthought - have any amateurs done any work on receiving imagery from e.g. lunar orbiting spacecraft?  I know there were plenty listening in on Apollo audio transmissions, and there was some recent work by amateurs to get a defunct satellite back into action again, so it might, in theory be possible.  (I've just bought a cheap SDR dongle to make a weather satellite receiver, so technically it could be possible.)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: smartcooky on May 12, 2018, 08:29:31 AM
Quote
So another space agency allegedly confirmed NASA’s depiction of the lunar terrain, so what?

So you are saying that they launched the probe to fake the topography of the moon? Hmmm.. how did the funding proposal for that go? "We'd like to launch a probe to map the moon. Only we are going to have to fake it in order to match terrain shown by the Apollo missions". "Great idea! Here's $100M".   Simpler to not bother, perhaps?

Which would also mean yet more people who have to be added to the pay-off-payroll. You need to buy the silence of the people getting the initial data from the probes, since they'll see when things are changed, then the team of artists doing the image modifications, terrain modelling, rendering etc.  And keep paying them.  And persuade multiple governments to pay for the hoax and keep paying them for decades.  And hope none of them get a better offer, or new incoming governments don't change their minds about paying.

It soon gets into the silly territory...

As an afterthought - have any amateurs done any work on receiving imagery from e.g. lunar orbiting spacecraft?  I know there were plenty listening in on Apollo audio transmissions, and there was some recent work by amateurs to get a defunct satellite back into action again, so it might, in theory be possible.  (I've just bought a cheap SDR dongle to make a weather satellite receiver, so technically it could be possible.)

And then you have to add employees of ESA (Europe), Roscosmos (Russia), CNSA (China) and JAXA (Japan) to the pay-off list too... they have all sent mapping missions to the Moon.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on May 12, 2018, 10:09:39 AM
Don't forget ISRO (India)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 12, 2018, 01:17:12 PM
[snip]

Ever met the man? I have. His life sure as hell isn't wrecked.
I am envious of both you and Jay who have met any of the Lunar landing crews(maybe sts60 also)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: VQ on May 12, 2018, 01:18:57 PM
Ok so you assume, knowing it well enough would be good enough to put men on the moon. And I know you will also presume, it was close enough to be able to launch a probe, and by using multiple sling shots around various celestial bodies, it would be able to rendezvous with an object travelling at 34,000mph, ten years from launch and 300,000,000 miles away, and then remotely perform complicated manoeuvres to achieve orbit around the said object, while taking pictures, before deliberately crashing part of it into the object, with a delay in transmission of around fifty minutes there and back. Apollo was one thing, but the ESA totally lost the plot with that one.

So you believe interplanetary probes are all faked, too, because you believe we don't understand gravity?

You do understand that the first observational evidence of dark matter occurs on scales ~10,000 LY, right? Neptune's orbit is 0.0005 LY from the sun, so you are obsessing about an effect that is insignificant by more than 7 orders of magnitude.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 12, 2018, 02:58:04 PM
I am envious of both you and Jay who have met any of the Lunar landing crews(maybe sts60 also)

Buzz Aldrin and Alan Bean a couple of years ago, Jim Lovell, Al Worden and Fred Haise a few years prior. Only briefly, but enough to know these guys are not pulling some huge hoax off.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 12, 2018, 05:30:40 PM
I am envious of both you and Jay who have met any of the Lunar landing crews(maybe sts60 also)

Buzz Aldrin and Alan Bean a couple of years ago, Jim Lovell, Al Worden and Fred Haise a few years prior. Only briefly, but enough to know these guys are not pulling some huge hoax off.

My wife and I met Al Shepard at a book signing. I was in awe meeting someone who had walked on the moon. I'm more confident than ever that we will have more Moonwalkers (and Marswalkers) soon.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: mako88sb on May 12, 2018, 07:01:37 PM

My wife and I met Al Shepard at a book signing. I was in awe meeting someone who had walked on the moon. I'm more confident than ever that we will have more Moonwalkers (and Marswalkers) soon.

There's a guy who was well off and certainly didn't need money for playing along with a hoax. Plus there's no way in hell he would go along with any kind of script that had him and Mitchell failing to find cone crater. If he could make accomplished individuals such as fellow test pilots and astronauts feel uncomfortable merely by locking that icy stare of his on them, I can't imagine anybody going up and telling him "Yeah Al, we're going to have you guys stumbling around looking for cone crater but in the end you give up. Okay?"
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 13, 2018, 02:51:58 AM
It has been my privilege to hear speak, and shake the hands of, Charlie Duke, Alan Bean, James Lovell, Gene Cernan, Fred Haise, Al Worden, Ken Mattingly and Tom Stafford.

All of them remarkable people, and while for some of them their recall over mission details can get confused, the depth of technical knowledge they still have about their machines and equipment is incredible. Not one of them showed guilt, or shame, or showed any evidence of mendacity or evasiveness - all the things HBs claim they are riddled with.

The impugning of their reputation by fraudsters, scoundrels and the intellectually deficient is an absolute disgrace.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: BertieSlack on May 13, 2018, 02:54:33 AM
There's a guy who was well off and certainly didn't need money for playing along with a hoax. Plus there's no way in hell he would go along with any kind of script that had him and Mitchell failing to find cone crater. If he could make accomplished individuals such as fellow test pilots and astronauts feel uncomfortable merely by locking that icy stare of his on them, I can't imagine anybody going up and telling him "Yeah Al, we're going to have you guys stumbling around looking for cone crater but in the end you give up. Okay?"

Also, Shepard didn't get his flight status back until May 1969. He was already a national hero. If Apollo was fake, why would he fight hard to get back in the program when he must have known it was fake? Why was he given more time to train so he ended up commanding Apollo 14 instead of Apollo 13? Why was Gordon Cooper (back-up commander for Apollo 10 and should have rotated to command Apollo 13) swept aside just so Shepard could fake a moon mission?

And poor Jim Lovell. Had to fake two missions but didn't even get to fake walking on the moon...……….
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 13, 2018, 03:01:53 AM
Speaking of Cone, the 3D models I made showed exactly why they never saw it:

(https://i.imgur.com/5WOJr2Z.jpg)

The red dot is as far as they got, and as they looked across towards where they thought it should be the crater was sloping downhill away from them - effectively invisible behind it's own ri. The green dot is the LM.

All this is passing the time nicely while cambo fails to answer the questions I put to him.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 13, 2018, 08:24:50 AM
Weren't they getting really fatigued when they stopped?  I have never looked but their consumables might have been running toward the low end.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 13, 2018, 08:27:15 AM
Speaking of Cone, the 3D models I made showed exactly why they never saw it:

(https://i.imgur.com/5WOJr2Z.jpg)

The red dot is as far as they got, and as they looked across towards where they thought it should be the crater was sloping downhill away from them - effectively invisible behind it's own ri. The green dot is the LM.

All this is passing the time nicely while cambo fails to answer the questions I put to him.

Nice model, so what was the distance to the edge both in  vertical and horizontal?  If the model can identify.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 13, 2018, 09:06:58 AM
Speaking of Cone, the 3D models I made showed exactly why they never saw it:

(https://i.imgur.com/5WOJr2Z.jpg)

The red dot is as far as they got, and as they looked across towards where they thought it should be the crater was sloping downhill away from them - effectively invisible behind it's own ri. The green dot is the LM.

All this is passing the time nicely while cambo fails to answer the questions I put to him.

Nice model, so what was the distance to the edge both in  vertical and horizontal?  If the model can identify.

Difficult to tell without rebuilding the model in GIS, but measuring on the LRO map puts the distance at around 40m, with hardly any vertical change.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Peter B on May 14, 2018, 08:52:50 AM
The people setting it up, such as laying the sand...

Just checking, this is the magic sand is it? You pour out a few hundred tons of it on the set where the faking is done, and yet there's no dust particles mixed in with it - and no dust created when you actually pour the sand out onto the set. And magic in the sense that it's sand until you stick a boot in it, when it suddenly starts behaving like a cohesive powder and produces crisp boot prints and allows the astronauts to dig trenches with vertical sides.

Truly, this is sand that only MONEY! can buy.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Peter B on May 14, 2018, 09:52:18 AM
Quote
what is stopping them from revealing the Moon Hoax for MONEY!?
And what stops the President from making himself a hero in the eyes of the nation by revealing the hoax?

How do you reveal a secret to another party that already knows? Strange! You would not see your president as a hero, you little fibber, you’d label him a liar and then go and find a rope. Anyway, he would have to run it by those other countries first, to get their approval, but as he probably doesn’t know anyway, your comment is moot.

??

According to you the Cold War was faked. So who knew it was faked? The Presidents of the USA? (And who else - as I asked before, at what rank did military types find out the Cold War was faked?)

According to you Apollo was faked. So who knew it was faked? Not the Presidents of the USA?

Care to explain this?

Quote
Quote
robotic probes that launched unseen to set up the experiments, and returned kilogrammes of rock samples

 No need, everything they needed could be found on earth. Hang on, what experiments?

So on top of magic sand, now we have magic rocks that come from the Earth but have geological, physical and chemical characteristics that show they could only have formed on the Moon. Care to explain this?

Quote
Quote
And if they built the Apollo hardware to go to the moon then what the hell was to stop them going to the moon?

 They built the Apollo hardware to fool people into thinking they were going to the moon, and what stopped them going was because it didn’t work.

So what didn't work? The rocket engines? The life support system? Guidance? Navigation? What specifically was it that made Apollo fail?

And what about the unmanned spacecraft? As I asked before: Are the Voyager spacecraft fakes? What about Galileo, Cassini or Juno? What about Viking or Sojourner/Pathfinder? What about Magellan or the Soviet Veneras? What about geosynchronous satellites? Where do you draw the line on what spacecraft are real, and why do you draw it there?

Quote
Quote
Anyone, anywhere on earth who works in, on, or studies space exploration would be knowledgable enough to expose Apollo as a hoax

I suspect like me, they would if they could prove it, but unlike me, they have a living and reputation to think about, so until someone gets there hands on that proof, they stay quiet. Out of the millions of scientists in the world, how many of them have spoken publicly in support of Apollo not being a hoax? I’ll give you a clue, you won’t need to take your socks off.

Then you must be some sort of mutant. Go to this site: https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/

Pick a sample at random and click on it. Scroll down to the bottom and count the number of academic articles written about that one sample. Count up the number of unique individuals who wrote those articles. Then consider that there are hundreds of other samples with similar numbers of academic articles on each.

Are you seriously suggesting you have that many toes?

Quote
Quote
I wonder how incoming researchers are informed that everything they’re studying is fake

The rocks, for instance, possess the same qualities as what is perceived to be a moon rock.

Yeah, no. The Apollo rocks have characteristics that are different from Earth rocks in ways which simply can't be faked. They simply can't be Earth rocks. There are too many of them to have been collected by unmanned sample retriever missions. And they show no signs of having passed through the Earth's atmosphere as meteorites. So unless you want to claim that NASA faked the Moon landings on Mars, the only other explanation is that they were collected from the Moon by humans.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: inconceivable on May 15, 2018, 09:56:40 AM
Maybe they did use trimethylsilanol for moon soil.  The thing that gets me about the hammer and feather trick is that feather.  Sure Galileo and all, but what about that feather.  The extreme temps of the moon soil, the sun. The radiative heat transfers from even the gloves to the feather, nothing. The feather is in sunlight, then in shade, then in sunlight.  Then it hits the scorching soil with its static discharge.   The Falcon feather being biological with oxygen and oils inside.  Am I missing something here?  Why was there nothing to observe?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 15, 2018, 10:17:13 AM
Maybe they did use trimethylsilanol for moon soil.

Since trimethylsilanol is a volatile liquid that would seem unlikely. Not even trying any more, are you?

Quote
The thing that gets me about the hammer and feather trick is that feather.  Sure Galileo and all, but what about that feather.  The extreme temps of the moon soil, the sun. The radiative heat transfers from even the gloves to the feather, nothing. The feather is in sunlight, then in shade, then in sunlight.  Then it hits the scorching soil with its static discharge.

Exactly what would you expect an anhydrous keratin scaffold (which is what a feather is) to do in sunlight? The surface isn't 'scorching', it's about 250 degrees Fahrenheit. Find a feather, stick it in your oven at 250 Fahrenheit and see what happens. I can already tell you what will happen, because I have done it to answer this precise question several years ago. The answer is, absolutely nothing. You have to heat a feather up a lot more than 250 Fahrenheit for anything notable to happen to it.

And the static discharge business was covered the last time you mentioned it. What exactly would it be discharging to, given that feathers are non-conductive?

Quote
The Falcon feather being biological with oxygen and oils inside.  Am I missing something here?

Very basic biochemistry, for one thing....
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 15, 2018, 10:51:10 AM
Maybe they did use trimethylsilanol for moon soil.

You read that somewhere, believed it at face, and are now parroting it as sounding scientific. That tells us everything about you.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 15, 2018, 11:09:07 AM
Am I missing something here? 

Yes.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 15, 2018, 12:21:01 PM
Maybe they did use trimethylsilanol for moon soil.  The thing that gets me about the hammer and feather trick is that feather.  Sure Galileo and all, but what about that feather.  The extreme temps of the moon soil, the sun. The radiative heat transfers from even the gloves to the feather, nothing. The feather is in sunlight, then in shade, then in sunlight.  Then it hits the scorching soil with its static discharge.   The Falcon feather being biological with oxygen and oils inside.  Am I missing something here?  Why was there nothing to observe?
On what basis are you saying the moon's surface is 'scorching'. Even a non-expert like myself can pull out more'n enough problems with that little spiel, but, given your distrust of NASA and science in general, what are you basing this on?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 15, 2018, 02:20:32 PM
Trimethylsilanol is hydrophobic, and it seems it's a substance you can coat sand grains with to prevent them becoming cohesive in the presence of water. You can use it to make actual magic sand:

https://www.eso.org/public/archives/schools/pdf/sis_0032.pdf

So now on top of the whole sieving thousands of tonnes of soil to grade it to a specific size we now need to add the supply of a large amount of a specific chemical and then apply to the sand. So that doesn't make it any more ridiculous now does it?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 15, 2018, 03:11:40 PM
Trimethylsilanol is hydrophobic, and it seems it's a substance you can coat sand grains with to prevent them becoming cohesive in the presence of water. You can use it to make actual magic sand:

Ah yes, I had fprgotten that. Still, prevting it becoming cohesive in water is a world away from making it dust free out of water...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: smartcooky on May 15, 2018, 04:19:32 PM
HBs who think Kubrick helped fake the Apollo Lunar Landings do not understand what a complete fail this idea is on a number of fronts

Firstly, Kubrick himself was critical of both left and right (see "A Clockwork Orange" for an example of his views regarding "the system"). He would be philosophically opposed to taking part in a ruse to fool the public and then cover it up.

Secondly, even if he could have been somehow convinced to take part, Kubrick was a bloody perfectionist. The amount of construction required to build the sound stages and sets for the interiors and the lunar surface would have been enormous. Faking a lunar surface that would have to stand up to close scrutiny years later involves a lot more than just trucking in a few truckloads of gravel into a hangar and dressing the actors in spacesuits.

Thirdly, I think most of the HBs have never actually seen 2001. His Moon sequences had mistakes and sequences that screamed fake.... dust billowing on landings, the way the astronauts walked during their EVA at TMA-1, some of the head on sequences of Bowman  jogging around the gravity ring on Discovery, the sequence in which Heywood Floyd is walking around the inside of the main ring of the Space Station (he is obviously leaning backwards as he walks down the curved floor of the sound stage). Lastly, the weightless sequences in the Pan Am Shuttle are obviously fake.

Lastly, the special effects simply to do stand up to modern scrutiny. When you watch the movie on an old CRT or on a YouTube player it looks passable. However, when you try playing it on a big HDTV say 42", the special effects look primitive. You can clearly see the matting and the  edges where rotoscoping has been used in the space sequences. It is quite easy to spot the transition from sets to background where Kubrick used front projection in the "Dawn of Man".

Don't get me wrong, it was a great movie for its time, the special effects were groundbreaking for the 1960's, but they simply do not pass muster now, and any attempt to fake Apollo at that time would have been limited to the techniques and technology of the time. NASA would have known for sure that any attempt to fake it would need to be future-proof. And that is impossible even now, let alone attempting to do so with what was achievable in the 1960's.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 15, 2018, 05:35:15 PM
Secondly, even if he could have been somehow convinced to take part, Kubrick was a bloody perfectionist.

Fun fact: this perfectonism didn't stop at film production but extended to film presentation as well. My wife's grandfather, a cinema manager, once spent weeks working with Kubrick in the cinema to provide the best possible cinematic experience for presentation of his films there.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on May 16, 2018, 03:19:35 AM
Far be it for me to comment as i am a nobody lol but why on earth do any of you engage with inconceivable. they are clearly wasting your time lol
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: inconceivable on May 16, 2018, 02:21:11 PM
Exactly!  Nasa would not have let them take a feather onboard.  That's correct!  The feather would have been saturated with pure oxygen.  The LEM was a pure oxygen atmosphere.  Even at 5psi still posed a fire hazard.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 16, 2018, 03:46:41 PM
Exactly!  Nasa would not have let them take a feather onboard.  That's correct!  The feather would have been saturated with pure oxygen.  The LEM was a pure oxygen atmosphere.  Even at 5psi still posed a fire hazard.

Pure oxygen at 5 psi is the same oxygen pressure as air at 15 psi.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Geordie on May 16, 2018, 04:51:52 PM
Exactly!  Nasa would not have let them take a feather onboard.  That's correct!  The feather would have been saturated with pure oxygen.  The LEM was a pure oxygen atmosphere.  Even at 5psi still posed a fire hazard.
  I suggest that the feather was stored properly i.e. safely until it was needed. It's not like they were having zero g pillow fights all the way to the moon.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 16, 2018, 05:44:46 PM
Exactly!  Nasa would not have let them take a feather onboard.  That's correct!  The feather would have been saturated with pure oxygen.  The LEM was a pure oxygen atmosphere.  Even at 5psi still posed a fire hazard.
  I suggest that the feather was stored properly i.e. safely until it was needed. It's not like they were having zero g pillow fights all the way to the moon.
imagines that. it is glorious.
Besides, it's made as the same basic stuff as human hair, and the astronauts were not bald.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 16, 2018, 06:04:40 PM
Oh.....is that why the Moonbase crew had to wear those purple wigs?

(Wait...the guys still had hair. Crewcuts. With mod sideburns. Oh well....)

I was gonna ask if Inconceivable had ever tried to burn fingernail clippings. (Err, no, I haven't either. Not intentionally. I can confirm it smells very, very bad.)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 16, 2018, 07:00:50 PM
Oh.....is that why the Moonbase crew had to wear those purple wigs?

(Wait...the guys still had hair. Crewcuts. With mod sideburns. Oh well....)

I was gonna ask if Inconceivable had ever tried to burn fingernail clippings. (Err, no, I haven't either. Not intentionally. I can confirm it smells very, very bad.)
You get a very similar smell when using Nair and related products, which makes sense, in both cases you're breaking down keratin, just one involves combustion. Yeah, it tends to reek.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Willoughby on May 17, 2018, 09:47:06 AM
Just want to point out the fact that if something was to be filmed in Earth gravity and then slowed down to simulate lunar gravity, if you wanted to speed this back up to the original speed, there is a factor by which you should speed it up that can be easily calculated.  That factor is about 2.48x.  Not 1.67.  Not 2.  Not 1.84.....  Not..."played with the frame rates until it looked right".  The factor is about 2.48X.  Playing with the frame rate until it "looks right" is circular.  The entire point is to speed it up the appropriate amount and THEN observe if it "looks right".  Not play with the frame rates until you get something that you think works and then assert what the factor is.  The factor is based on pure math and physics.  And the factor is 2.48.  Period.  (it won't look right at this speed, nor should it - because it wasn't filmed on Earth and slowed down - go figure).

The actual factor is the square root of the factor by which the acceleration is different.  For Earth (as compared to the moon), the rate of acceleration is about 6.125 times higher (9.8 m/s² / 1.6 m/s²), so the factor by which you speed up the lunar footage to match Earth gravity would be √6.125 or about 2.48 times. 

For further calculation, you can simply calculate how long it takes something to fall in Earth gravity from a given height vs how long it would take in lunar gravity from the same height.  This difference in time is your factor.  So, for something dropped from 1.5 meters high, in Earth gravity, that would take :

t = √(2d/g) = √((2 * 1.5 m) / 9.8 m/s² = √0.306 = 0.553 seconds

In lunar gravity :

t = √(2d/g) = √((2 * 1.5 m) / 1.6 m/s² = √1.875 = 1.369 seconds

1.369 / 0.553 = 2.48 = the factor by which you must speed up lunar footage.

What is happening with the "test frame rate until it looks right" is that what looks wrong is everything OTHER than gravity.  Someone isn't paying attention to the actual gravity, but rather they are looking at other movements.  1.84 is probably too fast, but the person making that claim is clearly acknowledging that even at 2X speed, things look too fast - yet he actually hasn't sped it up ENOUGH; not too much.  He needed to slow it down because all those motions unassociated with gravity look too jerky and unnatural when sped up (because it wasn't filmed on Earth and slowed down).  These people just pluck arbitrary figures out of thin air.  On the moon, the ONLY thing different is the downward acceleration due to gravity.  All other motions (waving hands, swinging arms, banging hammers, basically anything that is not in free fall) would be no different on the moon than they are on Earth, so slowing down the footage only addresses the gravity and literally nothing else.  This is why 2X looks too fast - because it IS.  Because all those motions other than gravity are twice the speed they should be.  Again - even this Cambo or whatever his name is acknowledges this.  And even still, he needs to go faster if the gravity is to match because speeding up the lunar footage by a mere 2X is not enough to bring it up to the acceleration due to Earth gravity.  This entire line of argument fails miserably for this reason.

Another huge problem with the slowed down footage theory is that this was live.  If it were slowed down, it would necessarily have to have been prerecorded on some medium that could be played back at a slower frame rate, and that medium is film - which would have to be developed, etc.  So, it's not like it was merely delayed by a few minutes.  It would have had to have been prerecorded days or weeks in advance - because we are talking about hours upon hours of uncut live footage.  There would have been a lot of film to develop.  Then this playback would have to fool many technicians and pass as a live broadcast.  Again - hours upon hours of playback - uncut.  Kinda hard to do with film.  Not to mention the fact that as this Cambo guy says, there was no script; they just sorta went with the situation.  Yet, there are numerous times where the astronauts are referencing current events.  Things that were happening AT THAT MOMENT, such as specific and unique weather events (hurricanes, etc), the scores of live sporting events, political happenings, and many many other examples of this nature.  Since this entire "slowing down" theory hinges on the fact that it would have all have to be prerecorded, I find it amazing that they were able to accurately predict so many things in a broad spectrum of subjects and goings on in the world that would have been happening during the "live" broadcast that wasn't actually live, but recorded days or weeks earlier.     
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 17, 2018, 10:45:42 AM
Oh My. I just thought about it in terms of editing. Sure, film MOS because why point microphones at what is supposed to be vacuum. Then what?

You need to have a script because despite what the HB's think after they've seen a 1:30 clip on YouTube each EVA is actually a coherent story. Equipment is unpacked progressively, experiments set up. The soil is visibly more churned over their evolution. They are even visibly taking pictures, which they comment on...and we have the matching pictures!

(Which is why my version of trying to film the damn thing is a huge soundstage, no moving lights, no crew, just verite the heck out of what is actually there, real film in the Hassies and all.)

But...you've overcranked all the shots. So you've got to re-time the entire thing and THEN get your guys into ADR. What a nightmare that's gotta be to line up again!

Sure, you could do it. But not with six people, a super-8, and a week to work.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: MBDK on May 17, 2018, 03:31:35 PM
What is happening with the "test frame rate until it looks right" is that what looks wrong is everything OTHER than gravity.  Someone isn't paying attention to the actual gravity, but rather they are looking at other movements.  1.84 is probably too fast, but the person making that claim is clearly acknowledging that even at 2X speed, things look too fast - yet he actually hasn't sped it up ENOUGH; not too much.  He needed to slow it down because all those motions unassociated with gravity look too jerky and unnatural when sped up (because it wasn't filmed on Earth and slowed down).  These people just pluck arbitrary figures out of thin air.  On the moon, the ONLY thing different is the downward acceleration due to gravity.  All other motions (waving hands, swinging arms, banging hammers, basically anything that is not in free fall) would be no different on the moon than they are on Earth, so slowing down the footage only addresses the gravity and literally nothing else.  This is why 2X looks too fast - because it IS.  Because all those motions other than gravity are twice the speed they should be.

Very good synopsis of the whole "slo-mo" argument's major deficiencies.  If you don't mind, I may want to post (with credit to you, of course) this on one or more other threads on YouTube, or the like.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Allan F on May 17, 2018, 05:45:13 PM
Exactly!  Nasa would not have let them take a feather onboard.  That's correct!  The feather would have been saturated with pure oxygen.  The LEM was a pure oxygen atmosphere.  Even at 5psi still posed a fire hazard.

Pure oxygen at 5 psi is the same oxygen pressure as air at 15 psi.

Actually, it's more than 150% relative to Earth atmosphere.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Willoughby on May 17, 2018, 09:50:07 PM
Very good synopsis of the whole "slo-mo" argument's major deficiencies.  If you don't mind, I may want to post (with credit to you, of course) this on one or more other threads on YouTube, or the like.

Of course you may use any part of my comment, though you need not credit me.  Credit knowledge if you feel credit is due.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: ineluki on May 18, 2018, 08:08:28 AM
That's correct! 

Yawn... you aren't even trying to pretend to be more than a troll anymore...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: dwight on May 18, 2018, 02:11:54 PM
Imagine the sociological impact that would occur if hoax believers the world over unanimously decided to call the LM the “LM” and not the “LEM”.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 19, 2018, 10:29:33 AM
Imagine the sociological impact that would occur if hoax believers the world over unanimously decided to call the LM the “LM” and not the “LEM”.

... and they simply looked around them, realised shadows don't need to be parallel, and that their ideological demagogues such as Ralph Rene were spouting crap all that time.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on May 20, 2018, 04:01:48 PM
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on earth.

Quote
“If you're going to dismiss such fundamental maths and science, then there's really no way to explain anything to you...”

You haven’t explained anything. Where is the source of your information coming from?

Quote
“if you DID have such knowledge, you wouldn't make such a ridiculous claim, unless you were flat-out lying”

And that’s where we have a problem, you have been fed lies in order to explain away the impossible. This knowledge, as you refer to it would only work in a Sci-Fi movie. I watched a documentary on the Rosetta mission and all they said was, we launched it, we caught up with the comet, took some photos and crashed into it, and they managed to make that information last 45 minutes. It was either made for ten year olds, or they just hadn’t come up with a feasible explanation at the time of production.

Quote
“do you think that speeding up the jump salute video to 1.67x speed, rendering that video, reducing it's speed by 2/3 and then comparing it with the original is a valid approach?”

A valid approach to make it look as it would on earth? The way I read the question, it would leave me with a slower speed than I started with, so either reword the question or give it to me in English. The scene you mention was aided by the use of wires, as are many other scenes regarding the astronaut’s activities, while allegedly on the moon, so we will always see that floating effect, no matter what speed we play the video.

Quote
“If you want to engage in verbal jousting and patronising remarks about my education then I'll sure enough post a moderator report. Be warned, I've acted in good faith so far.”

Oh, have I hurt your feelings? It’s obvious that the members on here, don’t take kindly to us non-academics, who have the audacity to question your knowledge. I am criticising the education you have received, and it is not meant as an insult to you personally, so if you can’t handle one HB crashing your party, then by all means, post that report. The title of this site suggests it is a place to debate the hoax theory from both sides of the fence, but I now see that is not the case, as I seem to be the only HB here, and I’m probably in the wrong place. I doubt I’ll be here much longer, whether you post that report or not.

Quote
“I am interrogating your claims, your expertise and the your credentials by asking you a series of questions that are relevant to your claims.”

 Why is a question on radiation relevant to me personally? Why would I need to be an expert on the subject of cosmic radiation to support any of my claims? Point to an instance where I have said that radiation in space is restrictive to humans. You do realise, Mr Einstein, you are not the only one with internet access, and I would be able to answer your radiation questions with a few clicks of my mouse, so stop being a clever arse.

And the cardboard box thing? In future, I may put the word “sarcasm” in brackets to avoid confusion.

Quote
“What in blazes are you talking about? You don't need NASA to tell you that the Earth is not on the lunar horizon from Clavius crater! All you need are a pair of eyes!  Any Moon map will show you that Clavius is 30 degrees latitude and 70 degrees longitude from the lunar limb and that the Earth is not going to get near the horizon from that location.  Do YOU think that NASA is the be-all and end-all of all astronomical knowledge? Any amateur astronomer alive knows where the Earth can be seen from the Moon!”

 Wow, that’s me told. Although Mr Kubrick put a lot of work into his films, the movie in question was science fiction and was probably only intended as a showcase for the latest special effects. It was not a documentary, so take a chill pill and I’ll try not to upset you in future.

Quote
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”

Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side.

Quote
“If you think that gravity is only a theory, jump off your roof and report back to us”

Gravity is real, how it works is the theory part. Did you by any chance attend the same school as me?

Quote
“exactly what is meant by words like "theory", "hypothesis" etc.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/etc.

Quote
“Please show me an experiment where sand/dust in an atmosphere behaves like this and I'll believe everything you claim”

If you are told you are seeing dust, then you will see dust, and then logically assume it is in a vacuum. If you look at it as being sand, then it becomes obvious, the footage is fake.

=6

=249

As for doing an experiment, go find a sandpit and do it yourself, I’ve only just worked out how to use the insert image button.

Quote
“We'd like to launch a probe to map the moon. Only we are going to have to fake it in order to match terrain shown by the Apollo missions”

If they are going to fake all or part of their own missions, then it has to tie in with all the other fakery.

Quote
“It also would have been shot in the UK.  This is a minor detail that HBs never get”

Although I can’t see a reason why he wouldn’t go over to America, what would stop them filming it in the UK? He would have filmed the moon walks, and the fake landings and take-offs would be filmed at Langley, which could be why those scenes are the most obviously faked.

Quote
“How would you explain a rover driving towards that scenery for quite some time and never apparently getting any nearer?”

That’s because it isn’t going anywhere. It’s done in front of a projected screen, notice how washed out the scenery is, and its shadow should be rippling like hell, over the undulating terrain.



Quote
“How do you explain views of Earth in those pans entirely consistent with the day's meteorological observations?”

You need to give up on this weather pattern crap, as I can see one tiny flaw in your argument. Namely, it’s [email protected]?cks.

Quote
“The particle size distribution is clearly not just sand”

And you can tell this, just by watching that poor quality film?

Quote
“it would still be subject to Earth gravity”

Yes it would.

Quote
“you would know how how long it would take to get the amount of "sand" required.”

Nope, but since you’ve obviously worked out the area of the movie set, and the logistics involved in delivering the amount of sand, which you have also calculated, then why don’t you tell me?

Quote
“The fact is that probes sent by India, Japan and China all corroborate Apollo's imagery, and the 3D models you can create using their data also corroborate the views shown in Apollo photographs.”

“The probes from those three nations also confirm evidence of human activity on the lunar surface exactly as shown by th LRO and by images taken by Apollo.”

Of course they would, but I think, using the word “fact” is a bit of an exaggeration.

Quote
“ I don't know, for example, that the live TV broadcast made by Apollo 11 on July 16th shows Hurricane Bernice in a unique configuration for that day because someone told me, I know because I discovered it myself”

The internet told you, as it did me.

Quote
“Exactly what efforts have you gone to to prove your point?”

Mainly, the use of my eyes and ears, rather than taking someone else’s word for it.

Quote
“Football scores, weather reports, news headlines. Read the transcripts”

Transcripts? So there is no actual alleged video footage of them discussing football scores, for example?

Quote
“If you followed him on social media, you would know that Buzz Aldrin has not had his life wrecked at all”

He suffered from alcoholism and depression for years, and the internet is full of articles on the subject.

Quote
“Thank you for demonstrating how little of the record you have actually seen. That would be the 'scaled down' model that every TV broadcast from every mission includes footage of the astronauts working next to, climbing up and into or out and down from, yes?”

Where is your logic? Scaled down models to give the illusion of distance, and full size mock-ups for scenes including the alleged astronauts.

Quote
“If you can't tell the difference between a tracking and panning shot, again, not our problem”

I said either way, it’s fake, meaning whether panning or scrolling.

Quote
“Ever met the man? I have. His life sure as hell isn't wrecked”

He apparently came off the booze in 1978, so you are probably correct, but just because he didn’t break down in tears in front of you, doesn’t prove the man wasn’t a wreck.

Quote
“he probably doesn’t know anyway”

“According to you Apollo was faked. So who knew it was faked? Not the Presidents of the USA?

Care to explain this?”

You misread what I said. I used the words “does not” as appose to the words “did not”

Quote
“we have magic rocks that come from the Earth but have geological, physical and chemical characteristics that show they could only have formed on the Moon. Care to explain this?”

I answered this question some time back, but just for your benefit, they could have been meteorites, which everyone agrees, probably came from the moon, but with the fusion layer removed.

Quote
“So what didn't work? The rocket engines? The life support system? Guidance? Navigation? What specifically was it that made Apollo fail?”

The hardware that got it into the air, were probably the only functional parts.

Quote
“Where do you draw the line on what spacecraft are real, and why do you draw it there?”

I can only comment on missions, I am familiar with, in particular, Apollo, which is the reason I came here.

Quote
“Pick a sample at random and click on it. Scroll down to the bottom and count the number of academic articles written about that one sample. Count up the number of unique individuals who wrote those articles. Then consider that there are hundreds of other samples with similar numbers of academic articles on each”

These are people who’ve studied the alleged samples from the moon, right? They are only confirming their belief that the samples have the same properties as they would expect to see in a moon rock, so I ask again, where are the public testimonies from scientists, declaring that Apollo was not a hoax, and why? I’ll keep my socks on for now until you’ve finished counting them all.

Here’s some thoughts from some clever people, who are sceptical of Apollo. They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields.

Colin Rourke, Professor of Mathematics

http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/hadley_study.pdf

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v_evaluation.htm

Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v.htm

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov

http://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v.htm

Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin

http://www.abodia.com/hoax/moon-landing-hoax/articles/moon-landings-conspiracy-theories.htm

Quote
“I think most of the HBs have never actually seen 2001. His Moon sequences had mistakes and sequences that screamed fake”

Your brain is wired to only see what you expect to see, therefore you will spot fakery in a film that we all know is fake. You know in your own mind that Apollo was real, so you fail to spot the obvious flaws in this incredible hoax, which even the most casual observer can see.

Quote
“Just want to point out the fact that if something was to be filmed in Earth gravity and then slowed down to simulate lunar gravity, if you wanted to speed this back up to the original speed, there is a factor by which you should speed it up that can be easily calculated.  That factor is about 2.48x.  Not 1.67.  Not 2.  Not 1.84.....  Not..."played with the frame rates until it looked right".  The factor is about 2.48X.”

You fail to take into account the use of wires, so as to hold them in the “air” for longer. Other movements are exactly as you would see on earth at 1.67x speed, so whatever equation you used, to come to your conclusion, means nothing.

Quote
“there are numerous times where the astronauts are referencing current events”

Show me some video footage, where they mention something they couldn’t have known in advance.  Although they could have just talked live over the pre-recorded footage, which just shows how gullible you are.

As for it having to stand up to future scrutiny, well according to you, it has, but the vast majority of people who’ve taken the time to view the visual evidence, will tell you, you are bonkers. They must have known they wouldn’t fool future generations, but I would say their hands were tied after Kennedy went and made that foolhardy prediction.




Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 20, 2018, 05:20:07 PM
I'll make apologies to the others for discussing Rosetta rather than Apollo, but the depth of your ignorance, and the extent of your arrogance, are astounding!
And that’s where we have a problem, you have been fed lies in order to explain away the impossible. This knowledge, as you refer to it would only work in a Sci-Fi movie.
If you're going to claim that "gravitational slingshots" (gravitational assist manoeuvres) don't work, then you'll need to do more than just make vague statements like "I don't believe they work" or "I don't think gravity works the same in space" - or whatever nonsense it is you're proposing.  You need to show the flaw in the mathematics and physics.  You need to show your calculations of what happens when a spacecraft passes close to a planet.  Until you can do those things, you're just another random person who doesn't "believe in science" and who isn't prepared to learn enough about it to argue their point coherently.

Quote
I watched a documentary on the Rosetta mission and all they said was, we launched it, we caught up with the comet, took some photos and crashed into it, and they managed to make that information last 45 minutes. It was either made for ten year olds, or they just hadn’t come up with a feasible explanation at the time of production.
Wow!  You sat through a whole 45 minutes of a documentary!!

If that's the extent of your knowledge about the mission, then there's probably no point in referring you to the huge collection of images, science data, telemetry data, and the many, many published papers analysing the results.  People are still working on this, and likely will be for decades to come.

And yes, TV documentaries generally are very much simplified for the general public.  I've also met ten-year-olds who'd have a better understanding of how Rosetta got to the comet than you apparently do.

And finally, to explain why Rosetta is of such interest to me, we have one of the ground test versions of the spacecraft's main processor board in the "trophy cabinet" where I work - or is that just a fake too?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 20, 2018, 07:23:56 PM
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on earth.

Where they were made is irrelevant. What the observations were of is the key. Newton's laws were derived using observations of anything from a falling apple to distant planets. Are you aware of how Neptune was discovered, for example?

No matter how many times you try to say we are uncertain about the exact mechanism of gravity, it won't alter the fact that whatever new theories arise will not affect how objects within the solar system behave, nor will it affect the calculations necessary to send a spacecraft to the Moon.

Quote
I watched a documentary on the Rosetta mission and all they said was, we launched it, we caught up with the comet, took some photos and crashed into it, and they managed to make that information last 45 minutes. It was either made for ten year olds, or they just hadn’t come up with a feasible explanation at the time of production.

Or maybe they figured that since the physics of gravitational slignshots was well known by that time, but a little too arcane for a TV audience, they didn't go into that detail for the documentary. Have you tried doing any actual research into how these things work? If you're expecting to get your knowledge from TV dcumentaries it's little wonder you're so unable to fathom how things are done.


Quote
Quote
“Thank you for demonstrating how little of the record you have actually seen. That would be the 'scaled down' model that every TV broadcast from every mission includes footage of the astronauts working next to, climbing up and into or out and down from, yes?”

Where is your logic? Scaled down models to give the illusion of distance, and full size mock-ups for scenes including the alleged astronauts.

My logic comes from having seen all (and I do mean all) the footage from the lunar surface TV and film. Just because all you have seen is a few clips on YouTube don't assume they give you anything like the full picture.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: MBDK on May 20, 2018, 07:31:20 PM
Here’s some thoughts from some clever people, who are sceptical of Apollo. They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields.

Colin Rourke, Professor of Mathematics

http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/hadley_study.pdf

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v_evaluation.htm

Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v.htm

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov

http://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v.htm

Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin

http://www.abodia.com/hoax/moon-landing-hoax/articles/moon-landings-conspiracy-theories.htm

Let's see, Colin Rourke is indeed a mathematics professor, however he hasn't acknowledged publishing anything since 1998, so forgery is most suspect.  An e-mail has been sent with hopes he will respond with clarification.

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD and Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky only seem to exist within the domains of conspiracy websites, as no other references for their names seem be available.

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov seems to fall in line with the previous two, with this tidbit added (from http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Ivanovich_Popov):
"The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax."

And finally, Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin is merely a political activist, and nothing more.

So, when you said, "They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields", you are only correct, because those fields are BS, fraud and lies.  All par for the course.  And YOU put them on a pedestal.  Now, THAT's funny!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 20, 2018, 09:51:00 PM
Quote from: AtomicDog
“What in blazes are you talking about? You don't need NASA to tell you that the Earth is not on the lunar horizon from Clavius crater! All you need are a pair of eyes!  Any Moon map will show you that Clavius is 30 degrees latitude and 70 degrees longitude from the lunar limb and that the Earth is not going to get near the horizon from that location.  Do YOU think that NASA is the be-all and end-all of all astronomical knowledge? Any amateur astronomer alive knows where the Earth can be seen from the Moon!”

Quote from: cambo
Wow, that’s me told. Although Mr Kubrick put a lot of work into his films, the movie in question was science fiction and was probably only intended as a showcase for the latest special effects. It was not a documentary, so take a chill pill and I’ll try not to upset you in future.

Way to change the subject. Your contention was that NASA was needed to determine the position of earth as seen from the moon. I said that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy doesn't need NASA. If that doesn't include you, that's not my fault.

Quote from: AtomicDog
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”


Quote from: cambo
Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side.

Likewise, if you can't do center of mass calculations, that's no one's fault but yours.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 20, 2018, 11:58:44 PM
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on earth.

and have been successfully applied throughout the solar system.


Quote
Quote
“do you think that speeding up the jump salute video to 1.67x speed, rendering that video, reducing it's speed by 2/3 and then comparing it with the original is a valid approach?”

A valid approach to make it look as it would on earth? The way I read the question, it would leave me with a slower speed than I started with, so either reword the question or give it to me in English. The scene you mention was aided by the use of wires, as are many other scenes regarding the astronaut’s activities, while allegedly on the moon, so we will always see that floating effect, no matter what speed we play the video.

Oh dear, this old crap again. Who operated the wires? Where was the harness attached? How did the wires somehow manage never to get tangled up with each other as astronauts crossed paths multiple times?

Quote

Quote
“If you want to engage in verbal jousting and patronising remarks about my education then I'll sure enough post a moderator report. Be warned, I've acted in good faith so far.”

Oh, have I hurt your feelings? It’s obvious that the members on here, don’t take kindly to us non-academics, who have the audacity to question your knowledge. I am criticising the education you have received, and it is not meant as an insult to you personally, so if you can’t handle one HB crashing your party, then by all means, post that report. The title of this site suggests it is a place to debate the hoax theory from both sides of the fence, but I now see that is not the case, as I seem to be the only HB here, and I’m probably in the wrong place. I doubt I’ll be here much longer, whether you post that report or not.

People here have no problem with non-academics. You might find that some people here are not academics. What we take issue with is people claiming expertise they plainly do not have and have no intention of acquiring, and who clearly have a problem with those people who have actually bothered to do that.

Quote
Quote
“I am interrogating your claims, your expertise and the your credentials by asking you a series of questions that are relevant to your claims.”

 Why is a question on radiation relevant to me personally? Why would I need to be an expert on the subject of cosmic radiation to support any of my claims? Point to an instance where I have said that radiation in space is restrictive to humans. You do realise, Mr Einstein, you are not the only one with internet access, and I would be able to answer your radiation questions with a few clicks of my mouse, so stop being a clever arse.

Being able to copy and paste is not the same as understanding something.

Quote

Quote
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”

Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side.

Gee, do you think they might have thought of that? You demanded blueprints for one reason only: you think no-one has them. That's why you aren't happy with visual documentation of the rover being packed and unpacked.

Quote

Quote
“If you think that gravity is only a theory, jump off your roof and report back to us”

Gravity is real, how it works is the theory part. Did you by any chance attend the same school as me?

The invitation to check out the theory still stands.

Quote
Quote
“Please show me an experiment where sand/dust in an atmosphere behaves like this and I'll believe everything you claim”

If you are told you are seeing dust, then you will see dust, and then logically assume it is in a vacuum. If you look at it as being sand, then it becomes obvious, the footage is fake.

So you're happy to concede that your preconceptions are prejudicing your understanding and defining you answers.

Quote
Quote
“How do you explain views of Earth in those pans entirely consistent with the day's meteorological observations?”

You need to give up on this weather pattern crap, as I can see one tiny flaw in your argument. Namely, it’s [email protected]?cks.

Nope, wrong again. You clearly have no response to the fact that every single image of Earth, whether it be still image, 16mm film or live TV, contains a unique meteorological fingerprint that is verified by images from meteorological satellites. The configuration of landmasses, and the position and shape of the terminator, in those images are exact matches for the time and date they were taken, as are the details referenced in them during the missions themselves. There is no explanation for those matches other than the images were taken when and where historical fact says they were taken. Prove otherwise.

Quote
Quote
“The particle size distribution is clearly not just sand”

And you can tell this, just by watching that poor quality film?

Yes, it's funny that you can't work out how.

Quote
Quote
“you would know how how long it would take to get the amount of "sand" required.”

Nope, but since you’ve obviously worked out the area of the movie set, and the logistics involved in delivering the amount of sand, which you have also calculated, then why don’t you tell me?

I for one have spent more time than I care to remember processing and sieving soil samples in to standard size fractions. If you want to know yourself, try it.

Quote
Quote
“The fact is that probes sent by India, Japan and China all corroborate Apollo's imagery, and the 3D models you can create using their data also corroborate the views shown in Apollo photographs.”

“The probes from those three nations also confirm evidence of human activity on the lunar surface exactly as shown by th LRO and by images taken by Apollo.”

Of course they would, but I think, using the word “fact” is a bit of an exaggeration.

Nope, it's a fact. I downloaded the raw images and processed them myself, so I know exactly what's in them even if Japan, India and China don't. Not only do the landing sites show evidence of human activity, you can take any image taken from lunar orbit by Apollo and the tiniest details are an exact match for subsequent probes.

Quote

Quote
“ I don't know, for example, that the live TV broadcast made by Apollo 11 on July 16th shows Hurricane Bernice in a unique configuration for that day because someone told me, I know because I discovered it myself”

The internet told you, as it did me.

That's the second time you have tried to imply that I have somehow not spent years trawling archives for data, checking the transcripts and video, buying contemporary books and documentation and verifying that the conclusions I have drawn are correct. The work is mine, no-one else's.

This is also an ongoing project - I updated it yesterday to include much higher resolution versions of Apollo 15 and 16's ultra-violet images of Earth than I had previously seen. Guess what - they show exactly what they should.

Quote
Quote
“Exactly what efforts have you gone to to prove your point?”

Mainly, the use of my eyes and ears, rather than taking someone else’s word for it.

When do you plan on starting this? So far all you've done is blown a lot of hot air at it and puked up some Aulis and Sibrel garbage. I have a whole website full of my own research into this, I have taken no-one's work as gospel. What I have done is listen to people who know what they are talking about and critically examined the work of those who plainly don't.

Quote
Quote
“Football scores, weather reports, news headlines. Read the transcripts”

Transcripts? So there is no actual alleged video footage of them discussing football scores, for example?

Yes.

Quote

Quote
“If you followed him on social media, you would know that Buzz Aldrin has not had his life wrecked at all”

He suffered from alcoholism and depression for years, and the internet is full of articles on the subject.

Well done. Shame you don't bother following his media appearances world wide and the rather nice life he leads since he got his act together.

Quote

Quote
“we have magic rocks that come from the Earth but have geological, physical and chemical characteristics that show they could only have formed on the Moon. Care to explain this?”

I answered this question some time back, but just for your benefit, they could have been meteorites, which everyone agrees, probably came from the moon, but with the fusion layer removed.

And how do you think they know they are from the moon?

Quote


Quote
“Where do you draw the line on what spacecraft are real, and why do you draw it there?”

I can only comment on missions, I am familiar with, in particular, Apollo, which is the reason I came here.

You are not demonstrating that familiarity very well.

Quote

Quote
“Pick a sample at random and click on it. Scroll down to the bottom and count the number of academic articles written about that one sample. Count up the number of unique individuals who wrote those articles. Then consider that there are hundreds of other samples with similar numbers of academic articles on each”

These are people who’ve studied the alleged samples from the moon, right? They are only confirming their belief that the samples have the same properties as they would expect to see in a moon rock, so I ask again, where are the public testimonies from scientists, declaring that Apollo was not a hoax, and why? I’ll keep my socks on for now until you’ve finished counting them all.

You seem to have this bizarre idea that getting your degree certificate is accompanied by some sort of swearing an oath of fealty and the signing of a non-disclosure. I own a dozen volumes of lunar science conference proceedings from the Apollo era, each of them jam packed with scientists more than happy to put their name to the samples being genuine.

Quote
Quote
“there are numerous times where the astronauts are referencing current events”

Show me some video footage, where they mention something they couldn’t have known in advance.  Although they could have just talked live over the pre-recorded footage, which just shows how gullible you are.

There is plenty, look for it.

Quote
As for it having to stand up to future scrutiny, well according to you, it has, but the vast majority of people who’ve taken the time to view the visual evidence, will tell you, you are bonkers. They must have known they wouldn’t fool future generations, but I would say their hands were tied after Kennedy went and made that foolhardy prediction.

The vast majority that have taken the time to look, to actually look, not just swallow whatever BS some youtube video has said or that they read at aulis written by some fake scholar throwing fancy terms around that don't actually mean anything when you look at it carefully, understand that Apollo happened exactly as history fully and very publicly documents.

Take your own advice. Look carefully at the information you are using as your source material and ask yourself if it is actually correct instead of allowing your prejudices to inform your opinion. Otherwise you're the one that's going to continue looking like an idiot.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 21, 2018, 12:52:25 AM
Cambo, can you for heaven's sake leave on the part of the code that tells who you're quoting?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Obviousman on May 21, 2018, 05:01:08 AM
Yeah, there are no air-to-ground audio recordings of them discussing sports results...

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap14fj/audio/a14-0325451.mp3

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap14fj/audio/a14-0333100.mp3



Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 21, 2018, 05:56:37 AM
Cambo, can you for heaven's sake leave on the part of the code that tells who you're quoting?
Maybe cambo thinks we're all the same person?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on May 21, 2018, 07:21:22 AM
Yeah, there are no air-to-ground audio recordings of them discussing sports results...

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap14fj/audio/a14-0325451.mp3

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap14fj/audio/a14-0333100.mp3

The irony is he demands video footage showing something they couldn't have known in advance and he posted a video himself showing exactly that.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 21, 2018, 07:38:34 AM
The hardware that got it into the air, were probably the only functional parts.

Except you then go on to cite some 'experts' who say it didn't actually work as advertised at all. Typical HB inconsistency.

Quote
Here’s some thoughts from some clever people, who are sceptical of Apollo. They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields.

And again. You'll agree with 'experts' when they agree with you, but you'll dismiss any experts that don't. Typical HB troll.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 21, 2018, 10:19:55 AM
I'm out. I don't find cambo's arguments compelling or interesting. I'm off to watch paint dry.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on May 21, 2018, 11:34:30 AM
I'm mildly amused by the circularity of his gravity arguments. They are getting almost hermetic; you can't prove gravity because you can't fly in space because you can't prove gravity.

Ignoring of course that we never measure anything, on Earth or otherwise. If I weigh an object on the simplest pan I am still trusting that gravity is working on both weights and the lever is working the way it is supposed to. If I hold up a ruler I'm not getting a length, I'm receiving photons reconstructing an image space where two objects appear to be intersecting, and reconstructing the meaning of that image in an organic processor that is incompletely described by science, of unique construction, and sealed in a black box.

Most are more obvious than that. We reconstruct a temperature based on assumptions of black-body curves and applying that same (highly inaccurate!) organic processor to compare colors. We assume microscopic grain formation in an unknown and un-assayed material. And after all of that, the newly annealed weld holds correctly. Wow...it's almost as if we DID understand what it is we can't see directly.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 21, 2018, 12:42:28 PM
Here’s some thoughts from some clever people, who are sceptical of Apollo. They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields.

Colin Rourke, Professor of Mathematics

http://www.aulis.com/pdf%20folder/hadley_study.pdf

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v_evaluation.htm

Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky

http://www.aulis.com/saturn_v.htm

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov

http://www.aulis.com/apollo11saturn_v.htm

Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin

http://www.abodia.com/hoax/moon-landing-hoax/articles/moon-landings-conspiracy-theories.htm

Let's see, Colin Rourke is indeed a mathematics professor, however he hasn't acknowledged publishing anything since 1998, so forgery is most suspect.  An e-mail has been sent with hopes he will respond with clarification.

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD and Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky only seem to exist within the domains of conspiracy websites, as no other references for their names seem be available.

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov seems to fall in line with the previous two, with this tidbit added (from http://speedydeletion.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Ivanovich_Popov):
"The truthfulness of this article has been questioned. It is believed that some or all of its content might constitute a hoax."

And finally, Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin is merely a political activist, and nothing more.

So, when you said, "They draw their evidence from their expertise in their own fields", you are only correct, because those fields are BS, fraud and lies.  All par for the course.  And YOU put them on a pedestal.  Now, THAT's funny!

I saw these items this morning but didn't have time to sort them out.
Great job in identifying the problems these individuals have with credibility.  And as such they fit right into aulis.com's "experts".  I made a suggestion that cambo quite pending time  at aulis and all he did was suggest that had credentials and expertise, the first is suspect the latter has yet to be demonstrated.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 21, 2018, 12:50:28 PM
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on earth.

Where they were made is irrelevant. What the observations were of is the key. Newton's laws were derived using observations of anything from a falling apple to distant planets. Are you aware of how Neptune was discovered, for example?

No matter how many times you try to say we are uncertain about the exact mechanism of gravity, it won't alter the fact that whatever new theories arise will not affect how objects within the solar system behave, nor will it affect the calculations necessary to send a spacecraft to the Moon.


Quote
I watched a documentary on the Rosetta mission and all they said was, we launched it, we caught up with the comet, took some photos and crashed into it, and they managed to make that information last 45 minutes. It was either made for ten year olds, or they just hadn’t come up with a feasible explanation at the time of production.

Or maybe they figured that since the physics of gravitational slignshots was well known by that time, but a little too arcane for a TV audience, they didn't go into that detail for the documentary. Have you tried doing any actual research into how these things work? If you're expecting to get your knowledge from TV dcumentaries it's little wonder you're so unable to fathom how things are done.


Quote
Quote
“Thank you for demonstrating how little of the record you have actually seen. That would be the 'scaled down' model that every TV broadcast from every mission includes footage of the astronauts working next to, climbing up and into or out and down from, yes?”

Where is your logic? Scaled down models to give the illusion of distance, and full size mock-ups for scenes including the alleged astronauts.

My logic comes from having seen all (and I do mean all) the footage from the lunar surface TV and film. Just because all you have seen is a few clips on YouTube don't assume they give you anything like the full picture.
Excellent description of gravity and why one paper does not refute gravity nor how it works, just two (or more) masses have a gravitational attraction given by the formula F = G*((m sub 1*m sub 2)/r^2) where G is the gravitational constant.  That's how spacecraft are pinpointed to distant targets "using gravity assists".  But YOU knew this.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on May 21, 2018, 03:21:58 PM
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on from earth.

Fixed that for you.

First of all, any new model of motion has to be consistent with all of Newton's laws, because Newton's laws work pretty well most of the time (for the masses and speeds we typically deal with, they're more than sufficient).  Once you start getting above certain masses, or above certain speeds, Newton's laws become inadequate and you have to turn to new models.  Newton's laws of motion could not explain the precession of Mercury's orbit around the Sun.  General Relativity explains that precession, along with everything else Newton's laws already explain.  You can see Newton's laws as being a special case of General Relativity, just as General Relativity will be a special case of whatever new model comes along to explain what General Relativity can't. 

Secondly, Newton's laws apply to objects in space just as much as objects on Earth.  Kepler deduced his laws of planetary motion based on extensive observations of the planets made by Tycho Brahe; those laws were later shown by Newton to be a close approximation of his own laws of motion as applied to the solar system. 

IOW, Netwon's laws work in space just as well as they do on Earth.  Based on observations of the motions of planets orbiting the Sun, planets orbiting other stars, stars orbiting larger stars or the center of the Milky Way, etc., we're pretty confident that gravity works the same everywhere for everybody. 

Newton's laws can be used to compute the velocity necessary to maintain an orbit at a specific altitude.  They can be used to compute path and energy necessary to get a probe to Pluto in the span of a decade.  They can be used to get several meat sacks from the surface of the Earth to the Moon and back again. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on May 21, 2018, 03:38:15 PM
4/5 of cambo's links are to aulis, a lying site of scumbaggery, known to invent imaginary "experts" out of whole cloth.

That is home to the deceased Jack White, the very same that testified to the HSCA that he had never heard of photogrammetry after purporting to analyse photographs.

The same site is home to the discredited David Percy, whose nonsense was amply torn apart by svector, Jay, Datacable, STS and many others.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 21, 2018, 04:10:32 PM
4/5 of cambo's links are to aulis, a lying site of scumbaggery, known to invent imaginary "experts" out of whole cloth.

That is home to the deceased Jack White, the very same that testified to the HSCA that he had never heard of photogrammetry after purporting to analyse photographs.

The same site is home to the discredited David Percy, whose nonsense was amply torn apart by svector, Jay, Datacable, STS and many others.

Auditioning for a new Star Wars writer?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cos on May 21, 2018, 06:22:38 PM
Colin Rourke thoroughly debunked years ago.

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/thread/2689/hadley-study-fakery-colin-rourke

 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 22, 2018, 02:05:49 AM
Auditioning for a new Star Wars writer?
I'm not sure someone who doesn't believe space flight is possible, is a good fit for a movie franchise about space...  ;D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 22, 2018, 05:58:28 AM
Cambo, as a non-expert but with access to the world's largest interconnected source of information at my fingertips, let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of  lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems. See, those meteorites didn't just fall yesterday. They've been  exposed air and water and other sources of weathering, leading to changes in their structure and composition compared to the practically pristine Apollo  and Soviet Luna samples. Oh, and their cosmic ray exposure ages tell us how long they've been on the surface. (http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2018, 07:25:09 AM
Cambo, as a non-expert but with access to the world's largest interconnected source of information at my fingertips, let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of  lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems. See, those meteorites didn't just fall yesterday. They've been  exposed air and water and other sources of weathering, leading to changes in their structure and composition compared to the practically pristine Apollo  and Soviet Luna samples. Oh, and their cosmic ray exposure ages tell us how long they've been on the surface. (http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm)

Save your breath. We're dealing with a troll. There is nothing rational about his arguments. There will be some magical device that can create these faked lunar samples, even though he has no idea what it is, because there must be. It's all fake, therefore whatever means are needed to fake it exist and anything that says otherwise is fake too. He hasn't done any research beyond HB sites, and has clearly seen very little of the record apart from those little clips and pictures they use to prove it was fake. The footage was all achieved using some improbable combination of methods that simply don't work in concert and cannot be applied to the whole unedited footage.

Cambo has already dismissed everything from NASA or any third party that supports Apollo as faked. He's dismissed all our expertise, qualifications and experience but cited other 'experts' that agree with him. There is absolutely no way to argue with someone who says he's willing to discuss proof but already dismissed anything that disagrees with his conclusions as invalid.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nweber on May 22, 2018, 09:03:00 AM
If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on from earth.

Fixed that for you.

Yes, if it were only based on observations on earth, constant acceleration due to gravity towards the centre of the earth would be good enough for just about every application.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nweber on May 22, 2018, 09:04:30 AM
I'm not sure someone who doesn't believe space flight is possible, is a good fit for a movie franchise about space...  ;D

Oh, I think that's going a bit too far, if they could only make hobbit films with actors who believed hobbits were real, that would be rather limiting.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Bryanpoprobson on May 22, 2018, 09:10:16 AM
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on earth.

“If you're going to dismiss such fundamental maths and science, then there's really no way to explain anything to you...”

That actually is not true, Newton devised his laws by observing the Heavens as well, he was particularly obsessed with the orbit of the moon around the Earth and realised that gravity influenced body's over astronomical distances.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 22, 2018, 12:31:09 PM
Auditioning for a new Star Wars writer?
I'm not sure someone who doesn't believe space flight is possible, is a good fit for a movie franchise about space...  ;D

You misunderstood or I didn't post clearly.  That comment was for Abaddon.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 22, 2018, 12:58:46 PM
Quote from: AtomicDog
Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?

Quote from: cambo
Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side

Almost missed this one. Notice how cambo has deftly tapdanced away from his previous contentions?

Quote from: cambo
There is one set of evidence that would be irrefutable proof that these incredible achievements were at least possible, and that’s the plans on how to build the Saturn V rocket, the Lunar Lander and even the Lunar Rover. 

Here cambo states that examining Saturn and Rover blueprints would prove to him that the Apollo program was at least possible. When asked how he could determine this by examining the blueprints, he says:

Quote from: cambo
I couldn’t possibly answer that question until I saw them. I know what the plans are for and what these contraptions are meant to do, so who knows, I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.

That's right; cambo thought it went inside the Descent Stage, showing that he had no real idea how the LM was constructed. But I digress.

This quote indicates that he has doubts that the LRV could be attached to the Descent Stage and unfolded on the Moon, as advertised. When shown video that the Rover could be seen being deployed, no blueprints necessary, he goes:

Quote from: cambo
And? We all know it was built to unfold, but I need the plans to show how it was constructed, in order to fold and unfold. Not just a set of diagrams showing where all the bits went, you get that sort of thing in a flat pack from a furniture store.

He now admits that the Rover can unfold, but still needs to see the blueprints so he can see how. Why? You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it. He then goes silent on the subject. When I prod him for an answer:

Quote from: AtomicDog
Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?

He pretends that Rover deployment was never an issue:


Quote from: cambo
Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side

And handwaves away the deployment thing, and says that his actual concern was the weight load and balance problems that flying with a LRV attached to the LM would cause, even though aerospace designers and flight engineers have had to deal with balance issues since the birth of aviation.

I've noticed this tactic of his in other replies - backing away from his contentions while hoping no one notices, and pretending that what he was vociferously arguing in a previous post was not the real issue. I just thought I'd point this out.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 22, 2018, 01:41:18 PM
I've noticed this tactic of his in other replies - backing away from his contentions while hoping no one notices, and pretending that what he was vociferously arguing in a previous post was not the real issue. I just thought I'd point this out.

It's a standard tactic. I can only assume he gets some kind of perverse pleasure from twisting and dodging whatever is offered to him in order to avoid answering the question of what would make him consider that he is simply wrong. He's already handwaved away anything and everything that can be offered up, and demonstrated that he has a) no idea of what most of the record includes (scaled down LM for distance shots! Ha!) and b) lacks the ability or integrity to admit he is holding entirely conflicting positions with regard to the evidence (experts that agree with him are experts, experts in the same or other relevant fields that disagree with him are not, even if they obtained their expertise in the same way).

At every step the bar of 'acceptable proof' will be raised as soon as the one standard he asks for is actually provided. The rover is just one example. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 22, 2018, 01:48:51 PM
I'm not sure someone who doesn't believe space flight is possible, is a good fit for a movie franchise about space...  ;D
Oh, I think that's going a bit too far, if they could only make hobbit films with actors who believed hobbits were real, that would be rather limiting.
Very true, although I think fantasy, hobbits and wizards my be a slightly different "suspension of disbelief" than science fiction.  And anyway, are you sure hobbits aren't real?...

You misunderstood or I didn't post clearly.  That comment was for Abaddon.
Sorry - I thought you were referring to Cambo's "creative writing" skills  ;D
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on May 22, 2018, 02:06:32 PM
Cambo, as a non-expert but with access to the world's largest interconnected source of information at my fingertips, let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of  lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems. See, those meteorites didn't just fall yesterday. They've been  exposed air and water and other sources of weathering, leading to changes in their structure and composition compared to the practically pristine Apollo  and Soviet Luna samples. Oh, and their cosmic ray exposure ages tell us how long they've been on the surface. (http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm)
There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.

The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on May 22, 2018, 02:33:52 PM
 If they were from existing collections, didn't museums notice lunar meteorites disappearing? (They were in on it; pay them - forever)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cos on May 22, 2018, 07:30:29 PM
Surely it is time for Cambo to post the story of the petrified wood given to a Dutch politician as proof that all the moon rocks were fake.  Yawn....
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nweber on May 22, 2018, 11:34:23 PM
And anyway, are you sure hobbits aren't real?...

Have you ever seen the president of Ireland?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Von_Smith on May 23, 2018, 07:39:23 AM
If they were from existing collections, didn't museums notice lunar meteorites disappearing? (They were in on it; pay them - forever)

And not just the institution.  Any and all employees, former employees, student interns, major private donors, colleagues from other institutions with similar collections, etc. who might know something about the collections.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on May 23, 2018, 12:34:25 PM
And correct me if I'm wrong, here, but don't we only have a very small amount of meteorites known to have come from the Moon, and didn't we identify them as such because of their similarity to Apollo samples, meaning they couldn't possibly be the source anyway?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Dalhousie on May 24, 2018, 12:13:32 AM
And correct me if I'm wrong, here, but don't we only have a very small amount of meteorites known to have come from the Moon, and didn't we identify them as such because of their similarity to Apollo samples, meaning they couldn't possibly be the source anyway?

No lunar meteorites were identified as such before the Apollo and Luna.  Indeed it as their similarity to Apollo and Luna samples that led them to be identified as such and identifiability distinct from other achondritic meteorites such as SNCs (Mars) and HEDs (Vesta).  The first lunar meteorite was not discovered until 1979 and the first recognised in 1982.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 24, 2018, 12:39:29 AM
And correct me if I'm wrong, here, but don't we only have a very small amount of meteorites known to have come from the Moon, and didn't we identify them as such because of their similarity to Apollo samples, meaning they couldn't possibly be the source anyway?

No lunar meteorites were identified as such before the Apollo and Luna.  Indeed it as their similarity to Apollo and Luna samples that led them to be identified as such and identifiability distinct from other achondritic meteorites such as SNCs (Mars) and HEDs (Vesta).  The first lunar meteorite was not discovered until 1979 and the first recognised in 1982.
I'm curious though. Since we don't have any Martian samples, how do we know those meteorites are from Mars then? One of those things I've always been curious about.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Dalhousie on May 24, 2018, 12:58:51 AM
And correct me if I'm wrong, here, but don't we only have a very small amount of meteorites known to have come from the Moon, and didn't we identify them as such because of their similarity to Apollo samples, meaning they couldn't possibly be the source anyway?

No lunar meteorites were identified as such before the Apollo and Luna.  Indeed it as their similarity to Apollo and Luna samples that led them to be identified as such and identifiability distinct from other achondritic meteorites such as SNCs (Mars) and HEDs (Vesta).  The first lunar meteorite was not discovered until 1979 and the first recognised in 1982.
I'm curious though. Since we don't have any Martian samples, how do we know those meteorites are from Mars then? One of those things I've always been curious about.

Classic case of inductive reasons and a process of elimination.

The SNC meteorites are a family of achondritic meteorites (they are essentially mafic rocks similar to terrestrial examples.)  with specific geochemical characteristicscommon to all.

The SNCs have undergone melting.  So they have to have come from a silicate body with volcanism. This means Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Vesta, and Io. 

Earth, Moon, and Vesta are eliminated by stable isotope data.

Venus and Io are delineated by unreason energy requirements to be sent on Earth intersecting orbits.  Mercury isn not quite ruled out, but is unlikely.

The Viking landers measured the noble gas isotopes in the martian atmosphere. The noble gas isotopes in the SNCs match these. 

So Mars is the obvious choice.

This is the argument used by the initial researcher Or you can use the following argument from me:

The parent body had to be one that is of silicate composition.  That rules out all but the terrestrial planets and Io.

The parent body has to have had a long history of volcanic activity (from four billion years ago to a few hundred million years ago.  This rules out Mercury, the Moon, Vesta.

The parent body had to have free water on its surface (there is aqueous alternation in most SNCs. This rules out Venus and Io.

The great age of some SNCs rules out Earth.

Mars is the only one left.  If it did not exist it would have to be invented.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 24, 2018, 02:52:18 AM
Ooh, OK! Super cool that! ;D And thank you, I never had it explained half so well before, Dalhousie, much thanks.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Dalhousie on May 24, 2018, 07:52:45 AM
Glad to help!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Drewid on May 24, 2018, 08:54:45 AM
That sort of answer is why I still lurk here even if I'm not active.    Nicely done :)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Peter B on May 24, 2018, 10:15:23 AM
Cambo, as a non-expert but with access to the world's largest interconnected source of information at my fingertips, let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of  lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems. See, those meteorites didn't just fall yesterday. They've been  exposed air and water and other sources of weathering, leading to changes in their structure and composition compared to the practically pristine Apollo  and Soviet Luna samples. Oh, and their cosmic ray exposure ages tell us how long they've been on the surface. (http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm)
There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.

The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence...

Can I suggest it gets even better?

Sure, there are lunar meteorites which have been found on Earth. But the Apollo samples consist of more than just rocks. They include soil samples and core samples. Now, okay, I suppose you could make soil samples from grinding up lunar meteorites (and watch the faces of geologists as you do it!).

But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 24, 2018, 03:16:35 PM
Now, okay, I suppose you could make soil samples from grinding up lunar meteorites (and watch the faces of geologists as you do it!).

And good luck doing that without leaving evidence of whatever was used to grind it up. A similar problem the magic machine that 'removes the fusion layer' of a meteorite and adds back the zap pits would have.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on May 24, 2018, 03:53:30 PM
Now, okay, I suppose you could make soil samples from grinding up lunar meteorites (and watch the faces of geologists as you do it!).

And good luck doing that without leaving evidence of whatever was used to grind it up. A similar problem the magic machine that 'removes the fusion layer' of a meteorite and adds back the zap pits would have.


... and can create those zap pits without leaving behind a residue that has an origin from Earth.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Dalhousie on May 24, 2018, 09:09:29 PM
Now, okay, I suppose you could make soil samples from grinding up lunar meteorites (and watch the faces of geologists as you do it!).

And good luck doing that without leaving evidence of whatever was used to grind it up. A similar problem the magic machine that 'removes the fusion layer' of a meteorite and adds back the zap pits would have.


... and can create those zap pits without leaving behind a residue that has an origin from Earth.

You'd also have to manufacture the aggulinates and add in the solar wind and meteoritic iron components (as both spherules and fragments).  You would also have to arrange the zero time cosmic ray exposure ages.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Northern Lurker on May 25, 2018, 12:50:20 PM
I have understood that there were several reasons for Apollo program:
-to beat the Soviets in Space Race after Soviet wins of first satellite, first animal in orbit and first human in orbit and safely back to Earth
-to boost the popularity of JFK
-to advance science (origin of Moon, composition of solar wind etc)
-to boost US scientific, technological and industrial capacity

Without Apollo program, would US had the advantage it had in 70's and 80's in fields like microchips and computers, metallurgy, mega project management? Also if space flight is fake, why there are technologies which were developed for space flight but are on everyday use back on Earth?

Lurky
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: raven on May 25, 2018, 02:27:08 PM
But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on May 25, 2018, 03:00:02 PM
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.

Of course, but to the HBs we have 'some rocks (supposedly) from the Moon'. All we have is 'some rocks (supposedly) from the Moon'. There's nothing else but 'some rocks (supposedly) from the Moon'. Soil samples, core tubes, basalts, anorthosites, breccias, shatter cones, volcanic glass, the differences between the various sites, all these terms and more besides just don't enter their lexicon. It's all just 'some rocks', and it's all just '(supposedly) from the Moon', and since they don't understand the differences, the implications and the chemical and physical processes involved, they just assume it is all fake somehow.

It's just pure anti-rationalism. Start from the conclusion and assume that is totally sound. Anything that disproves it must be fake, anything that supports it is beyond reproach. Rational debate cannot happen even if, unlike cambo, the HB in question doesn't start by outright dismissing everything that contradicts him from any source as fake.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Dalhousie on May 25, 2018, 06:51:39 PM
But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.

The cores were in regolith, no solid rock required. the longest core was 3 m, with an internal diameter of 2 cm,that means a volume of 942 cm3 as returned.  Given a maximum density for regolith of 2, that is 1.884 kg of sample.   Since mafic rocks rock has a density of 3, an 16cm diameter rock would provide the 2 kg necessary.

Of course the material would have to come from several different lunar samples as you say, and include iron meteorite fragments of different types, the fragments would have to be agglutinated, have implanted solar wind, cosmic ray ages that increase with depth, and the rest.

Of course the main properties of the regolith were independently verified by the Luna cores.

But there were no lunar meteorites available anway during the Apollo period.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 26, 2018, 12:46:02 PM
But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.

The cores were in regolith, no solid rock required. the longest core was 3 m, with an internal diameter of 2 cm,that means a volume of 942 cm3 as returned.  Given a maximum density for regolith of 2, that is 1.884 kg of sample.   Since mafic rocks rock has a density of 3, an 16cm diameter rock would provide the 2 kg necessary.

Of course the material would have to come from several different lunar samples as you say, and include iron meteorite fragments of different types, the fragments would have to be agglutinated, have implanted solar wind, cosmic ray ages that increase with depth, and the rest.

Of course the main properties of the regolith were independently verified by the Luna cores.

But there were no lunar meteorites available anway during the Apollo period.
Spoken like a true geologist. :)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Dalhousie on May 26, 2018, 06:42:22 PM
But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.

The cores were in regolith, no solid rock required. the longest core was 3 m, with an internal diameter of 2 cm,that means a volume of 942 cm3 as returned.  Given a maximum density for regolith of 2, that is 1.884 kg of sample.   Since mafic rocks rock has a density of 3, an 16cm diameter rock would provide the 2 kg necessary.

Of course the material would have to come from several different lunar samples as you say, and include iron meteorite fragments of different types, the fragments would have to be agglutinated, have implanted solar wind, cosmic ray ages that increase with depth, and the rest.

Of course the main properties of the regolith were independently verified by the Luna cores.

But there were no lunar meteorites available anway during the Apollo period.
Spoken like a true geologist. :)

Naturally - five continents, three oceans, and two planets ;)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on May 26, 2018, 07:06:53 PM
Good one. :)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on June 19, 2018, 04:30:27 AM
Quote
“If you're going to claim that "gravitational slingshots" (gravitational assist manoeuvres) don't work, then you'll need to do more than just make vague statements like "I don't believe they work" or "I don't think gravity works the same in space" - or whatever nonsense it is you're proposing.  You need to show the flaw in the mathematics and physics.  You need to show your calculations of what happens when a spacecraft passes close to a planet.  Until you can do those things, you're just another random person who doesn't "believe in science" and who isn't prepared to learn enough about it to argue their point coherently.”

You’re right, I don’t trust the science, but it is all we have, as this is the stuff we are taught in schools, and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

Even if the science is correct, it would only show us that space flight is possible, but in no way would it be proof that these events have actually took place. In the case of Apollo, Surely the visual record is the only source of real evidence, as without this evidence, we would only have NASA’s word.

Quote
“Or maybe they figured that since the physics of gravitational slignshots was well known by that time, but a little too arcane for a TV audience, they didn't go into that detail for the documentary. Have you tried doing any actual research into how these things work?”

I know, how in theory, a sling shot should work, but a documentary is supposed to be informative, and this one most definitely wasn’t.

Quote
“Just because all you have seen is a few clips on YouTube don't assume they give you anything like the full picture”

I’ve probably seen them all, and I definitely get the picture.

“Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD and Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky only seem to exist within the domains of conspiracy websites, as no other references for their names seem be available”

You are right of course, but I wouldn’t expect to find such information on a pro Apollo site.

Quote
“Your contention was that NASA was needed to determine the position of earth as seen from the moon. I said that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy doesn't need NASA. If that doesn't include you, that's not my fault.”

Are you saying I’m thick because I don’t have a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy? I think you’ll find there are more people in the world without this knowledge than people who possess it. So does this knowledge make you a better person than most? Of course not, it just makes you the pompous condescending man that you are.

Quote
“Who operated the wires? Where was the harness attached? How did the wires somehow manage never to get tangled up with each other as astronauts crossed paths multiple times?”

I’m sorry but I can’t find the names of the wire men, but here’s where the wires were probably attached.

(https://i.imgur.com/25SpxHm.jpg)

=493

As for tangled wires, maybe the scenes you mention, only had one man on wires, or if the men stayed approximately the same distance apart, it would be an easy task to suspend both of them. Helium balloons would be a good solution, in fact the more I think about it, that may well be how they did it.

(https://i.imgur.com/I5A5Tjm.jpg)

Quote
“What we take issue with is people claiming expertise they plainly do not have and have no intention of acquiring, and who clearly have a problem with those people who have actually bothered to do that”

So in what field is your expertise, because it certainly isn’t cloud formations.

Quote
“Being able to copy and paste is not the same as understanding something”


If I read something, I will understand it, whether it’s a lie or not, so don’t come that condescending crap with me young man.

Quote
“So you're happy to concede that your preconceptions are prejudicing your understanding and defining you answers”

No, that statement applies to you.

Quote
“Nope, wrong again. You clearly have no response to the fact that every single image of Earth, whether it be still image, 16mm film or live TV, contains a unique meteorological fingerprint that is verified by images from meteorological satellites. The configuration of landmasses, and the position and shape of the terminator, in those images are exact matches for the time and date they were taken, as are the details referenced in them during the missions themselves. There is no explanation for those matches other than the images were taken when and where historical fact says they were taken. Prove otherwise.”

It’s already been proven that the footage you got your earth images from, was not shot on the outward journey to the moon, which makes those satellite images false also.

Quote
“The particle size distribution is clearly not just sand”

“And you can tell this, just by watching that poor quality film?”

“Yes, it's funny that you can't work out how.”

Ever studied one of these people skipping or jumping, like in the jump salute for instance? The sand falls faster than the person, and that’s a fact. Pity they couldn’t put all those grains of sand on wires.

Quote
“I for one have spent more time than I care to remember processing and sieving soil samples in to standard size fractions. If you want to know yourself, try it.”

A simple “I don’t know” would have sufficed.

Quote
“Nope, it's a fact. I downloaded the raw images and processed them myself, so I know exactly what's in them even if Japan, India and China don't. Not only do the landing sites show evidence of human activity, you can take any image taken from lunar orbit by Apollo and the tiniest details are an exact match for subsequent probes.”

It would be very awkward if they didn’t match, but it’s only a fact if it’s not a lie.

Quote
“That's the second time you have tried to imply that I have somehow not spent years trawling archives for data, checking the transcripts and video, buying contemporary books and documentation and verifying that the conclusions I have drawn are correct. The work is mine, no-one else's”

Ok, calm down! You didn’t by any chance obtain the satellite imagery from these books you mention, did you? If so, was this book or books, published on the same day as the images from the alleged live TV broadcast? I almost feel terrible, asking you this question, but how can anyone be this gullible?

Quote
“Mainly, the use of my eyes and ears, rather than taking someone else’s word for it”

“When do you plan on starting this? So far all you've done is blown a lot of hot air at it and puked up some Aulis and Sibrel garbage.”

The Aulis site makes a hell of a lot more sense than NASA’s garbage, and thanks to Mr Bart Sibrel, you are all a laughing stock in the eyes of us normal people.

Quote
“Transcripts? So there is no actual alleged video footage of them discussing football scores, for example?”

“Yes.”

When you say yes, do you mean, yes, there is no footage, or yes, there is footage?

Quote
“He suffered from alcoholism and depression for years, and the internet is full of articles on the subject”

“Well done. Shame you don't bother following his media appearances world wide and the rather nice life he leads since he got his act together”

If that’s the case, I’m genuinely pleased for the man. He’s reportedly worth $12million now, so that $5million has gained a lot of interest over the years.

Quote
“I answered this question some time back, but just for your benefit, they could have been meteorites, which everyone agrees, probably came from the moon, but with the fusion layer removed.”

“And how do you think they know they are from the moon?”

Because NASA told them so.

Quote
“Show me some video footage, where they mention something they couldn’t have known in advance.  Although they could have just talked live over the pre-recorded footage, which just shows how gullible you are”

“There is plenty, look for it”

There isn’t any is there. You are making the claim, you know how it works.

Quote
“Take your own advice. Look carefully at the information you are using as your source material and ask yourself if it is actually correct instead of allowing your prejudices to inform your opinion. Otherwise you're the one that's going to continue looking like an idiot”

Wow, what great advice! I started out as a believer, but unlike you I was willing to listen to arguments from both sides, without any prejudice, and as a result, I came to the same conclusion as the vast majority of people who’ve took the time to sift through the mountain of evidence that points to a hoax. Being labelled as idiots by a small group of brainwashed, juvenile name calling individuals doesn’t bother us, as we are in the majority, and the fact that you shout the loudest will never make up for this.

Quote
“Yeah, there are no air-to-ground audio recordings of them discussing sports results”

Are you kidding me?

Quote
“Maybe cambo thinks we're all the same person?”

You are all of the same mind, so what does it matter who said what?

Quote
“The irony is he demands video footage showing something they couldn't have known in advance and he posted a video himself showing exactly that”

Oh, those clouds again, any chance of a satellite image, matching the view from that other window?

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Zakalwe on June 19, 2018, 05:03:26 AM
and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

And there we have it.




As for tangled wires, maybe the scenes you mention, only had one man on wires, or if the men stayed approximately the same distance apart, it would be an easy task to suspend both of them. Helium balloons would be a good solution, in fact the more I think about it, that may well be how they did it.
How big would a helium balloon have to be to suspend a man in a spacesuit?


Are you saying I’m thick because I don’t have a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy?

In fairness, no-one needs to call you thick. Your own ignorance and words does that all by itself.


(http://thequotes.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Mark-Twain-Quote-8-1024x626.jpg)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on June 19, 2018, 05:32:44 AM
Quote
“And again. You'll agree with 'experts' when they agree with you, but you'll dismiss any experts that don't. Typical HB troll”

“4/5 of cambo's links are to aulis, a lying site of scumbaggery, known to invent imaginary "experts" out of whole cloth.”

“He hasn't done any research beyond HB sites, and has clearly seen very little of the record apart from those little clips and pictures they use to prove it was fake.”

“There is absolutely no way to argue with someone who says he's willing to discuss proof but already dismissed anything that disagrees with his conclusions as invalid”

Those sites aren’t for you, as your minds are already made up, but they make interesting reading for the rest of us. I am labelled as a troll, just because I find the evidence pertaining to a hoax to be far more compelling than the evidence I see coming from NASA. Your stubborn refusal to even consider any evidence that goes against NASA’s version of events is typical of you NASA fans, and you will even resort to lying in an attempt to win an argument.

For instance, let’s take a look at the Apollo 16 jump salute, where we observe the sand falling quicker than the bloke in the spacesuit. First, we see the sand leave his boots and fall back to “earth” before he reaches the top of his jump. We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together, and you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.

That doesn’t happen in this case, and some of the sand is higher than the alleged astronauts’ boots, but for some reason it stops and falls back to the ground while he is still rising. His jump would only be the same height as the sand, if it wasn’t for those wires. It’s quite simple to measure how fast the sand and the alleged astronaut fall in relation to each other by simply drawing horizontal lines and counting the number of frames from the upper line to the bottom line, as the object falls. I counted seven frames for the sand and twelve frames for the bloke in the suit, and the only way to debunk this, would be to lie, as this foul mouthed NASA troll has done.



In the first instance of the jump, measuring the sand, the top line appears one frame too early, as the sand is still rising, and the line is also below the true height of the sand, so we have to advance at least two frames to get the sand level with the line. Twelve frames later, after the top line appears, the bottom line appears, but the sand has met the ground three frames earlier. We also observe the smaller particles of sand being buoyed in the air and taking longer to descend. The only explanation for this, is that it was shot on earth with the person being somehow pulled up and suspended in the air to mimic the moons gravity.

So we now have two sets of evidence which are irrefutable proof of fakery and cannot be debunked, without resorting to lying, so let the hand waving begin.

Quote
“let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of  lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems”

Why do you people always have to overcomplicate things? Do you assume that if you make it sound overly technical, we will all run away scratching our heads? First of all, the samples are given out in slivers, for which metal tools are used, and only a very small portion of the alleged moon rocks have been analysed, and the rest are allegedly under lock and key, apart from the ones that have been lost or stolen. As for the pits, it would be easily done with a laser, and Helium 3 would still be present, and in any case, who do you think told the rest of the world they were moon rocks, and why do the alleged samples from the Chinese rover possess different properties to the Nasa samples?

Quote
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”

“Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side”

“Almost missed this one. Notice how cambo has deftly tapdanced away from his previous contentions?”

It seems you’ve missed more than just that one, as I had already openly admitted that the Rover could fold up and be attached to the Lander, and then unfold onto the moon set.

Quote
“I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.”

“That's right; cambo thought it went inside the Descent Stage, showing that he had no real idea how the LM was constructed”

A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour, and the fact that you don’t get it, is not my fault. You really need to get out more often.

Quote
“You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it”

So when did you last unfold a LRV?

Quote
“He pretends that Rover deployment was never an issue”

Wrong, after seeing a documentary on the subject, I could see it was no big deal.

Quote
“and says that his actual concern was the weight load and balance problems that flying with a LRV attached to the LM would cause, even though aerospace designers and flight engineers have had to deal with balance issues since the birth of aviation.”

You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation

Pardon me for saying this, but you come across as being a bit of an airhead, as you go over the same things multiple times, and nothing I say to you seems to sink in. Are you taking medication for this?

Quote
“At every step the bar of 'acceptable proof' will be raised as soon as the one standard he asks for is actually provided. The rover is just one example.”

The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back, and it makes me wonder if you are trying to divert my attention from subjects which you aren’t so comfortable with.

Quote
“There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.

The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence”

Why do you persist in this dumb assumption that everyone involved would need to know? If you were sent to collect moon meteorites, why would you assume you were part of a hoax? If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple. You lot are just too clever for your own good, as you overthink every little detail.

There’ll be thousands of NASA employees who have their doubts, but if they can’t provide any new evidence, then they would just become another HB lunatic. On the other hand, if they did have new evidence, it could turn out to be a major health risk, although there are some who speak out.

=900

Quote
“7   Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?”

The problem is not its ability to launch, but rather did it have the fuel and storage capacity to carry its alleged payload all the way up into orbit.

Quote
“8   Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?”

How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith#Moon

Quote
“9   How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition”

I believe I’ve covered most of that question, and as for the difference in isotope composition, apparently moon and earth rocks are pretty similar in this respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Composition

Quote
“11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?”

A combination of slow motion and supporting wires are being used, to simulate the moons gravity.

Quote
“12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?”

Well my previous answer renders this question moot, but if we pretend there were no wires, then the equation to determine how long it takes in seconds for an object to fall over a given distance is √(2d/g)  so an object falling 1 meter on earth would be the square root of 2x1/9.807 which gives us approximately 0.452 seconds. On the moon it would be 2x1/1.623 which gives us approximately 1.11 seconds. If we then divide the earth time by the moon time, we conclude that the film would need to be played at approximately 0.41x speed to simulate lunar gravity.

After watching a lot of footage with normal movement, without any jumping or skipping, 1.5x speed looks right to me, so I would estimate that the actual speed of the film has been slowed to 2/3s or 67% of its original speed.

Quote
“14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away”

On the whole, I am certain that these people are telling the truth, but they only received transmissions from the vicinity of the moon, which could have been achieved by an unmanned craft, possibly placed there long before the Apollo missions, simply relaying radio transmissions from earth, which would be timed to coincide with what people saw on their TV’s.

Quote
“17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”

It’s that kind of question that amuses us HB’s, as it shows how incredibly gullible you all are. Where is the video showing this footprint being made? Come to think of it, I can’t remember seeing any footage of the alleged astronauts making a clear footprint. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?




Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2018, 06:31:37 AM
You’re right, I don’t trust the science, but it is all we have, as this is the stuff we are taught in schools, and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

Oh yeah, brainwashing, that's what school science is....

Quote
Even if the science is correct, it would only show us that space flight is possible,

Listen to those goalposts being moved.

Quote
Quote
“Just because all you have seen is a few clips on YouTube don't assume they give you anything like the full picture”

I’ve probably seen them all, and I definitely get the picture.

I don't care how many YouTube clips you've seen, have you seen all the film and TV from all the missions?

Quote
“Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD and Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky only seem to exist within the domains of conspiracy websites, as no other references for their names seem be available”

You are right of course, but I wouldn’t expect to find such information on a pro Apollo site.

It has nothing to do with being pro-Apollo or not. Real academics do not resitict themselves to one set of sites and can be verified independently, their place of study, their published thesis that got them the qualification, and any other published works. If they can't be found outside hoax theory sites then it is appropriate to question the legitimacy of their expertise.

Quote
If I read something, I will understand it, whether it’s a lie or not, so don’t come that condescending crap with me young man.

That is plainly absurd. Do you claim to be able to understand anything and everything you read? Can you fully comprehend all the layers of meaning of every sentence you cast your eye over? If you claim yes, I call bullshit, because nobody has the amazing ability to understand literally everything they read. You already admit to limited understanding of various subjects, so you can't then claim full understanding of everything you read.


Quote
The Aulis site makes a hell of a lot more sense than NASA’s garbage, and thanks to Mr Bart Sibrel, you are all a laughing stock in the eyes of us normal people.

Making sense is not the same as being right. Aulis can't even manage to remain consistent in their arguments.

Quote
Because NASA told them so.

Ah yes, because all of geology is just lining up to be told what rocks are. You seriously think geologists the world over can't tell the difference between a rock from Earth and one from the Moon? Explain why it is more ikely that an entire field of science is either incometent or in on a lie than that you might be wrong.

Quote
Wow, what great advice! I started out as a believer,

Oh how tedious. Usual crap.

You started out as a person who didnt understand how things like lunar landings were achieved, read some stuff that said they weren't and clung to that like a blanket because it validated your insecurities as being legitimate concerns about reality rather than limitations in your own understanding that you can't be bothered to recitify.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2018, 06:44:30 AM
Those sites aren’t for you, as your minds are already made up, but they make interesting reading for the rest of us.

You know, my whole exposure to this was actually the Aulis site, their book and their video. I was all set to be convinced it was faked, and I found some of the arguments compelling, but I found the cracks in them pretty quickly. How exactly should we treat someone who performs a complex mathematical analysis which is perfectly correct, but claims to have been able to measure the position of an object in a photo to within 10 microns using a ruler? Or someone who claims the position of a mile-wide rock formation to within 0.1 microns based on a photo with equivalent resolution of 100 metres per pixel?

Quote
I am labelled as a troll, just because I find the evidence pertaining to a hoax to be far more compelling than the evidence I see coming from NASA.

No, you are labelled as a troll because you sarted the entire discussion by dismissing literally everything that disagreed with you as fake before it was even presented, and because you dismiss the expertise of everyone who disagrees with you as 'brainwashing' but accept uncritically the 'experts' who say it was faked.

Quote
We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together,

Now prove that the 'sand' you are looking at is starting off on the same trajectory and velocity as the astronaut. Or explain how this can in fact be possible given the way the 'sand' interacts with his boots.

Quote
and you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.

Provide such evidence.
[/quote]why do the alleged samples from the Chinese rover possess different properties to the Nasa samples?[/quote]

Really? You can't think why rocks from different parts of a moon with a surface area of 38 million square kilometres might be different? Hell I live in a country with an area 150th that size and yet the two ends are on different bedrocks.

Quote
You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

No-one here fails to see that difference.

Quote
If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple.

Really not how science works.

Quote
How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

How much of it? To what depth? What was the pressure on the surface from the descent engine?

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on June 19, 2018, 07:12:23 AM
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on June 19, 2018, 07:48:04 AM
Quote
“And again. You'll agree with 'experts' when they agree with you, but you'll dismiss any experts that don't. Typical HB troll”

“4/5 of cambo's links are to aulis, a lying site of scumbaggery, known to invent imaginary "experts" out of whole cloth.”

“He hasn't done any research beyond HB sites, and has clearly seen very little of the record apart from those little clips and pictures they use to prove it was fake.”

“There is absolutely no way to argue with someone who says he's willing to discuss proof but already dismissed anything that disagrees with his conclusions as invalid”

Those sites aren’t for you, as your minds are already made up, but they make interesting reading for the rest of us. I am labelled as a troll, just because I find the evidence pertaining to a hoax to be far more compelling than the evidence I see coming from NASA. Your stubborn refusal to even consider any evidence that goes against NASA’s version of events is typical of you NASA fans, and you will even resort to lying in an attempt to win an argument.

I gave you specific instances that aulis operators gave incorrect and misleading information, concerning the velocity of the Saturn V vehicle.  You ignored or don't understand. any lay person who reads and isn't able to filter out the BS, you deserve the "interesting reading for the rest of us"
Quote

For instance, let’s take a look at the Apollo 16 jump salute, where we observe the sand falling quicker than the bloke in the spacesuit. First, we see the sand leave his boots and fall back to “earth” before he reaches the top of his jump. We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together, and you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.

That doesn’t happen in this case, and some of the sand is higher than the alleged astronauts’ boots, but for some reason it stops and falls back to the ground while he is still rising. His jump would only be the same height as the sand, if it wasn’t for those wires. It’s quite simple to measure how fast the sand and the alleged astronaut fall in relation to each other by simply drawing horizontal lines and counting the number of frames from the upper line to the bottom line, as the object falls. I counted seven frames for the sand and twelve frames for the bloke in the suit, and the only way to debunk this, would be to lie, as this foul mouthed NASA troll has done.



In the first instance of the jump, measuring the sand, the top line appears one frame too early, as the sand is still rising, and the line is also below the true height of the sand, so we have to advance at least two frames to get the sand level with the line. Twelve frames later, after the top line appears, the bottom line appears, but the sand has met the ground three frames earlier. We also observe the smaller particles of sand being buoyed in the air and taking longer to descend. The only explanation for this, is that it was shot on earth with the person being somehow pulled up and suspended in the air to mimic the moons gravity.

I "count" frames differently than you and no I didn't see the regolith travel higher than the boots, perhaps you could use your expertise in counting and post a video that supports your claim.
Quote

So we now have two sets of evidence which are irrefutable proof of fakery and cannot be debunked, without resorting to lying, so let the hand waving begin.
  No I don't see any irrefutable proof of fakery.
Quote

Quote
“let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of  lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems”

Why do you people always have to overcomplicate things? Do you assume that if you make it sound overly technical, we will all run away scratching our heads? First of all, the samples are given out in slivers, for which metal tools are used, and only a very small portion of the alleged moon rocks have been analysed, and the rest are allegedly under lock and key, apart from the ones that have been lost or stolen. As for the pits, it would be easily done with a laser, and Helium 3 would still be present, and in any case, who do you think told the rest of the world they were moon rocks, and why do the alleged samples from the Chinese rover possess different properties to the Nasa samples?


Not true, The receiving organization requests the amount of sample and should sufficient rock quantity exists, they are sent.  Get your figures straight, and straight figures straight figures never come from aulis
Quote

Quote
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”

“Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side”

“Almost missed this one. Notice how cambo has deftly tapdanced away from his previous contentions?”

It seems you’ve missed more than just that one, as I had already openly admitted that the Rover could fold up and be attached to the Lander, and then unfold onto the moon set.

Quote
“I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.”

“That's right; cambo thought it went inside the Descent Stage, showing that he had no real idea how the LM was constructed”

A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour, and the fact that you don’t get it, is not my fault. You really need to get out more often.

Quote
“You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it”

So when did you last unfold a LRV?

Quote
“He pretends that Rover deployment was never an issue”

Wrong, after seeing a documentary on the subject, I could see it was no big deal.

Quote
“and says that his actual concern was the weight load and balance problems that flying with a LRV attached to the LM would cause, even though aerospace designers and flight engineers have had to deal with balance issues since the birth of aviation.”

You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation

Pardon me for saying this, but you come across as being a bit of an airhead, as you go over the same things multiple times, and nothing I say to you seems to sink in. Are you taking medication for this?

Quote
“At every step the bar of 'acceptable proof' will be raised as soon as the one standard he asks for is actually provided. The rover is just one example.”

The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back, and it makes me wonder if you are trying to divert my attention from subjects which you aren’t so comfortable with.

Quote
“There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.

The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence”

Why do you persist in this dumb assumption that everyone involved would need to know? If you were sent to collect moon meteorites, why would you assume you were part of a hoax? If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple. You lot are just too clever for your own good, as you overthink every little detail.

There’ll be thousands of NASA employees who have their doubts, but if they can’t provide any new evidence, then they would just become another HB lunatic. On the other hand, if they did have new evidence, it could turn out to be a major health risk, although there are some who speak out.

=900

Quote
“7   Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?”

The problem is not its ability to launch, but rather did it have the fuel and storage capacity to carry its alleged payload all the way up into orbit.

Quote
“8   Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?”

How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith#Moon

Quote
“9   How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition”

I believe I’ve covered most of that question, and as for the difference in isotope composition, apparently moon and earth rocks are pretty similar in this respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Composition

Quote
“11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?”

A combination of slow motion and supporting wires are being used, to simulate the moons gravity.

Quote
“12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?”

Well my previous answer renders this question moot, but if we pretend there were no wires, then the equation to determine how long it takes in seconds for an object to fall over a given distance is √(2d/g)  so an object falling 1 meter on earth would be the square root of 2x1/9.807 which gives us approximately 0.452 seconds. On the moon it would be 2x1/1.623 which gives us approximately 1.11 seconds. If we then divide the earth time by the moon time, we conclude that the film would need to be played at approximately 0.41x speed to simulate lunar gravity.

After watching a lot of footage with normal movement, without any jumping or skipping, 1.5x speed looks right to me, so I would estimate that the actual speed of the film has been slowed to 2/3s or 67% of its original speed.

Quote
“14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away”

On the whole, I am certain that these people are telling the truth, but they only received transmissions from the vicinity of the moon, which could have been achieved by an unmanned craft, possibly placed there long before the Apollo missions, simply relaying radio transmissions from earth, which would be timed to coincide with what people saw on their TV’s.

Quote
“17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”

It’s that kind of question that amuses us HB’s, as it shows how incredibly gullible you all are. Where is the video showing this footprint being made? Come to think of it, I can’t remember seeing any footage of the alleged astronauts making a clear footprint. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?

ETA
cambo do a better job of quoting, include the name of the poster.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2018, 11:02:46 AM
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

That's exactly Sibrel's modus operandi. Everything he does is designed to support his version of events. The astronauts who don't swear on the bible have something to hide, the ones that do are going to hell for lying in the face of God.

I have perosnally communicated with Sibrel, and he has no interest in the truth whatsoever. I asked him to provide a reference for one of his claims, and he point blank refused and said I'd have to buy his video. Money and notoriety are all he cares about, and if he has to get it by attaching himself to some people who actually achieved something rather then doing anything worthwhile himself, he doesn't care.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on June 19, 2018, 11:08:31 AM
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

That's exactly Sibrel's modus operandi. Everything he does is designed to support his version of events. The astronauts who don't swear on the bible have something to hide, the ones that do are going to hell for lying in the face of God.

I have perosnally communicated with Sibrel, and he has no interest in the truth whatsoever. I asked him to provide a reference for one of his claims, and he point blank refused and said I'd have to buy his video. Money and notoriety are all he cares about, and if he has to get it by attaching himself to some people who actually achieved something rather then doing anything worthwhile himself, he doesn't care.

i have personally debated as you know on facebook quite a few times. i think roughly the number of people who, as a reply to my question, copied in sibrels movie as if that alone was proof was about 50 percent. to me that is unbelievable. 2 things strike me as odd. 1st that 1 film could provide such proof and 2nd that the all powerful nasa, cia and us government would allow this video to actually exist.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on June 19, 2018, 12:20:38 PM
You’re right, I don’t trust the science...
...I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

And that's why you're ignorant of how things actually work.  You're puzzled by the world, didn't bother to learn much about it, and latch onto charlatans like Sibrel, Bennett, and Percy who only want your money and know very well that they can part you from it by making up juicy conspiracy stories.  There is a segment of the population who will eat it up on that basis alone.

Quote
You are right of course, but I wouldn’t expect to find such information on a pro Apollo site.

Who said anything about "pro-Apollo" sites?  They can't be very well-known experts if the only thing they've ever published in their field is a treatise on how Apollo was faked.  My father spent his entire career as an academic and his publications take up about three feet of shelf space.  I can find them easily in several library catalogs, including the national library catalogs of other countries.  I can speak to others in his field who know of him and are familiar with his work.  This is the nature of expertise in the real world.  It doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Your "experts" on the other hand have nothing to establish them as experts, no one who knows them, and no record of achievement anywhere in the world.  The Aulis authors have, since the 1990s, been making up "experts" and lay witnesses who simply don't exist.  You probably didn't know that. "Bill Wood" (or "Woods") and "Una Ronald" and a whole cast of characters who exist only to lend to the notion that this isn't just a couple of charlatans in England trying to make a quid or two off of people they know will buy anything that sounds conspiratorial and won't bother to check any of the references or evidence.

Quote
Are you saying I’m thick because I don’t have a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy? I think you’ll find there are more people in the world without this knowledge than people who possess it. So does this knowledge make you a better person than most? Of course not, it just makes you the pompous condescending man that you are.

No, that's not the argument.  Your argument is that for most things regarding Apollo we just have to take NASA's word for it.  That's not true.  There are (and were in the 1960s) plenty of people who knew a lot about space and space travel who didn't get it from NASA and can't be fooled by NASA if NASA is wrong.  Those people have to be accounted for in your theory.

Quote
I’m sorry but I can’t find the names of the wire men, but here’s where the wires were probably attached.

Have you ever personally used a theatrical flyrig?

Quote
As for tangled wires, maybe the scenes you mention, only had one man on wires, or if the men stayed approximately the same distance apart...

This is why it's important for you to have seen more than just the odd YouTube clip of astronauts on the lunar surface.  You're proposing stuff that would potentially work for a few seconds, or maybe a minute or two.  But not for the lengthy shots that are in the unedited source material.

Quote
...it would be an easy task to suspend both of them.

Bwahaha!  You've obviously never staged Peter Pan with a flyrig.  Multiple actors on wires "live" on a stage with two dimensions of travel is not possible with theatrical flyrigs today.  I'm certified by Foy to operate multiaxis flyrigs and I've designed and built my own single-axis flyrig.  Since Foy's technology is proprietary, an NDA prevents me from describing it in detail.  But safe to say it works on a gantry principle that can't accommodate more than a single flier without drastically reducing his field of travel.  And that's state of the art.  So please describe a rig that could do what you say.

Quote
Helium balloons would be a good solution, in fact the more I think about it, that may well be how they did it.

That's how they did it for From the Earth to the Moon.  I worked on a film with the grip company that did those effects.  And no, it's not just handwavingly "easy."

Quote
So in what field is your expertise, because it certainly isn’t cloud formations.

Aerospace engineering, along with film and theater as side businesses.  Please tell me what your training and experience is in aerospace engineering.  Please tell me what your training and experience is in professional film and theater.  You're making claims along those lines that would ordinarily be probative only if they came from someone with suitable expertise, to be able to give his informed judgment regarding what is easy, hard, possible, or impossible in those fields.

Quote
It’s already been proven that the footage you got your earth images from, was not shot on the outward journey to the moon, which makes those satellite images false also.

No, it hasn't been proven.  You've just bought Sibrel's line uncritically and are uninterested in why his attempt at proof fails.  Then you're simply begging the question of your belief to insist that any rebuttal against it must somehow be false.  That's as circular as reasoning can get.

Quote
I almost feel terrible, asking you this question, but how can anyone be this gullible?

Most of my sources for Apollo reference are contemporary.  You are trying very hard to hide what is effectively an affirmative rebuttal.  No matter what material is produced that contradicts your belief, your standard rebuttal -- made with no evidence -- is that it must somehow have been faked.  Calling your critics gullible doesn't relieve you of the burden to prove an affirmative rebuttal.

Quote
The Aulis site makes a hell of a lot more sense than NASA’s garbage...

By whose judgment?  I've tried for years to get David Percy and Mary Bennett to debate me interactively, but they always refuse.  They refuse any exercise where they don't get to control what is said by both sides.  You haven't been at this long enough to know this, but they used to operate a forum like this on Aulis.  After I pointed out such things as how photos from one part of Percy's book contradict his "photo rules" in another part, he shut it down.  He clearly can't support his claims.  He just wants you to buy his book and movie and leave him alone after that.  His site "makes sense" only if the reader doesn't know much about how space works and only if Percy doesn't let himself be questioned by people he knows can show the flaws in his claims.

Quote
...thanks to Mr Bart Sibrel, you are all a laughing stock in the eyes of us normal people.

You're by no means normal with respect to how you approach historical questions and evidence.  And no, Bart Sibrel has been completely discredited and his attempted proof thoroughly refuted.  He tried to make a quick buck from Apollo and then realized too late that he was in over his head, and now he's been mostly hiding ever since.  And again you're probably too new at this to remember his film tour.  He took A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon on tour to different theaters in the U.S.  Afterward there was a question-and-answer period, but you only got to ask one question and no followups.  So his answers to the "hard" questions were just more made-up crap that, thanks to his ground rules, would never be questioned further.  As with Bennett and Percy, their schtick requires them to be able to avoid questions they can't answer.

Speaking of gullibility, did you know that his tax records are public?  AFTH LLC, the company he formed to sell his hoax videos, posted a quarter million dollars in revenue for his peak sales year, for a film made almost entirely of royalty-free stock footage.  In other words, it cost him nothing but his time to make.  AFTH LLC's address of record was Sibrel's apartment in Nashville (since torn down, so don't bother Google-mapping it), not any production studio or place of business.  So he took hundreds of thousands of dollars from his customers for a throw-together film he edited in his apartment, and they don't even get to hold him accountable for the accuracy of his facts.  How does that factor into your thinking?

Quote
Wow, what great advice! I started out as a believer, but unlike you I was willing to listen to arguments from both sides...

Hogwash.  Every hoax claimant makes exactly this same argument.  They all started out as believers, but then were dragged against their will to believe reluctantly that it was a hoax.  See, if that story were true then you'd be quite pleased to see how easily the hoax arguments fail when exposed to even cursory scrutiny.  You'd be glad to have your prior belief restored, and you'd thank those who helped that happen.

No, you believe in Apollo hoaxes because you very much want to, and you're fighting tooth and nail to defend that belief.  We've seen this many times before.

Quote
...people who’ve took the time to sift through the mountain of evidence that points to a hoax.

You haven't shown any evidence that you've sifted through the mountain of evidence.  You seem to have steeped yourself only in the cherry-picked bits interpreted by people with no knowledge of what they're looking at and considerable interested in getting money from you.  How does that qualify as a well-rounded experience?

Quote
...as we are in the majority...

What facts demonstrate that the majority of people believe that Apollo missions were hoaxes?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on June 19, 2018, 12:27:04 PM
...the ones that do are going to hell for lying in the face of God.

At the time Sibrel made that film he was a member of a controversial church.  I believe they may be defunct now.  But at the time they were notorious for aggressive on-campus preaching and were banned from several college campuses for alleged brainwashy cult tactics.  Apparently there was some really scary, really Fundamentalist stuff going on there.  That's the background for Sibrel's religious tone in that film.

Quote
I have perosnally communicated with Sibrel, and he has no interest in the truth whatsoever. I asked him to provide a reference for one of his claims, and he point blank refused and said I'd have to buy his video. Money and notoriety are all he cares about, and if he has to get it by attaching himself to some people who actually achieved something rather then doing anything worthwhile himself, he doesn't care.

That has been exactly my experience with him too.  He wants nothing but money and fame and he's not the least bothered by lying through his teeth to get it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2018, 12:47:31 PM
2 things strike me as odd. 1st that 1 film could provide such proof and 2nd that the all powerful nasa, cia and us government would allow this video to actually exist.

That's just conspiracy theorists in general for you. NASA/the CIA/US Government/RAND Corporation/whoever have to be both clever enough to pull off a hoax that fools the world, and yet inept enough to leave it full of inconsistencies that give the game away (like bright, gleaming wires that flash under studio lights that even major film studios haven't ever used for far more elaborate flying effects, precisely because the gleam makes them show up), and unable to silence anyone who publishes stuff about it.

Years ago a chap called Bill Kaysing spent a lot of time making the claim Apollo was fake. He claimed the mass media was controlled and so stuff like his was being silenced. He made that claim using the very mass media he said was controlled. He published his address. He lived alone. And yet, somehow, NASA or whoever could neither silence his media presence (as he claimed they were doing), prevent his book being published, or even arrange his 'accidental' death in a bizarre cat-and-gasoline-related incident in his trailer. He died of natural causes in his seventies a few years ago.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on June 19, 2018, 12:52:28 PM
I'm not going to respond directly to Cambo until he makes it clear to whom he's talking.  But I will say that I'm pretty sure people mocked on The Daily Show aren't more believable to the average person.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on June 19, 2018, 02:16:03 PM
Picking just one point from the "wall o' text", since I think it might be in response to one of my posts :
Quote
“If you're going to claim that "gravitational slingshots" (gravitational assist manoeuvres) don't work, then you'll need to do more than just make vague statements like "I don't believe they work" or "I don't think gravity works the same in space" - or whatever nonsense it is you're proposing.  You need to show the flaw in the mathematics and physics.  You need to show your calculations of what happens when a spacecraft passes close to a planet.  Until you can do those things, you're just another random person who doesn't "believe in science" and who isn't prepared to learn enough about it to argue their point coherently.”

You’re right, I don’t trust the science, but it is all we have, as this is the stuff we are taught in schools, and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.
Science, if you had bothered to spend any time actually finding out, is not about "brainwashing", or about having to "believe" what you're told.  Science is all about reproducibility, about testability, and about documenting observations and measurements.

If you want, for example, to figure out how objects accelerate due to gravity, you can do experiments.  Nowadays, with easily available cheap video cameras and phones, accurate digital timing etc., it's a lot easier to get all the data you need than when I did it at school about 50 years ago!  Anyone can do it, check the results, do the calculations, and confirm that gravity does exist, and it does work exactly as we've been told for hundreds of years.  Just because you "don't believe" that planets, moons and spacecraft move the way they do, doesn't invalidate the physics of gravity.

And the same applies to a lot of other parts of physics, and to other fields of science as well, if you're prepared to do the work.  You can do experiments, make measurements, and check on most things.  Science isn't some opaque, obscure, ritualistic belief system, it's something that anyone can, and should, do, if they have any doubts about it.  Even if you dropped out of school, you can still learn - if you're willing to make the effort...

Quote
Even if the science is correct, it would only show us that space flight is possible, but in no way would it be proof that these events have actually took place. In the case of Apollo, Surely the visual record is the only source of real evidence, as without this evidence, we would only have NASA’s word.
There's a lot more than just the visual record (by which I assume you mean the photos, film and video), although you seem determined to dismiss all of it without any real analysis.  The fact that such an extensive and detailed record exists can't easily be ignored, especially when it's not just "NASA" providing us with evidence.  A huge array of information, from people all over the world, in many different disciplines, both from the time of the missions, and in subsequent analysis, supports the case that Apollo happened.

Bottom line, science works, whether you believe in it or not, whether you like it or not.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on June 19, 2018, 02:51:11 PM
Science, if you had bothered to spend any time actually finding out, is not about "brainwashing", or about having to "believe" what you're told.  Science is all about reproducibility, about testability, and about documenting observations and measurements.

This, a million times over. I wasn't 'brainwashed' in school to see experiments and activities I did perform inc ertain ways for deducible reasons, any more than I was 'brainwashed' into believing 2+2=4. Science is not some arcane crap done by boffins in white coats, it's the foundation of everything you do in life, and it gets into everything in ways you arent even aware of. I've seen people claim quantum physics is bunk on the internet, whch depends on quantum physics to function in the first place....

Quote
especially when it's not just "NASA" providing us with evidence.

Boeing, IBM, Douglas, North American Aviation, Grumman... just five major private industry players in Apollo who either are in on the fraud or else built stuff that actually worked for NASA because no-one told them it was a fraud, and were good enough to document their processes extensively.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on June 19, 2018, 03:44:40 PM
2 things strike me as odd. 1st that 1 film could provide such proof and 2nd that the all powerful nasa, cia and us government would allow this video to actually exist.

That's just conspiracy theorists in general for you. NASA/the CIA/US Government/RAND Corporation/whoever have to be both clever enough to pull off a hoax that fools the world, and yet inept enough to leave it full of inconsistencies that give the game away (like bright, gleaming wires that flash under studio lights that even major film studios haven't ever used for far more elaborate flying effects, precisely because the gleam makes them show up), and unable to silence anyone who publishes stuff about it.

Years ago a chap called Bill Kaysing spent a lot of time making the claim Apollo was fake. He claimed the mass media was controlled and so stuff like his was being silenced. He made that claim using the very mass media he said was controlled. He published his address. He lived alone. And yet, somehow, NASA or whoever could neither silence his media presence (as he claimed they were doing), prevent his book being published, or even arrange his 'accidental' death in a bizarre cat-and-gasoline-related incident in his trailer. He died of natural causes in his seventies a few years ago.

rene was the same. the only people they had to convince was enough to buy their stuff. luckily for them there are enough people that want to believe it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bobdude11 on June 19, 2018, 06:31:22 PM
Quote from: cambo
... you will even resort to lying in an attempt to win an argument.

 Attempt to deflect from self noted.

Quote from: cambo
Why do you people always have to overcomplicate things? ...

Lack of understanding on your part does not constitute 'over complication' on anyone else's part.
Perhaps if you had stayed in school and actually learned basics, it wouldn't be so confusing.

I am not anywhere near anyone's level on this site, but, I understand most of the science; of course, math being a weakness for me I entered the InfoSec industry (to include getting my MBA in this discipline and my CISSP (99487)) instead of Space/Aerospace/Rocket sciences, Engineering or disciplines even remotely close to those.
 
InfoSec requires math, but we generally have tools that help do the calculations ... I just have to understand the formulas - that can be a struggle for me.

Here's the catch: My lack of understanding of the math, the formulas and everything related is on ME; it does not imply, insinuate, impeach, or otherwise discredit ALL of the learned people here.
 Instead, it is due to my lack of effort or due diligence to learn the higher order mathematics (Trig, Calculus, Geometry, etc.). 

Everyone on here that explains things and references and/or includes the math does so because they have taken the time and effort to learn it. They have degreed in the related disciplines and have practical experience using them.

They are helping me to try and understand some of this (thank you all, BTW).

I don't, for even a millisecond, believe that because they do this, it means they are 'over complicating' things.

Rather, they are attempting to educate those of us who may not understand the math, but still understand the science (or not)

 I did do well in physical sciences in High School and some college level, just not well in the math portions; I was part of a team so I was able to utilize a team member to help write that part of our reports.

I was part of the testing (observation, note taking, data gathering, and other aspects) portion and knew from the observation and the results that sometimes, my hypothesis/theory(ies) were wrong.

I explained that in our reports and based it on my personal experiences and referenced the math where required.

Further, these experiences have helped tremendously in my chosen Information Security discipline as I learned how to observe, formulate a theory, evaluate and test to prove/disprove my theory(ies).

I did NOT learn to generate a theory and then only find evidence to prove me right. That is not science, it is hoax theory. Instead, I do not dismiss anything or anyone that may prove me wrong.

 I may be hard headed and resistant at first, but I listen, re-evaluate my stance and correct myself if proven wrong, or if able to prove my position, provide the evidence to show why I was correct.

I am disappointed when I see someone that attempts to hand-wave away any education I have because: 'science'.


Quote
It seems you’ve missed more than just that one, as I had already openly admitted that the Rover could fold up and be attached to the Lander, and then unfold onto the moon set.

Nope. You have attempted to back pedal from your previous statements. You claimed you had to see the blueprints (which, based on your postings to date, I don't actually believe you would understand if you had them) to prove to you that the Rover did what is has already proven it could do. See quotes below:

Quote
“I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.”

“That's right; cambo thought it went inside the Descent Stage, showing that he had no real idea how the LM was constructed”

Quote from: cambo
A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour, and the fact that you don’t get it, is not my fault. You really need to get out more often.

You made a statement. I read it. I love humor (or humour for my friends in the UK). Love it. Your statement was not humor (not even subtle) - you made the statement, own it, admit you misspoke and let's move on.

Quote
“You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it”

Quote from: cambo
So when did you last unfold a LRV?

When did you? You missed the point of the statement, entirely.

Quote
“He pretends that Rover deployment was never an issue”

Quote from: cambo
Wrong, after seeing a documentary on the subject, I could see it was no big deal.

Double wrong on you. You made the statements. Instead of trying to play it off, own it, admit you erred and let's move on.

Quote
“and says that his actual concern was the weight load and balance problems that flying with a LRV attached to the LM would cause, even though aerospace designers and flight engineers have had to deal with balance issues since the birth of aviation.”

Quote from: cambo
You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation

Pardon me for saying this, but you come across as being a bit of an airhead, as you go over the same things multiple times, and nothing I say to you seems to sink in. Are you taking medication for this?
Yes and no. The principal of CG, pitch, yaw, roll, energy, thrust, etc. still apply. Even someone like myself can understand that. Why can't you? Why do you insist on ad hominem attacks when proven incapable of following a simple, proven principle of science?

Quote
“At every step the bar of 'acceptable proof' will be raised as soon as the one standard he asks for is actually provided. The rover is just one example.”

Quote from: cambo
The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back, and it makes me wonder if you are trying to divert my attention from subjects which you aren’t so comfortable with.

Yes it did. Back when Apollo deployed and used it on the Moon; in front of a WORLDWIDE audience. You are the only one that insists that blueprints are the ONLY way to prove it existed/worked as designed.

Quote
“There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.

The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence”

Quote from: cambo
Why do you persist in this dumb assumption that everyone involved would need to know? If you were sent to collect moon meteorites, why would you assume you were part of a hoax? If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple. You lot are just too clever for your own good, as you overthink every little detail.

There’ll be thousands of NASA employees who have their doubts, but if they can’t provide any new evidence, then they would just become another HB lunatic. On the other hand, if they did have new evidence, it could turn out to be a major health risk, although there are some who speak out.

Why do you insist that only a limited number would know? You fail to understand a simple concept, one person, just one, that knows will inevitably tell another. It is human nature to want to impress someone. That aside, the project was a HUGE undertaking; almost half a million folks involved at one point. I guarantee this: if even ONE (1) of them knew this was fake, the WORLD would know for sure. The Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury records (not to mention SkyLab, Space Shuttle, ISS, etc.) ALL speak for themselves. Because you cannot fathom that fact, does not invalidate them, only you.


Quote
“7   Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?”

Quote from: cambo
The problem is not its ability to launch, but rather did it have the fuel and storage capacity to carry its alleged payload all the way up into orbit.

To quote my lawyer friend: 'Asked and answered' - in this case at '... Pad A, Launch Complex 39, Kennedy Space Center, Fla., on Nov. 9, 1967. Credit: NASA.' (quote from: https://www.space.com/18505-nasa-moon-rocket-saturn-v-history.html)

Quote
“8   Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?”

Quote from: cambo
How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith#Moon

Citing a source that states we went to the Moon to prove we didn't go to the Moon circular logic noted.

Quote
“9   How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition”

Quote from: cambo
I believe I’ve covered most of that question, and as for the difference in isotope composition, apparently moon and earth rocks are pretty similar in this respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Composition

Referencing a source that discusses the samples taken from the Moon to prove we did not go to the Moon. Circular logic #2 noted.

Quote
“11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?”

Quote from: cambo
A combination of slow motion and supporting wires are being used, to simulate the moons gravity.

Prove it. Show your math. I guarantee I won't understand it, but I know others here will. Show your evidence (the 'It didn't happen because: 'disbelief' is old, tired, and used up)

Quote
“12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?”

Quote from: cambo
Well my previous answer renders this question moot, but if we pretend there were no wires, then the equation to determine how long it takes in seconds for an object to fall over a given distance is √(2d/g)  so an object falling 1 meter on earth would be the square root of 2x1/9.807 which gives us approximately 0.452 seconds. On the moon it would be 2x1/1.623 which gives us approximately 1.11 seconds. If we then divide the earth time by the moon time, we conclude that the film would need to be played at approximately 0.41x speed to simulate lunar gravity.

After watching a lot of footage with normal movement, without any jumping or skipping, 1.5x speed looks right to me, so I would estimate that the actual speed of the film has been slowed to 2/3s or 67% of its original speed.

Looks can be deceiving. You also forgot to quote your source on the paragraph with the math (the one in italics).

Quote
“14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away”

Quote from: cambo
On the whole, I am certain that these people are telling the truth, but they only received transmissions from the vicinity of the moon, which could have been achieved by an unmanned craft, possibly placed there long before the Apollo missions, simply relaying radio transmissions from earth, which would be timed to coincide with what people saw on their TV’s.

Even I know this a bogus statement, and I am not even an expert in this area!

Quote
“17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”

Quote from: cambo
It’s that kind of question that amuses us HB’s, as it shows how incredibly gullible you all are. Where is the video showing this footprint being made? Come to think of it, I can’t remember seeing any footage of the alleged astronauts making a clear footprint. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?

Where is the video showing this was faked? Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing you there when it was made. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?

My questions to you are simple:

What do you hope to gain from this?

What is your payoff?

-and-

How is that working for you?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on June 19, 2018, 07:45:19 PM

You’re right, I don’t trust the science, but it is all we have, as this is the stuff we are taught in schools, and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

What the heck kind of job allows having a separate reality? I spent a lifetime in the trades, and here's the trick; the science works. That's why we keep using it. It isn't something learned in school and never used again. It isn't something that only happens on the Moon to someone you've never met. Physics is physics, optics is optics, geometry is geometry, materials are materials.


Even if the science is correct, it would only show us that space flight is possible, but in no way would it be proof that these events have actually took place. In the case of Apollo, Surely the visual record is the only source of real evidence, as without this evidence, we would only have NASA’s word.

No. There are multiple lines of evidence. The visual record gets referenced by hoax believers because, frankly, they aren't smart enough to deal with anything other than pretty pictures.


Quote
“Your contention was that NASA was needed to determine the position of earth as seen from the moon. I said that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy doesn't need NASA. If that doesn't include you, that's not my fault.”

Are you saying I’m thick because I don’t have a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy? I think you’ll find there are more people in the world without this knowledge than people who possess it. So does this knowledge make you a better person than most? Of course not, it just makes you the pompous condescending man that you are.

Very poor paraphrase. The question of competence isn't an independent value judgement, it is a specific requirement of the evidence in question. None of us know everything. I know so little of football I can't even name the local teams. Does that make me an idiot? Well, perhaps to some! The important thing is, would it matter if I was applying for a job as sportscaster!



As for tangled wires, maybe the scenes you mention, only had one man on wires, or if the men stayed approximately the same distance apart, it would be an easy task to suspend both of them. Helium balloons would be a good solution, in fact the more I think about it, that may well be how they did it.

Italics mine. They don't. That's the basic problem the hoax believers are facing; the actual visual record is long contiguous footage. What works to fake a single moment doesn't work within the context of the actual full shot.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on June 19, 2018, 07:54:58 PM
Two random thoughts:

"Pro-Apollo sites" -- this is why there's no antonym to the term "alternative medicine." There's medicine which is untested, unproven, uncertain. And then there's......medicine. Apollo is exactly and entirely consistent, in width and in depth, with everything that is scientific and/or technical. Aerospace methods, observational astronomy, software standards, trigonometry...whatever. There's not a need for a "pro Apollo" site. There's just....the rest of the world that isn't a conspiracy believer site (or bad sci-fi).

The other is -- counting frames? On a YouTube sourced clip of unknown provenance that originated long ago in an analog transfer from an non-NTSC standard source?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on June 19, 2018, 08:12:00 PM
Last random thought: Theatrical flight is a lot of misdirection, basically. First show I remember working that had flight in it was Peter Pan. Peter flies through window, up to top of a dresser, back to the floor, the Darlings all lift off, gather together, fly out through the window.

Or, rather, that's the impression you get from the audience. Actually, it was done with four single-point wires and an upstage tracking rig and all of that freedom and flexibility is an illusion brought on by careful choreography and manipulation of basic physics.

Peter alights the first time just inside the window frame, and while focus is on Wendy a tech unclips him from the US rig and attaches him to a rig with a pick point far DS of him. The window box is elevated; thus, when he "lifts off" from the window he pendulums across the stage and the tech only has to lower him at the apex of his downstage arc. Similar trick getting him back to ground. The Darlings are all rigged far upstage of their beds and when they do the first tentative "hops" they are holding on to the beds for dear life so they don't immediately get dragged upstage! They join hands not because it looks cool but because that's the only way to force their motion to arc through the window. Which, in our production, split in the middle and was dragged out of the way as their flight over London began.

You look at the lunar surface video and, yeah, there's setups you could do to achieve certain moments but every single one is violated by what the astronauts are seen doing next. Even the simplest jump violates theatrical flight as the astronaut changes their pivot point in the middle of their flight -- an absolute impossibility when you are talking about something physically attached to an actor.

(The closest thing to a gimbal you can get is with two clips at basically either side of the waist, at the center of gravity, and they go to a plate which can freely rotate. So the actor can tumble and can spin. But they can NOT lean. There's two axes, two fixed axes. That's it.)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 20, 2018, 03:30:26 AM
I really cba to pick through the bones of cambo's latest collection of canards, but in reference to the stuff I've posted for him, his position shifts so often I'm not sure he knows what it is anymore.

First there was no matching meteorology. Then it matched but only because they guessed. Now it seems they match but only because they faked the satellite images. That's right, the satellite images that were broadcast from orbit so that anyone with a receiver could get them and which were then distributed to meteorological agencies world wide were somehow edited retrospectively when they brought out Apollo images showing Earth, or broadcast them live on TV. He seems to have settled for a position where they faked the images of Earth, then faked the satellite imagery to match the fake Apollo images, which is beyond dumb.

Most of cambo's other responses to my points are him pretending he hasn't had a response, and mistaking short answers as non-answers instead of "stop being a lazy dumbass and do your own legwork".

When I asked him to provide an answer that made sense I wasn't expecting to get one, so I shouldn't be surprised that I did't. He should have stuck to the standard HB response of pretending he hadn't seen the question. Probably best if you continue to let other people do your thinking for you cambo, it clearly isn't working for you when you try and do it for yourself. You have made no effort to account for meteorological fingerprints in Apollo images other than jerk your knee, and have made no effort at all to prove that the satellite record does not match the Apollo imagery.

"Because I said so" is not an acceptable response - if it was, my website would have taken a lot less time to put together.


Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Zakalwe on June 20, 2018, 05:33:41 AM
Cambo has taken the gish-gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop) to new lows.

Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid


Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on June 20, 2018, 08:41:57 AM
Cambo has taken the gish-gallop (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop) to new lows.

Hey Cambo...what is, in your opinion, the strongest piece of "evidence" that lead you to believe in the hoax nonsense? Just one please..the one that you think is the absolute strongest and the most solid

All of them, Katie.

I mean, you know that’s going to be the response, much like a squid squirting a cloud of ink while running away.  I don’t think cambo’s capable of following a single argument. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on June 20, 2018, 08:53:36 AM


Another video for cambo, this one from Apollo 7.  Interested to hear what kind of wire rigs were used to fake this one. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on June 20, 2018, 10:54:44 AM
I'm not going to respond directly to Cambo until he makes it clear to whom he's talking.  But I will say that I'm pretty sure people mocked on The Daily Show aren't more believable to the average person.


I feel the same way as I indicated in my previous post.  No one but cambo knows who the comments are directed.

His wall-o-text is still boring.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on June 20, 2018, 11:04:13 AM
I'm tired of picking my comments out of his wall of spam. It's a lot of work, and he does it that way on purpose. It's a tactic of his, and I refuse to play any more. That, and his ad hominem attacks let any reader know who the real winner of this debate is.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on June 20, 2018, 11:16:09 AM
I get the impression he's more raging against the machine than actually cogently trying to argue a point.  That would explain the wall o' screed.  He said flatly that he doesn't much care who he's talking to, since he thinks were all interchangeably "of one mind."
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on June 20, 2018, 12:58:36 PM
The thing is, if you pick a topic that's actually a matter of opinion, you could doubtless get an array of opinions from us.  (For example--I don't actually like Kubrick films much!)  His fault if he happens to be attempting to challenge fact, where we all agree because we have enough sense to see which way the evidence points.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on June 20, 2018, 01:11:07 PM
I'm tired of picking my comments out of his wall of spam. It's a lot of work, and he does it that way on purpose. It's a tactic of his, and I refuse to play any more. That, and his ad hominem attacks let any reader know who the real winner of this debate is.
I'm not sure he is actually doing it on purpose.  It's more likely, given his disdain for any kind of science or technology, that he's just unable to learn how to use the quote feature properly.

His very infrequent posting, about once a week, and the time it must take to add quote marks to all the quoted snippets, leads me to think he's spending hours manually putting his posts together, rather than learning how to use the tools provided for the job.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: AtomicDog on June 20, 2018, 02:02:31 PM
There
I'm tired of picking my comments out of his wall of spam. It's a lot of work, and he does it that way on purpose. It's a tactic of his, and I refuse to play any more. That, and his ad hominem attacks let any reader know who the real winner of this debate is.
I'm not sure he is actually doing it on purpose.  It's more likely, given his disdain for any kind of science or technology, that he's just unable to learn how to use the quote feature properly.

His very infrequent posting, about once a week, and the time it must take to add quote marks to all the quoted snippets, leads me to think he's spending hours manually putting his posts together, rather than learning how to use the tools provided for the job.

There's nothing stopping him from making an individual reply to an individual post. That's actually easier than the way he is doing  it; just like you did to my post. I'm sorry, I think he's doing it intentionally.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 20, 2018, 05:03:20 PM
I get the impression he's more raging against the machine than actually cogently trying to argue a point.  That would explain the wall o' screed.  He said flatly that he doesn't much care who he's talking to, since he thinks were all interchangeably "of one mind."

A great band.



I always have a mental image of all CT's listening to the above genre of music on loop, but I admit to still finding pleasure in the same music, despite my late middle age.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 20, 2018, 05:07:42 PM
I'm tired of picking my comments out of his wall of spam. It's a lot of work, and he does it that way on purpose. It's a tactic of his, and I refuse to play any more. That, and his ad hominem attacks let any reader know who the real winner of this debate is.

I gave up with the continued wall of spam along with finding his 'arguments' being less than compelling. They are straight from the book of un4g1v3n1 of Dwane Damon (StrayDog02) from YouTube, back in the heady days, but less vitriolic in content. The whole anti-establishment tact is boring. The irony being it that he is communicating with the world on the back of the science he dismisses as brainwashing and bogus.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Luke Pemberton on June 20, 2018, 05:09:57 PM
His very infrequent posting, about once a week, and the time it must take to add quote marks to all the quoted snippets, leads me to think he's spending hours manually putting his posts together, rather than learning how to use the tools provided for the job.

I concur. I really cannot be bothered to engage with the wall of text, it is too time consuming to work out where he has replied to me, along with his whole anti-establishment approach.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: ka9q on June 21, 2018, 04:09:42 PM
As an afterthought - have any amateurs done any work on receiving imagery from e.g. lunar orbiting spacecraft?  I know there were plenty listening in on Apollo audio transmissions, and there was some recent work by amateurs to get a defunct satellite back into action again, so it might, in theory be possible.  (I've just bought a cheap SDR dongle to make a weather satellite receiver, so technically it could be possible.)
Probably not, though each case has to be individually analyzed. Modern digital communications tends to be all or nothing. Either you have an antenna big enough (and a receiver quiet enough) to receive a signal with a certain power and data rate over a given distance or you don't. Modern lunar and planetary probes generally store up their data and then transmit it to earth at prearranged times at the highest data rate that the intended receiver can handle. Unless you have an equally good (or better) receiving station nearby at the same time, you won't get anything.

Depending on how they are designed, you may get certain components of a deep space signal. For example, some years ago the AMSAT-DL group used the 20m dish at Bochum, Germany, to receive Voyager 1's carrier signal. The link budget was far too poor to permit actual reception of data. However, it was still a pretty good accomplishment. The same dish is routinely used to receive the real time science downlink from the STEREO spacecraft because the data rate is low and continuous. It can't receive the high speed dumps to the DSN.

The Apollo signals were all analog, except for telemetry (a fairly primitive digital format). The hams who received the CSM in lunar orbit only got the voice on a narrow band FM (frequency modulated) subcarrier on a PM (phase modulated) main carrier. The PM modulation index was low enough that the NBFM subcarrier could be extracted separately from the rest of the composite signal (telemetry, ranging, etc).

Video was completely out of the question as it required wideband FM on the main carrier. Larry Baysinger got Neil Armstrong's voice by listening to the VHF AM transmitter on his backpack, not Eagle's wideband FM transmission to earth on S-band.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: ka9q on June 21, 2018, 11:43:14 PM
Pure oxygen at 5 psi is the same oxygen pressure as air at 15 psi.
Side comment. Sea level atmospheric pressure is 101.325 kPa. O2 is 20.95% of this, so that's a partial pressure of 21.228 kPa. However, the fire hazard doesn't depend solely on the O2 partial pressure. Diluent gases (like nitrogen and argon) conduct heat away from a fire, so the fire hazard in a pure O2 atmosphere is somewhat greater than in a mixed gas atmosphere with the same O2 partial pressure.

A good demonstration film of this exists from one of the Sealab experiments in saturation diving. It was impossible to light matches because the large amount of helium conducted heat away from the flame. (Helium is also a better conductor of heat than either nitrogen or oxygen.)

All said, I doubt Apollo 15's feather was seen as much of a fire hazard.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on June 22, 2018, 07:22:50 AM
As an afterthought - have any amateurs done any work on receiving imagery from e.g. lunar orbiting spacecraft?

...
Probably not, though each case has to be individually analyzed. Modern digital communications tends to be all or nothing. Either you have an antenna big enough (and a receiver quiet enough) to receive a signal with a certain power and data rate over a given distance or you don't. Modern lunar and planetary probes generally store up their data and then transmit it to earth at prearranged times at the highest data rate that the intended receiver can handle. Unless you have an equally good (or better) receiving station nearby at the same time, you won't get anything.

<snip for brevity>
Thanks - most informative.  I dabble in electronics, but haven't much experience with RF stuff, so it was a bit of a punt.  I suppose if I could get my hands on a nice big dish and the right receivers, I could give it a go*  ;D

Meantime I'll try setting up the SDR dongle for weather satellites, which I've read I can do with a smaller, hand-made antenna.  Currently I'm having fun tracking aircraft in the area from ADS-B transmissions.

[ * funnily enough, there's a few big dishes, up to 3.7m, at the receiving station just across from my office - although I don't think they'll let me play with them...  ;) ]
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Kiwi on June 22, 2018, 10:23:44 AM
Great Wall of Text deleted – the following is from the last paragraph in the post.

Where is the video showing this footprint being made? Come to think of it, I can’t remember seeing any footage of the alleged astronauts making a clear footprint.

I have to guess that you are referring to the five boot print photos that Buzz Aldrin took, AS11-40-5876 to 5880. Is that correct? If it is, when at the ALSJ (link below), click on the Apollo 11 Image Library (5th link down in "Background Material") and examine the captions and links for each to learn more.

Your comments tell me that you are not a very good researcher and perhaps more likely to study a hoax-promoter's web page than go to the great wealth of genuine information that is available.

Anyway, try this - it's exactly what I did and how I got to the appropriate information in less than 90 seconds. Note that I used "print" only so that I didn't have to search for "boot print/bootprint" and "foot print/footprint". 

1./ Go to the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/

2./ Click on Apollo 11.

3./ Open the part of the journal titled Mobility and Photography. That name is a clue that Armstrong and Aldrin are moving around and taking photos, so it's a good place to start.

4./ Open the search function in your browser (I press Control-F).

5./ Type in "print" without the quote marks and tell the function to search for it (press Enter).

6./ The first hit is at Ground Elapsed Time 110:21:24 in the word "footprints" when Buzz describes to Houston the visual effects of transiting from sunlight to shadow. While it's nothing to do with the deliberate boot prints he made for the soil experts, it is still an interesting section because in his last comment he prevents one of many potential disasters produced by man on the lunar surface; and a few minutes before, starting at 110:18:37, he describes the effects of kicking the lunar soil for the experts in Houston. You can also view this in the 16mm colour film. Note that these tasks are listed in the checklist ("Dust / Pene-Photo Footprint") that's sewn onto the upper part of his outer glove – you can also view that by clicking on the links.

7./ Hit No. 2 is at 110:22:51 "Note that each of the bootprints is 33 cm long and has a greatest width of 15 cm.", but still not what we want.

8./ The 3rd to 15th hits are between 110:23:32 and 110:25:41, and cover what we want, the Bootprint Penetration Experiment for the soil mechanics experts. Enjoy!

The info is highly detailed and documented with many links, to which you seem to object, but that is exactly what helps convince many of us that the Apollo missions occurred as history describes. Note that Buzz is mostly out of the movie frame during this task (possibly because Stanley Kubrick couldn't fit inside the LM and direct exactly where Buzz should go to be in-frame :-)), but at least there is a little backup on the 16mm film which corroborates his explanations and photographs.

You could view all the Apollo 11 film and video on a large TV screen if you get hold of the 3-DVD set "Apollo 11: Men on the Moon" from Spacecraft Films. It's discounted to US$29.99 at the moment. Here are the details: https://spacehistory.tv/blog/?product=apollo-11-men-on-the-moon

Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?

I can't at all see anything "ridiculously insane" about this boot print argument. Could you please enlarge on that comment? I would like to understand why you've said that. Perhaps you just don't know enough about it (which is the most common trait of hoax-believers), and I hope this post helps you remedy that.

And by the way, can you please learn to use the quote button at the top right of every post here, as I have done above with the final comment in your post?  The little black bit above the quote is actually a hot link which puts us right in the exact post. Isn't that marvellous?

Many of us here use that button and you have had so many requests to join in but have not done so. By clicking on the quote link at the top of this post, you'll be able to see see how it's done, by copying and pasting the beginning and ending code in the quote. Just do it yourself with all quotes. If I (long-term invalid and doddery old fart who watched Sputnik 1 pass above New Zealand) can figure it out, surely you can.


Edited to add: Don't miss the two quotes below. My all-time favourites.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: twik on June 22, 2018, 11:57:15 AM
You’re right, I don’t trust the science...
...I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

And that's why you're ignorant of how things actually work.  You're puzzled by the world, didn't bother to learn much about it, and latch onto charlatans like Sibrel, Bennett, and Percy who only want your money and know very well that they can part you from it by making up juicy conspiracy stories.  There is a segment of the population who will eat it up on that basis alone.

Quote
You are right of course, but I wouldn’t expect to find such information on a pro Apollo site.

Who said anything about "pro-Apollo" sites?  They can't be very well-known experts if the only thing they've ever published in their field is a treatise on how Apollo was faked.  My father spent his entire career as an academic and his publications take up about three feet of shelf space.  I can find them easily in several library catalogs, including the national library catalogs of other countries.  I can speak to others in his field who know of him and are familiar with his work.  This is the nature of expertise in the real world.  It doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Your "experts" on the other hand have nothing to establish them as experts, no one who knows them, and no record of achievement anywhere in the world.  The Aulis authors have, since the 1990s, been making up "experts" and lay witnesses who simply don't exist.  You probably didn't know that. "Bill Wood" (or "Woods") and "Una Ronald" and a whole cast of characters who exist only to lend to the notion that this isn't just a couple of charlatans in England trying to make a quid or two off of people they know will buy anything that sounds conspiratorial and won't bother to check any of the references or evidence.

Popular media doesn't give the public much of an idea of how science or scientists work. The idea that you could have "outstanding experts" with no paper trail outside the conspiracy community just isn't feasible. It's a "publish or perish" world in academia. If you're an expert, people read your stuff and expand on it. If no one has ever cited your work, you're not an expert.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on June 22, 2018, 12:50:28 PM
Popular media doesn't give the public much of an idea of how science or scientists work. The idea that you could have "outstanding experts" with no paper trail outside the conspiracy community just isn't feasible. It's a "publish or perish" world in academia. If you're an expert, people read your stuff and expand on it. If no one has ever cited your work, you're not an expert.

That's why I think the current Aulis webmasters cleverly refer only to Russian experts, which they can argue would be difficult for American critics to vet.  We get no record of him because we're just not able to see into Russian academic circles.  Except that's not the case.  Even back in the 1980s I was working with an American professor of Russian to translate technical papers in space engineering.  He wanted to be able to translate them into the proper English terms.  American and Russian academics in space research are quite well aware of each other, and have been for decades.  The more likely excuse for an alleged Russian researcher not to have any discernible academic record is that he doesn't exist.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Count Zero on June 22, 2018, 01:17:18 PM
His very infrequent posting, about once a week...

Maybe that's when the attendants at his facility give him computer time.



;)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: MBDK on June 22, 2018, 02:35:28 PM
Hey!  You referenced my footer!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on November 15, 2018, 07:51:30 PM
Quote from: Jason Thompson
I don't care how many YouTube clips you've seen, have you seen all the film and TV from all the missions?

 By now, I can honestly say I’ve seen pretty much everything, and although all the moon footage is obviously faked, there are however, the odd on-board scenes from the earlier missions which look quite impressive, which shows they really did have balls back then, risking their lives, pushing that Vomit Comet to its absolute limits. Adding slow motion adds to the duration of some of the clips, so I can understand why a lot of the moon deniers still believe in manned space flight.

Quote
If I read something, I will understand it, whether it’s a lie or not

Quote from: Jason Thompson
That is plainly absurd. Do you claim to be able to understand anything and everything you read?

OK I worded that wrong, what I should have said was, if I read something, I will first make sure I have at least a basic understanding of what I’m reading before discussing the subject.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
Ah yes, because all of geology is just lining up to be told what rocks are. You seriously think geologists the world over can't tell the difference between a rock from Earth and one from the Moon? Explain why it is more ikely that an entire field of science is either incometent or in on a lie than that you might be wrong.

Those geologists are not incompetent, although extremely gullible, and nor are they in on the fraud. How do you think they know they are examining noon rocks? Did they go to the noon and bring them back themselves, or were they shown what to look for in order to confirm they are indeed, looking at an Apollo sample?

If a geologist receives an Apollo sample from NASA and that sample displays the odd property not found on earth, then why would he or her question its authenticity, as who is more trustworthy than NASA to assure them of its authenticity? The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
You started out as a person who didnt understand how things like lunar landings were achieved, read some stuff that said they weren't and clung to that like a blanket because it validated your insecurities as being legitimate concerns about reality rather than limitations in your own understanding that you can't be bothered to recitify.

I am well aware of the technical details involved in achieving this fantastical feat of human endeavour, as I lived through it, and since the invention of the internet, I’ve wasted countless hours reading up on the subject. It soon became apparent that the story had many instances that defied logic, mainly from the safety aspect, which enabled me to “rectify” my ill-founded beliefs that were merely based on a TV show produced by NASA many years before.

One prime example is the radiation issue, and I know I’ve covered this before, but it looks like you’ve all been watching too many action movies, so I feel it necessary to remind you that the alleged astronauts’ bravery and the ability to stay cool under pressure wouldn’t make the Apollo 8 suicide mission any less hazardous. “When” something goes wrong, it would be up to the boffins on the ground to solve the problem, so it also makes no sense, not to have at least one of those boffins as part of the crew, as those aircraft pilots didn’t even know where the radiation belts are, just ask Alan Bean.

It is obvious to anyone with the ability to read, that NASA didn’t fully understand what the effects of radiation would pose to the astronauts, but they said it wouldn’t matter too much, as they wouldn’t be spending a lot of time in the belts. The sun was at the height of its solar cycle, so it wasn’t just the belts they had to worry about, as solar flares can cause power outages here on earth, even though it apparently has protection in the form of the magnetosphere and ionosphere, so how could they be so sure that an unforeseen solar event wouldn’t have an effect on the on-board electronics?

It might seem foolhardy in hindsight for NASA to have accepted the risks of send astronauts through the Van Allen belts without extra protection, but it was a minor risk in the scheme of the mission” In other words, the astronauts lives were a mere triviality in the scheme of the mission. The fact that Apollo 8, which was by far, the most dangerous of all the alleged missions, happened over the Christmas period, suggests that it was merely a publicity stunt to test the gullibility of the public, and it worked brilliantly, as at the time, those poor deluded Americans desperately needed a fairy-tale with a happy ending. Those astronauts reading passages from the bible, makes my stomach churn, but I’ll bet it brought a tear to the eyes of the over patriotic US public.

Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base.” Oh please!!!

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-4

A while back, I watched the Moon Machines episode, concerning the Command Module, just to see what spin they would put on the radiation issue, as the CM is what allegedly kept the astronauts alive on their journey to and from the moon. Amazingly, not a word was spoken regarding the risks of radiation. They covered the fire, and the steps taken to rectify the problem, and a few words on strengthening its hull to prevent damage on splashdown. So was the threat from radiation so insignificant, that NASA told the producers, it didn’t deserve a mention? I think this was probably the case, as with radiation being such a controversial subject, the only way to dumb it down would be to distort the facts and leave themselves open to criticism. 

I’ve now came across another documentary from 2005 entitled “Race to the Moon: Apollo 8” and again, no mention of radiation. How can a documentary about Apollo 8, fail to mention radiation, as surely this is the biggest talking point between the hoaxers and the NASA faithful? I had to force myself to sit through it, as it was a classic piece of American over dramatization, designed to pull at the heartstrings of the viewers, rather than giving a full and honest account of the alleged events. I find it unsettling that there are seemingly highly educated people among us, who will vigorously defend NASA with nothing but blind faith on their side.



Quote
We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together

Quote from: Jason Thompson
Now prove that the 'sand' you are looking at is starting off on the same trajectory and velocity as the astronaut. Or explain how this can in fact be possible given the way the 'sand' interacts with his boots

He jumps straight up and the sand clearly rises with his boots and then drops back to “earth”, while he magically continues to ascend, and the sand falls a hell of a lot faster than the bloke in the spacesuit. Explain what you mean when you say “the way the sand interacts with his boots”. It seems that the laws of physics only apply when it suites you, and your refusal to accept what is clear to most, whilst failing to present clear evidence which would prove us wrong, suggests that either you are not able to provide such evidence or due to your arrogance, you feel it unnecessary.

Quote
And you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
Provide such evidence.

Let me get this straight, you want me to provide proof that physics works? You actually want me to provide evidence for something which you already know, or at least, be able to find for yourself in seconds? Why am I made to jump through hoops to get a simple point across, while you provide very little to support NASA’s claims. The burden of proof doesn’t lie solely with the hoaxers, as NASA are the accused, which means they have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are innocent of the fraud.

Ok I’ll humour you, here’s that evidence you ask for.


Quote from: Jason Thompson
You can't think why rocks from different parts of a moon with a surface area of 38 million square kilometres might be different? Hell I live in a country with an area 150th that size and yet the two ends are on different bedrocks.

First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.

Quote
How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by alleged micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
How much of it? To what depth? What was the pressure on the surface from the descent engine?

The thrust was enough to hold an alleged 2.5 ton (moon weight) object aloft, and in the case of Apollo 11, the engine was still firing when it hit the alleged lunar surface, but not a sign of disturbance. You will say that the exhaust would have spread out, due to there being no atmosphere, but when we watch the on-board footage of Apollo 11 coming in to land, we see the alleged lunar dust starting to billowing up outside the window, while still seventy five feet above the surface, according to the overlaid commentary.

By using simple observation and a bit of common sense, it should become obvious that if the engine is capable of kicking up dust from a height of seventy five feet, and also knowing how soft the alleged lunar soil was, by noting how easily the soil was kicked up by the alleged astronauts, then it can be safely assumed that from only a few inches away, it’s going to cause a large amount of disturbance. If a thrust equation can show that there would be next no observable disturbance, then either the maths is flawed or the video is faked. Wake up!


 


 

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 16, 2018, 03:30:27 AM
Bloomin Heck talk about a delay in replying lol. This should be good
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 16, 2018, 03:32:49 AM
Everybody knows why there are no stars in the Apollo photographs. However nasa has also never said you cannot see or photograph stars in space. In fact nasa themselves have released photographs of stars in space. Common are long exposure shots of Aurora.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 16, 2018, 03:35:54 AM
As far as I know the engine had all been shut down prior to actual landing and don't forget Exhaust gases expand very rapidly in a vacuum. Also don't forget the LM didn't hover for any significant time over its final landing spot instead moving laterally over the surface of the moon. Finally consider the jagged and interlocking nature of the rigolith material. when you consider these facts it becomes obvious that the exhaust wasn't powerful enough or centralised enough to blast a hugh crater. as far as I am aware though there was a small crater under the LM just not the huge one most HB think should have been there.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 16, 2018, 03:37:51 AM
just for reference the dust wouldn't billow. there was no air for it to do that. and finally I always love when the HB says Wake up at the end lol. I love that they think they have gotten the better of millions of scientists and engineers over the past 5 decades who all believe the landings took place based on science and evidence.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Glom on November 16, 2018, 03:38:21 AM


The burden of proof doesn’t lie solely with the hoaxers, as NASA are the accused, which means they have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are innocent of the fraud.

I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of how it works. The prosecution must prove their case. The defence is only required to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on November 16, 2018, 05:01:33 AM
First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.

Really cba to pick through your conspiracy by the numbers stuff right now, but this needs picking up on. Why? Because it's absolute garbage and you are the one talking out of your backside

Apollo astronauts took many photographs of stars, they referred to stars all the time, they have describe them in detail many times:

http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/stars/starryskies.html

and no, I'm not just talking about the UV images.

As for China, you're right, they are no friends of the US, so why is it that when you download and process their raw images from Chang'e-2 do they show evidence of human activity at the landing sites?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on November 16, 2018, 05:06:38 AM
Ok I’ll humour you, here’s that evidence you ask for.



Could you be any more dishonest?

Comparing Young's live on TV flat footed jump in a full suit with a heavy backpack with that of someone who crouches all the way down after a long run up before jumping? Really? All that proves is how blinkered you are and how you are prepared to distort the truth to suit your own trolling purposes.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on November 16, 2018, 07:27:53 AM
Quote from: Jason Thompson
I don't care how many YouTube clips you've seen, have you seen all the film and TV from all the missions?

 By now, I can honestly say I’ve seen pretty much everything, and although all the moon footage is obviously faked, there are however, the odd on-board scenes from the earlier missions which look quite impressive, which shows they really did have balls back then, risking their lives, pushing that Vomit Comet to its absolute limits. Adding slow motion adds to the duration of some of the clips, so I can understand why a lot of the moon deniers still believe in manned space flight.

No amount of slow motion will extend a vomit comet zero-g flight time to several minutes or over an hour, as plenty of film and video of spaceflight shows.

Quote
OK I worded that wrong, what I should have said was, if I read something, I will first make sure I have at least a basic understanding of what I’m reading before discussing the subject.

And having acknowledged a basic understanding, how have you attempted to use the discussion to expand it? This is where most HBs fall down: assuming their basic understanding is enough, while failing to realise that to become expert in the field requires a hell of a lot more than a basic understanding.

Quote
The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.

Typical HB baseless accusation of 'making stuff up' noted. Where is the proof they were 'made up'?

Quote
I am well aware of the technical details involved in achieving this fantastical feat of human endeavour, as I lived through it

Non sequitur. Being around at the time does not equate to a detailed knowledge of the technical details.

Quote
It soon became apparent that the story had many instances that defied logic,

Whose? It's very easy to find something that 'defies logic' if you don't actually understand the premise.

Quote
One prime example is the radiation issue, and I know I’ve covered this before, but it looks like you’ve all been watching too many action movies, so I feel it necessary to remind you that the alleged astronauts’ bravery and the ability to stay cool under pressure wouldn’t make the Apollo 8 suicide mission any less hazardous.

Really not going to re-tread this ground. You joined just after one of the longest threads on this issue  came to a close, so go and read it. In summary, prove the radiation levels were hazardous or stop droning on about it.
 
Quote
Ok I’ll humour you, here’s that evidence you ask for.

(Video not embedded)

Funny, but in the very first minute I can see clear evidence that some of the regolith does indeed travel as far as his boots at the height of the jump. Once again, looking at a cloud of particles which all behave in slightly different ways, you can't simply ignore the complexity of that and point to the most visible cloud and consider it to be representative of all the dust.

Quote
Quote from: Jason Thompson
You can't think why rocks from different parts of a moon with a surface area of 38 million square kilometres might be different? Hell I live in a country with an area 150th that size and yet the two ends are on different bedrocks.

First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.

Evasion noted. Switching to another (incorrect) argument noted. You contended that differences between Apollo and Chinese samples were significant. I repeat my question: why should differences not be observed when, for example, one small island here on Earth would produce even more marked differences if geologists dug around in Dover and Aberdeen?

Quote

Quote
How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by alleged micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

Quote from: Jason Thompson
How much of it? To what depth? What was the pressure on the surface from the descent engine?

The thrust was enough to hold an alleged 2.5 ton (moon weight) object aloft, and in the case of Apollo 11, the engine was still firing when it hit the alleged lunar surface, but not a sign of disturbance. You will say that the exhaust would have spread out, due to there being no atmosphere, but when we watch the on-board footage of Apollo 11 coming in to land, we see the alleged lunar dust starting to billowing up outside the window, while still seventy five feet above the surface, according to the overlaid commentary.

That is not answering the question. It basically boils down to 'it looks like it should to me'. Where are you calculations of the thrust and pressure? Where is your information on how deep the lunar regolith is at this point, and where is your fluid analysis of how the exhaust would interact with the surface?
 
Quote
By using simple observation and a bit of common sense

The classic mantra of the HB who can't be bothered or doesn't understand how to do the actual analysis required to support their arguments.

Quote
it should become obvious that if the engine is capable of kicking up dust from a height of seventy five feet, and also knowing how soft the alleged lunar soil was, by noting how easily the soil was kicked up by the alleged astronauts, then it can be safely assumed that from only a few inches away, it’s going to cause a large amount of disturbance.

Now prove that 'large amount of disturbance' equates to 'whacking great crater' as opposed to 'evidence of surface scouring' as was in fact observed.

Quote
If a thrust equation can show that there would be next no observable disturbance, then either the maths is flawed or the video is faked.

Or you are wrong. Explain why you reduce the situation to a false dilemma that takes no account of the impact your understanding has on the conclusions.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 16, 2018, 07:58:27 AM
Jason

surely this guy is a troll lol the distance between posts is very big
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on November 16, 2018, 08:00:21 AM
Yay, fringe reset.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on November 16, 2018, 08:07:13 AM

 By now, I can honestly say I’ve seen pretty much everything, and although all the moon footage is obviously faked, there are however, the odd on-board scenes from the earlier missions which look quite impressive, which shows they really did have balls back then, risking their lives, pushing that Vomit Comet to its absolute limits. Adding slow motion adds to the duration of some of the clips, so I can understand why a lot of the moon deniers still believe in manned space flight.
The hours that were taken on the Lunar surface are by far more than the 20 seconds of zero gravity produced by the Vomit Comet.  You should make your comparisons more realistic.
Quote


Those geologists are not incompetent, although extremely gullible, and nor are they in on the fraud. How do you think they know they are examining noon rocks? Did they go to the noon and bring them back themselves, or were they shown what to look for in order to confirm they are indeed, looking at an Apollo sample?

If a geologist receives an Apollo sample from NASA and that sample displays the odd property not found on earth, then why would he or her question its authenticity, as who is more trustworthy than NASA to assure them of its authenticity? The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.
No all those geologists did not go to the Moon and collect rocks(with the exception of Harrison Schmitt), however the general lack of water found in the Lunar samples is a major property that distinguishes Lunar rocks from Earth samples.
Quote

I am well aware of the technical details involved in achieving this fantastical feat of human endeavour, as I lived through it, and since the invention of the internet, I’ve wasted countless hours reading up on the subject. It soon became apparent that the story had many instances that defied logic, mainly from the safety aspect, which enabled me to rectify my ill-founded beliefs that were merely based on a TV show produced by NASA many years before.

One prime example is the radiation issue, and I know I’ve covered this before, but it looks like you’ve all been watching too many action movies, so I feel it necessary to remind you that the alleged astronauts’ bravery and the ability to stay cool under pressure wouldn’t make the Apollo 8 suicide mission any less hazardous. When something goes wrong, it would be up to the boffins on the ground to solve the problem, so it also makes no sense, not to have at least one of those boffins as part of the crew, as those aircraft pilots didn’t even know where the radiation belts are, just ask Alan Bean.
That video you watched was produced with outakes from two videos.  The question asked Alan was concerning his Skylab mission(which was in LEO), not the Apollo mission.
Quote

It is obvious to anyone with the ability to read, that NASA didn’t fully understand what the effects of radiation would pose to the astronauts, but they said it wouldn’t matter too much, as they wouldn’t be spending a lot of time in the belts. The sun was at the height of its solar cycle, so it wasn’t just the belts they had to worry about, as solar flares can cause power outages here on earth, even though it apparently has protection in the form of the magnetosphere and ionosphere, so how could they be so sure that an unforeseen solar event wouldn’t have an effect on the on-board electronics?

It might seem foolhardy in hindsight for NASA to have accepted the risks of send astronauts through the Van Allen belts without extra protection, but it was a minor risk in the scheme of the mission In other words, the astronauts lives were a mere triviality in the scheme of the mission. The fact that Apollo 8, which was by far, the most dangerous of all the alleged missions, happened over the Christmas period, suggests that it was merely a publicity stunt to test the gullibility of the public, and it worked brilliantly, as at the time, those poor deluded Americans desperately needed a fairy-tale with a happy ending. Those astronauts reading passages from the bible, makes my stomach churn, but I’ll bet it brought a tear to the eyes of the over patriotic US public.

Flying to the Moon, radiation exposure included, was still a safer day at the office than putting an experimental aircraft through its paces in the skies above Edwards Air Force Base. Oh please!!!

https://www.popsci.com/blog-network/vintage-space/apollo-rocketed-through-van-allen-belts#page-4

A while back, I watched the Moon Machines episode, concerning the Command Module, just to see what spin they would put on the radiation issue, as the CM is what allegedly kept the astronauts alive on their journey to and from the moon. Amazingly, not a word was spoken regarding the risks of radiation. They covered the fire, and the steps taken to rectify the problem, and a few words on strengthening its hull to prevent damage on splashdown. So was the threat from radiation so insignificant, that NASA told the producers, it didn’t deserve a mention? I think this was probably the case, as with radiation being such a controversial subject, the only way to dumb it down would be to distort the facts and leave themselves open to criticism. 

I’ve now came across another documentary from 2005 entitled Race to the Moon: Apollo 8 and again, no mention of radiation. How can a documentary about Apollo 8, fail to mention radiation, as surely this is the biggest talking point between the hoaxers and the NASA faithful? I had to force myself to sit through it, as it was a classic piece of American over dramatization, designed to pull at the heartstrings of the viewers, rather than giving a full and honest account of the alleged events. I find it unsettling that there are seemingly highly educated people among us, who will vigorously defend NASA with nothing but blind faith on their side.


Firstly you use generalizations when describing the radiation in the VARB.  The trajectory of Apollo skirted the outside of the torus shaped VARB.  As NASA reported the time through the parts that were traversed was fairly quick, less than two hours and some of that two hours was spent in between the two regions of the VARB where there is no trapped radiation.  When you post that NASA didn't fully understand the effects would pose to astronauts, this is partially correct as information of the effects are still being studied, however for the two week missions of Apollo they understood well the effects and amounts that the astronauts would receive.  Several times you have mentioned that NASA hasn't mentioned what radiation measures were included in construction of the CSM.  That may be correct however the materials used in construction are all radiation barriers to some extent.  The .25" aluminum is an effect barrier to ALL but the most energetic of the radiation particles  also there was some phenolic materials used which are low density and that makes even a better radiation barrier.  All you have to do is to read up on the properties on each of all the materials instead of making a broad brush statement that NASA did not consider radiation when constructing the CSM.
Quote


He jumps straight up and the sand clearly rises with his boots and then drops back to earth, while he magically continues to ascend, and the sand falls a hell of a lot faster than the bloke in the spacesuit. Explain what you mean when you say the way the sand interacts with his boots. It seems that the laws of physics only apply when it suites you, and your refusal to accept what is clear to most, whilst failing to present clear evidence which would prove us wrong, suggests that either you are not able to provide such evidence or due to your arrogance, you feel it unnecessary.

Let me get this straight, you want me to provide proof that physics works? You actually want me to provide evidence for something which you already know, or at least, be able to find for yourself in seconds? Why am I made to jump through hoops to get a simple point across, while you provide very little to support NASA’s claims. The burden of proof doesn’t lie solely with the hoaxers, as NASA are the accused, which means they have to prove beyond any reasonable doubt, that they are innocent of the fraud.

Ok I’ll humour you, here’s that evidence you ask for.
Physics works in al situations, but observations vary especially when you are attempting to prove a false point.  The regolith does not fall faster than the astronaut.  Some of the regolith starts dropping prior to the exact top of the jump.
Quote


First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.
What proof do you present that the Chinese missions are fake, just saying that they ar isn't sufficient proof that they are.
Quote

The thrust was enough to hold an alleged 2.5 ton (moon weight) object aloft, and in the case of Apollo 11, the engine was still firing when it hit the alleged lunar surface, but not a sign of disturbance. You will say that the exhaust would have spread out, due to there being no atmosphere, but when we watch the on-board footage of Apollo 11 coming in to land, we see the alleged lunar dust starting to billowing up outside the window, while still seventy five feet above the surface, according to the overlaid commentary.

By using simple observation and a bit of common sense, it should become obvious that if the engine is capable of kicking up dust from a height of seventy five feet, and also knowing how soft the alleged lunar soil was, by noting how easily the soil was kicked up by the alleged astronauts, then it can be safely assumed that from only a few inches away, it’s going to cause a large amount of disturbance. If a thrust equation can show that there would be next no observable disturbance, then either the maths is flawed or the video is faked. Wake up!

You didn't answer Jason's question as to the psi at the rocket nozzle.  Does that mean that you have no clue what the psi. was?  Yes Lunar regolith was displaced when the LM landed, however that does not mean that there would be a crater.  And there was disturbances below all the LM's, all you have to do is look.  Regolith varied in depth from a few cm's to more than 10 cm's.  This is all the material that would be displaced as the Lunar surface is solid rock below the regolith and would not be blown away(have you ever watched a Harrier jump jet landing on grass?)  The "craters" would be very shallow and unobservable in the images.  If there was instruments available to measure the displaced regolith.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on November 16, 2018, 08:25:40 AM
By now, I can honestly say I’ve seen pretty much everything, and although all the moon footage is obviously faked, there are however, the odd on-board scenes from the earlier missions which look quite impressive, which shows they really did have balls back then, risking their lives, pushing that Vomit Comet to its absolute limits. Adding slow motion adds to the duration of some of the clips, so I can understand why a lot of the moon deniers still believe in manned space flight.
Please account for the continuous uncut footage inside the LM with zero g which cannot have been "faked" on the comet.

You can't, can you?

OK I worded that wrong, what I should have said was, if I read something, I will first make sure I have at least a basic understanding of what I’m reading before discussing the subject.
Why, then, have you plainly not done so?

Those geologists are not incompetent,
If they are competent, their conclusions are reliable.

although extremely gullible,
Projection.

and nor are they in on the fraud.
There isn't one to be in on.

How do you think they know they are examining noon rocks?
They are geologists. It's their job.

Did they go to the noon and bring them back themselves,
Actually, yes. Are you really so ignorant that you didn't know that an actual geologist went to the moon and collected samples? Really?

or were they shown what to look for in order to confirm they are indeed, looking at an Apollo sample?
What a dumb claim.

If a geologist receives an Apollo sample from NASA and that sample displays the odd property not found on earth, then why would he or her question its authenticity, as who is more trustworthy than NASA to assure them of its authenticity?
How about a fellow geologist who had been to the moon and collected samples?

The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.
Then how do YOU account for them? You can't. Beccause you are ignorant of the science.

I am well aware of the technical details involved in achieving this fantastical feat of human endeavour, as I lived through it, and since the invention of the internet, I’ve wasted countless hours reading up on the subject. It soon became apparent that the story had many instances that defied logic, mainly from the safety aspect, which enabled me to “rectify” my ill-founded beliefs that were merely based on a TV show produced by NASA many years before.
Everything you just typed is wrong.

You have demonstrated that you are not even vaguely aware of the technical details.
You have demonstrated that you only read HB sites which enable your confirmation bias.
You have not a single example of Apollo "defying logic".
You do not understand science, evidence or Apollo.

One prime example is the radiation issue, and I know I’ve covered this before, but it looks like you’ve all been watching too many action movies, so I feel it necessary to remind you that the alleged astronauts’ bravery and the ability to stay cool under pressure wouldn’t make the Apollo 8 suicide mission any less hazardous. “When” something goes wrong, it would be up to the boffins on the ground to solve the problem, so it also makes no sense, not to have at least one of those boffins as part of the crew, as those aircraft pilots didn’t even know where the radiation belts are, just ask Alan Bean.
QED. You don't understand the radiation environment.

It is obvious to anyone with the ability to read, that NASA didn’t fully understand what the effects of radiation would pose to the astronauts, but they said it wouldn’t matter too much, as they wouldn’t be spending a lot of time in the belts. The sun was at the height of its solar cycle, so it wasn’t just the belts they had to worry about, as solar flares can cause power outages here on earth, even though it apparently has protection in the form of the magnetosphere and ionosphere, so how could they be so sure that an unforeseen solar event wouldn’t have an effect on the on-board electronics?
That is why NASA planed for those contingencies. That you are ignorant of such contingency planning does not mean it never happened.

From this point on, your post devolves into outright fantasy.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: ineluki on November 16, 2018, 08:31:22 AM
I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that's the exact opposite of how it works. The prosecution must prove their case. The defence is only required to cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case.

Even if it wasn't... Apollo has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, that's why it is in the history books around the world.

And quite frankly if the defence would come up with gems like
"Those geologists are not incompetent, although extremely gullible"
 
or

"First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars"

they simply can no longer claim to be remotely reasonable...


Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on November 16, 2018, 11:01:39 AM
Yeah, can you imagine how awful it would be if you had to go into court to prove a negative?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on November 16, 2018, 11:16:56 AM
cambo is trying to shift the burden of proof on Apollo/NASA when in fact the burden lies with the CT's as many have pointed out.  Further he has demonstrated no facts to back up his belief, even though he feels he has.  The ball is still in his court and he can't hit it out.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on November 16, 2018, 11:36:45 PM

Those geologists are not incompetent, although extremely gullible, and nor are they in on the fraud. How do you think they know they are examining noon rocks? Did they go to the noon and bring them back themselves, or were they shown what to look for in order to confirm they are indeed, looking at an Apollo sample?

If a geologist receives an Apollo sample from NASA and that sample displays the odd property not found on earth, then why would he or her question its authenticity, as who is more trustworthy than NASA to assure them of its authenticity? The zap pits are a prime example as to how easy it is for people with weak minds to be influenced, as many say it is proof that the rocks are genuine. A nice little touch by NASA, making that one up, and I’m sure the bloke that thought of it got a nice bonus.


You didn't engage with the original reply; all you are doing above is repeating your original assertion.

No, geology doesn't work like that. I really can't think of a science that does. Maybe back in the 18th century there might be a science that merely categorizes, but every science worth the name is built on discovering and expanding from the underlying patterns.

Geologists don't look at a piece of limestone and a piece of marble and say, "well, here's one kind of stone, we'll call it limestone, here's another kind of stone, we'll call it marble." Marble is a metamorphic form of limestone. The geologist understands it as an example of a process seen in other stones that transforms the one into the other and, while doing so, leaves distinct traces of the process.

No geologist would decide a sample must be from the Moon because it is UNLIKE any sample they know. They would do almost entirely the obverse; they would decide a sample is consistent with being from the Moon because it is LIKE other samples -- in the sense that it shows understood processes, but that those processes are appropriate to the lunar environment.

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on November 17, 2018, 01:23:24 PM
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

You’re forgetting that it was his video, and I’m sure that if he felt embarrassed, he would have simply cut the scene, which shows he has an honest side. I completely agree with you when you say the man is an idiot, but only in the way he conducts himself. You will say all HB’s are idiots, just because we don’t share your beliefs, which is just plain arrogance on your part, as you fail to understand the reasoning behind our concerns. I don’t believe in a flat earth, but at the same time, I can see the FE’s way of thinking, and it doesn’t help when some of the explanations aimed at debunking their assumptions can be a little vague or poorly explained at times. It’s no wonder the FE movement is growing.

(https://i.imgur.com/yHiCNGr.jpg)

The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly. For instance, we will say the Apollo 15 flag fluttered because of the air being disturbed when the actor skipped passed it, but your view, as far as I’m aware, is that it was more than likely static electricity. Does that assumption debunk the air theory? Of course it doesn’t, as your logic is merely based on your belief that they really did go to the moon and therefore all HB’s are wrong, and a bunch of idiots to boot.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on November 17, 2018, 02:24:01 PM
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

You’re forgetting that it was his video, and I’m sure that if he felt embarrassed, he would have simply cut the scene, which shows he has an honest side. I completely agree with you when you say the man is an idiot, but only in the way he conducts himself. You will say all HB’s are idiots

Personally and this is directed at all HB's, including yourself, You are willfully ignorant concerning physics, project management, and image evaluation.
Quote


just because we don’t share your beliefs, which is just plain arrogance on your part, as you fail to understand the reasoning behind our concerns. I don’t believe in a flat earth, but at the same time, I can see the FE’s way of thinking, and it doesn’t help when some of the explanations aimed at debunking their assumptions can be a little vague or poorly explained at times. It’s no wonder the FE movement is growing.


Again FE individuals are willfully ignorant and in many ways more so the HB's concerning Apollo, but this thread concerns Apollo and not FE.
Quote

(https://i.imgur.com/yHiCNGr.jpg)

The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly.


Not a bit true all the HB's beliefs have been disproved using science, knowledge and technology.
I'll continue with your A15 flag "anomaly"  The flag didn't move from air pushing on it.  Even the blunder could not make it work in the air with his experimentation.  If you knew the force of air in front of your body doesn't have enough force to move a flag, you would understand. QED
Quote

because of air, even  For instance, we will say the Apollo 15 flag fluttered because of the air being disturbed when the actor skipped passed it, but your view, as far as I’m aware, is that it was more than likely static electricity. Does that assumption debunk the air theory? Of course it doesn’t, as your logic is merely based on your belief that they really did go to the moon and therefore all HB’s are wrong, and a bunch of idiots to boot.

No I don't believe that NASA sent men to the Moon, I know from the evidence that are in the records for all to see, including yourself.  All you need to do is study up and sciences/technology to know the mission happened are NOT fake in any way.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: MBDK on November 17, 2018, 02:26:29 PM
The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false
Wrong.  One of the many logical failures hoax believers wreck with is their inability to recognize simple definitions, such as you just did.  From -
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/debunk
"debunk
[dih-buhngk]
verb (used with object)
to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated:"

And this HAS been done "thousands" of times.  If you bothered to take the time to perform intellectually honest analysis, you would know this.

Also, FYI, "proof" is another term hoax promoters fling around with as much ignorance as they have in the relative scientific fields.

From the same source -
proof
[proof]
noun
1.  evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.  anything serving as such evidence

Yet, hoax supporters use their own unreasonable ideas of "proof" when it comes to tangible evidence against their claims, yet promote the most whimsical conjectures as their own "proof" of a hoax.  The hypocrisy runs rampant among them.
it was more than likely static electricity. Does that assumption debunk the air theory? Of course it doesn’t, as your logic is merely based on your belief that they really did go to the moon and therefore all HB’s are wrong, and a bunch of idiots to boot.
Yes.  Also, it IS a demonstrable FACT that air does not move in FRONT of a person in such a manner as your inane "theory" contends.  So, to a REASONABLE person, that "theory" has been proven false on those grounds.

Regardless, the science is sound and utterly convincing for the reality of the landings, as documented.  Willful ignorance and uneducated incredulity have been demonstrated in almost every hoax claimer's response to criticism.  You know, just like you did in your post.  I can only suggest you toughen up that fragile ego of yours and be honest with the scientific evidence and yourself.

Note:  Edited for spelling and punctuation.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 17, 2018, 02:28:34 PM
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

You’re forgetting that it was his video, and I’m sure that if he felt embarrassed, he would have simply cut the scene, which shows he has an honest side. I completely agree with you when you say the man is an idiot, but only in the way he conducts himself. You will say all HB’s are idiots, just because we don’t share your beliefs, which is just plain arrogance on your part, as you fail to understand the reasoning behind our concerns. I don’t believe in a flat earth, but at the same time, I can see the FE’s way of thinking, and it doesn’t help when some of the explanations aimed at debunking their assumptions can be a little vague or poorly explained at times. It’s no wonder the FE movement is growing.

incorrect. I believe Bart Sibrel is an idiot because he chooses to make a living by lieing. and yes I do believe he knows he is. I believe this because in his documentary he purposely left out 1 of the 3 videos he received from nasa. take a look at a documentary called 'lunar legacy'. Bart does what he does for 15 minutes of fame and tried his upmost to keep that going.

(https://i.imgur.com/yHiCNGr.jpg)

The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly. For instance, we will say the Apollo 15 flag fluttered because of the air being disturbed when the actor skipped passed it, but your view, as far as I’m aware, is that it was more than likely static electricity. Does that assumption debunk the air theory? Of course it doesn’t, as your logic is merely based on your belief that they really did go to the moon and therefore all HB’s are wrong, and a bunch of idiots to boot.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 17, 2018, 02:29:08 PM
incorrect. I believe Bart Sibrel is an idiot because he chooses to make a living by lieing. and yes I do believe he knows he is. I believe this because in his documentary he purposely left out 1 of the 3 videos he received from nasa. take a look at a documentary called 'lunar legacy'. Bart does what he does for 15 minutes of fame and tried his upmost to keep that going.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 17, 2018, 02:32:18 PM
I don't say all HB's are idiots. just the ones who either make a portion of their living from purporating the hoax or just choose to believe in the hoax because they want to. many people have blocked me on FB because quite simply they couldn't get past my points. before you call me arrogant for thinking I know everything I don't. every single bit of information I have gleened has been mostly from people here. A gent called Bob Braeunig had an excellent page and Clavius is superb.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on November 17, 2018, 02:33:25 PM
Not entirely wrong, but not taking it far enough.

There are multiple possible explanations for any observation. After the fact, none of them can be proven (absolute certainty, in fact, is essentially unobtainable for anything outside of certain specific cases within mathematics.)

However.

All explanations are not equal. Some explanations require fewer assumptions. If I am trying to melt copper in a crucible and it doesn't melt at 1083 the simplest explanation is that I'm measuring wrong. The next explanation in the rank of fewest assumptions is that my supplier slipped up and the sample is actually a brass or other alloy. The explanation with the largest number of assumptions is that copper actually doesn't melt at the book value and there is a massive conspiracy crossing tens of fields to hide the real melting point.

Now, it is tempting to drill down and say that the conspiracy involves the least number of assumptions because it explains all questionable observations. The problem is that is doesn't. If there was a single coherent conspiracy narrative that captured the majority of what the hoax believers have identified as anomalies, this would be a compelling argument. Instead, each has a different mechanism, and each ends up with a vastly different picture of the conspiracy. One picture demands a robot, one a studio, another a whistle-blower. One assumes darkroom trickery, another assumes digital manipulation, a third assumes a model, a fourth...you get the picture.

The embracing meta-explanation with the fewest assumptions is that the project was real and like all things, like all the world, some of the material we are left with today appears contradictory.

And it doesn't stop there. The vast majority of explanations offered by supporters of the reality of the program are consistent with known physics, aerospace practice, human nature et al, and require no further assumptions.

The vast majority of explanations offered by hoax believers require at least one and often multiple assumptions beyond; they require that optics, geometry, physics, chemistry, etc. don't work the way mainstream science and industry experience claim they do.

And you can't wriggle out of it by saying, "Sure, 99% of the stuff OTHER hoax believers is stupid, but MY claims are all solid." Because there isn't a hoax believer that hasn't said the same. From any larger perspective, the grand mass of hoax belief is nothing but straws, none of them capable of bearing any weight because none of them weave together in anything resembling a bundle.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 17, 2018, 02:33:53 PM
The question I have for you is why don't you believe the earth is flat. there must be a reason you don't buy into the flat earth arguments. there must be a reason why you have dismissed those arguments and yet you fail to dismiss the moon hoax arguments even though every one you have presented has been firmly shown to be wrong by many people here
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 17, 2018, 02:36:13 PM
also Cambo you say things haven't been debunked. yes they have. for example the no stars in the photos is not nasa taking them out its because the cameras were set to low exposure. that is a fact. I believe Bill Kaysing accused nasa of lieing by saying stars cannot be seen in space which is absurd as nasa has released many photos in space with stars in them.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 17, 2018, 02:39:34 PM
1 final thing cambo and it goes back to the burden of proof. the entire scientific and engineering community over the past 50 years are happy with the landings. therefore it is the job of the HB's to show they didn't happen. I think most people would agree on that. therefore the entirety of the evidence must be refuted. 1 of my favourite items is the behaviour of the dust in the Apollo videos with the rover for example. the dust behaves as it would in an airless environment. for the landings to be faked the HB's have to explain this and other items which show they were in a vacuum.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: MBDK on November 17, 2018, 02:48:10 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/yHiCNGr.jpg)

The problem with this quote is there is no authentic citation supporting this claim.

The closest thing I have found is in the book "Einstein: His Life and Times" (1972) by Ronald W. Clark.

On page 418, it says that Louis de Broglie, regarding Einstein's discussion of his problem with wave mechanics, quotes Einstein as saying:

"that all physical theories, their mathematical expressions apart, ought to lend themselves to so simple a description 'that even a child could understand them.' "

The other anonymous corollary to such a statement SHOULD be obvious:

"I can explain something to you. but I CAN'T understand it for you."

Note:  Edited for ANOTHER punctuation error.  Dang it.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on November 17, 2018, 03:43:38 PM

The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly.

The hoax claims have been debunked 'thousands of times' because people like you keep turning up and regurgitating the same ill-thought out, illogical, badly constructed arguments thousands of times. People like you are not presenting an alternative reason for anything, you're just recycling crap without bothering to check what alternative explanations there might be that make more sense. You stick the word 'anomaly' on there is if it automatically discredits anything, and as if it is actually a fact. I'll keep it simple for you: there are no anomalies whatsoever, just your ignorance of the subject.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on November 17, 2018, 05:39:04 PM

The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly.

The hoax claims have been debunked 'thousands of times' because people like you keep turning up and regurgitating the same ill-thought out, illogical, badly constructed arguments thousands of times. People like you are not presenting an alternative reason for anything, you're just recycling crap without bothering to check what alternative explanations there might be that make more sense. You stick the word 'anomaly' on there is if it automatically discredits anything, and as if it is actually a fact. I'll keep it simple for you: there are no anomalies whatsoever, just your willful ignorance of the subject.

FTFY  8)
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on November 17, 2018, 06:02:09 PM
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

You’re forgetting that it was his video, and I’m sure that if he felt embarrassed, he would have simply cut the scene, which shows he has an honest side.

No, it shows he doesn't care what they say because all he cares about is promoting his crap. Does he have an honest side? No doubt he does. I am sure he doesn;t lie about everything. When it comes to his Apollo arguments, however, he remains as dishonest as they come. Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.
 
Quote
You will say all HB’s are idiots, just because we don’t share your beliefs,

Oh yawn, that same old 'just because we disagree' crap. Fifteen years of doing this and this comes up so often.
 
Quote
which is just plain arrogance on your part, as you fail to understand the reasoning behind our concerns.

No, we understand where the errors in your reasoning are, while you refuse to see or accept them.

Quote
The NASA believers are heard over and over saying that everything has been debunked “thousands” of times, but to debunk something means to prove something to be false, but in most cases, all you are doing is presenting an alternative reason for the anomaly.

FIrstly, that's a gross oversimplification. However, it is an entirely appropriate response when an HB presents and argument that reduces to 'this one argument proves it was fake'. Confronting such an argument only requires presenting an explanation that is actually consistent with physics.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on November 17, 2018, 06:29:55 PM
On the subject of "no stars", I found this rather nice demonstration of why exactly this is the case on the RidingWithRobots (@ridingrobots) Twitter feed (although I can't figure out how to embed a tweet, so I'll have to copy'n'paste) :

FAQ: "Where are the stars?"
A: Here's the Moon and Mars (upper left) in the sky tonight. By the time the Moon is properly exposed, poor Mars is gone.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: MBDK on November 17, 2018, 08:43:24 PM
FAQ: "Where are the stars?"

I frequently answer with a cursory explanation of camera settings and exposure, with the follow up, "Just ask ANY professional photographer."

Such a simple thing to do, but not a one has ever done it, or at least admitted to it, much less acknowledged the inevitable confirmation that most stars will not be seen under those conditions.  Yet, they make the same claim later, or in a different thread, with the same unsupported incredulity.  THAT is either willful ignorance, or purposeful deceit.  Just another reason why posters of that ilk create their own negative reputations.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on November 17, 2018, 10:13:48 PM
They still make the "multiple lights" claim, although that can be refuted with two sticks and a sunny day.

It's tempting to say that Hoax Believers never experiment, preferring to theorize endlessly from the comfort of their chair. But sometimes they do get up. You can't even accuse them of being half-hearted about it. Well, you could, but Flat Earthers really go that extra mile in their experiments (and still end up wrong at the end of it).

The laziness is annoying, but when all is said it's a laziness of thought that's involved. We all claim to be open minded and able to step back from our own preconceptions. On a good day, some of us actually do.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Obviousman on November 18, 2018, 12:42:51 AM
I'll just pop in to say a couple of things:

1. You say 'believers' have proved anything yet that is simply more willful ignorance on your part viz you dismiss anything that contradicts the premise of your claims.
2. It is my honest belief that you are a troll who got bored with other forums and who has reappeared here to see if you can chum the waters & get some more bites. What other people do is up to them but I can't be bothered to waste any energy responding to your dross.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: smartcooky on November 18, 2018, 05:38:05 AM
I'll just pop in to say a couple of things:

1. You say 'believers' have proved anything yet that is simply more willful ignorance on your part viz you dismiss anything that contradicts the premise of your claims.
2. It is my honest belief that you are a troll who got bored with other forums and who has reappeared here to see if you can chum the waters & get some more bites. What other people do is up to them but I can't be bothered to waste any energy responding to your dross.

I made that decision the last time this troll poked his mug in here, and I'll be making it again, because he brings nothing but fringe resets and age-old previously and thoroughly debunked rubbish that all of us have seen before.



Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on November 18, 2018, 12:36:42 PM
I'll just pop in to say a couple of things:

1. You say 'believers' have proved anything yet that is simply more willful ignorance on your part viz you dismiss anything that contradicts the premise of your claims.
2. It is my honest belief that you are a troll who got bored with other forums and who has reappeared here to see if you can chum the waters & get some more bites. What other people do is up to them but I can't be bothered to waste any energy responding to your dross.

I made that decision the last time this troll poked his mug in here, and I'll be making it again, because he brings nothing but fringe resets and age-old previously and thoroughly debunked rubbish that all of us have seen before.
I can understand both your points of view, but personally I feel it's worth a small response to counter any particularly idiotic argument, just for the benefit of anyone else who might be reading.  It also stops trolls like Cambo claiming "they couldn't answer my questions"...
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: jfb on November 19, 2018, 12:26:34 PM
First of all, the Chinese mission was also faked, as there are no photos of stars, which had to be the case, in order to tie in with NASA’s policy of no stars. Anyone saying they couldn’t or they deemed it unnecessary to take pictures of stars are talking out of their backsides. Let’s face it, China don’t like the US very much, so I suspect the vast difference in composition is just them using artistic license, and when they eventually fake bringing back their own samples, they’ll do the same again, because it’s very unlikely that anyone outside of China will have access to those fictitious samples.

Just a minute...

If the Chinese don't like the US very much, then why would they play along with a US government organization like NASA at all?  Why fake their own missions instead of just proving (much more competently than you could ever hope to) that the US faked the Apollo missions, for far greater geopolitical effect?   For that matter, why didn't the Russians fake a manned landing before we did to score some points?  After all, they'd already beaten us to the punch with Sputnik and Gagarin. 

How can you ever hope to make a case when you can't even recognize the glaring contradictions in your own arguments? 

As for "no stars", that's been explained ad nauseam here and elsewhere, but because I don't want to work on what I'm supposed to be working on, we'll go over it one more time.

TL/DR; Photographic film and even modern digital sensors cannot capture the sunlit lunar surface and the brightest stars in the same exposure.  There is a hard physical limit at play here. 

As we're talking Apollo images, we'll talk about film.  Most film can capture a dynamic range (pure white to pure black) of about 10 stops, where 1 stop represents a doubling or halving of the amount of light striking the film.  1 stop represents a dynamic range of 2 to 1, 2 stops represents a range of 4 to 1, 3 stops 8 to 1, etc.  10 stops is 1024 to 1 - that is, the brightest highlight in the frame cannot be more than 1000 times brighter than the dimmest shadow detail in order for both to show up for a given exposure.  If it is, then either the highlight will be blown out (a detail-free blob of white) or the shadow detail will be lost (a detail-free blob of pure black).  This is why you see professional photographers use flashes and reflectors on a sunny day - they're trying to reduce the dynamic range between highlight and shadow so that the shadows won't look so stark in the final image.

Now, assuming I've done the math anywhere close to correct, the dynamic range between the sunlit lunar surface and the brightest stars is on the order of 30,000 to 1 (15 stops).  There is simply no way you can capture both in the same exposure with film.  If you expose for the stars, the lunar surface becomes a detail-free white blob.  If you expose for the lunar surface, the stars simply don't register and you get a field of pure black. 

If the sky is clear where you are today, you can go outside and see the quarter moon in the early afternoon, but no stars.  It's simply that much brighter than the stars, bright enough to punch through the daylight sky.  This is roughly what photographic film sees when you expose for the lunar surface - the stars are simply not bright enough to register. 

If you want to prove this for yourself, grab a camera, go outside on a sunny day, and take a picture of the landscape.  You can let the meter pick the exposure, or you can set it manually using the Sunny 16 rule (set the aperture to f/16, set the shutter speed to 1 over the number nearest the ISO rating - for ISO 100, use 1/125, for ISO 400, use 1/500, etc.).  On a clear night, go outside and take a picture of the sky using that same setting.  Tell me how many stars show up in the final image.  Then figure out the settings for capturing the stars; for ISO 100, it will be something like 30 seconds at f5.6.  Then the next day, go out and take a picture of the landscape with those settings.  Tell me if you get anything but a pure white image. 

Yeah, yeah, yeah, "but that doesn't prove anything, things are different on the Moon!"  Baloney.  The physics regarding light and exposure are the exactly the same on the Moon as they are on Earth.  The only difference is that on the Moon you don't have an atmosphere acting as a giant diffuse light source filling in some shadows. 
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Dalhousie on November 19, 2018, 10:35:29 PM
Here's a photo I took on a drill site during night shift looking across a dry lake bed towards Moonrise.  The Moon is visible as a reddish object on the horizon.  Despite multiple floodlights the ground (multiple shadows) is not as brightly lit as it would be in daylight.  No stars visible, even though it was a clear night.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: nomuse on November 19, 2018, 11:09:29 PM
I'm trying out a new phrase:

"Swallow Poster."

It's like a seagull poster, but every year it migrates back across the Atlantic and posts again.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: ineluki on November 20, 2018, 07:20:58 AM
I frequently answer with a cursory explanation of camera settings and exposure, with the follow up, "Just ask ANY professional photographer."

No need to bother Professionals, every Amateur who ever tried to take pictures of Stars should do.

Actually my neighbour's kids could test this and understand the concept (unlike Jim Fetzer)


 


Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: ineluki on November 20, 2018, 07:26:32 AM
"Swallow Poster."

Is that an african or european Swallow, and what is it's air-speed velocity?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on November 20, 2018, 12:24:48 PM
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on November 20, 2018, 12:36:19 PM
Here's a photo I took on a drill site during night shift looking across a dry lake bed towards Moonrise.  The Moon is visible as a reddish object on the horizon.  Despite multiple floodlights the ground (multiple shadows) is not as brightly lit as it would be in daylight.  No stars visible, even though it was a clear night.

Nice shot.  Where is the drill site?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on November 20, 2018, 01:09:47 PM
It also stops trolls like Cambo claiming "they couldn't answer my questions"...

That's why I wrote the Clavius.org website.  The answers have been there for nearly 20 years in some cases.  I don't feel the need to respond at length when I've already responded at length and made them available to the world for free.  Digging up the questions anew and giving them a fresh coat of paint doesn't make the existing answers go away.  If they claim "They couldn't answer my questions," then I respond, "They ignored the answers."

Nor do I buy the excuse of disregarding the existing answers because they are only alternatives to hoax claims such that casual denial suffices to address them.  First, that's not true in cases like stars in the photographs, which are the majority of hoax claims.  In those straightforward cases, the hoax claims obviously err from a factual or technical position.  When the alternative spells out facts the hoax claimant was just plain ignorant about or got wrong, it's not just competing conjecture.

In harder cases such as the curious movement of the flag, we must remember the structure of the presented argument.  The claimant identifies something that defies simple explanation, then he leaps to explain it as a telltale of some purported hoax:  "See, that proves there was air in the studio."  Well, no it doesn't.  That's one of several possible explanations he leaped over.  Proposing as true one of many alternatives carries the burden to show it is most true among them all.  Ignoring them is not a substitute for bearing the burden.  Other alternatives are usually more parsimonious.  Therefore they explain more than a claim that brings with it a lot of baggage.  That baggage is why hoax claims often assume a background in arguments of limited depth:  "It would have to be hoaxed just to avoid the radiation, therefore photographic anomalies like this are just confirmation of what we already know."
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on November 20, 2018, 01:41:59 PM
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.

Jay, I'm curious and I apologize if you have already answered, but have you met Sibrel up close and personal?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on November 20, 2018, 05:17:27 PM
Jay, I'm curious and I apologize if you have already answered, but have you met Sibrel up close and personal?

No, we've never directly met.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Dalhousie on November 20, 2018, 08:09:01 PM
Here's a photo I took on a drill site during night shift looking across a dry lake bed towards Moonrise.  The Moon is visible as a reddish object on the horizon.  Despite multiple floodlights the ground (multiple shadows) is not as brightly lit as it would be in daylight.  No stars visible, even though it was a clear night.

Nice shot.  Where is the drill site?

Lake Menindee, Australia https://goo.gl/maps/sngnQC7vjGT2
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Count Zero on November 20, 2018, 08:36:04 PM
I don't feel the need to respond at length when I've already responded at length...

...but you do anyway (and we love you for it).
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Glom on November 21, 2018, 02:55:05 AM
Jay, I'm curious and I apologize if you have already answered, but have you met Sibrel up close and personal?

No, we've never directly met.
Are you sure? I've seen a clip of a hobbit punching him. Was that you?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 21, 2018, 03:24:55 AM
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.

just going off a video I saw once Jay called Lunar Legacy, didn't Sibrel leave out 1 of the 3 videos nasa sent to him because including it would have invalidated his claims
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Abaddon on November 21, 2018, 06:47:24 AM
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.

just going off a video I saw once Jay called Lunar Legacy, didn't Sibrel leave out 1 of the 3 videos nasa sent to him because including it would have invalidated his claims
You recall correctly. Sibrel also claimed that the parts he DID include were accidentally given to him by NASA when they are quite obviously publicly available and have been for years.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 21, 2018, 07:02:14 AM
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.

just going off a video I saw once Jay called Lunar Legacy, didn't Sibrel leave out 1 of the 3 videos nasa sent to him because including it would have invalidated his claims
You recall correctly. Sibrel also claimed that the parts he DID include were accidentally given to him by NASA when they are quite obviously publicly available and have been for years.

yeah I thought I had that right. How many people did he con into buying his DVD eh !!!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on November 21, 2018, 09:32:52 AM
You recall correctly.

Indeed, and Sibrel tried to lie and say the telltale video wasn't in the package he got from NASA.  But Mark Gray confirmed that clips in Sibrel's videos indeed came from that, supporting the hypothesis that Sibrel knew all along that the evidence wasn't consistent with his interpretation but chose instead to cherry-pick from it.

Quote
Sibrel also claimed that the parts he DID include were accidentally given to him by NASA when they are quite obviously publicly available and have been for years.

Nowadays available to anyone and given out as a standard response to requests for Apollo-era film.  See Jeff Quitney's YouTube channel for a great example of such things.  But originally they were produced as so-called "report films."  Every NASA-funded project (and many other aerospace projects of the time) produced at least one of these every fiscal quarter, to be sent to NASA HQ as a visual record of progress, or as needed to document results.  So the title slug says something like "Not for public distribution," which Sibrel interpreted to mean Top Secret.  They were merely internal documents, not intended to be released for public use but certainly not restricted from it.  On Clavius you can find examples of actual NASA documents that were once classified but later declassified.  The wording of the classifications is important.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on November 21, 2018, 09:36:11 AM
yeah I thought I had that right. How many people did he con into buying his DVD eh !!!

The company he started to distribute them reported an annual revenue of well over $200,000 for one of the years it was in operation.  Assuming that was its only product, and going by his retail price of $45 per set, that's well over 4,000.  The address listed for the company was a Nashville apartment complex (now demolished).
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bobdude11 on November 21, 2018, 12:53:56 PM
I'm trying out a new phrase:

"Swallow Poster."

It's like a seagull poster, but every year it migrates back across the Atlantic and posts again.
But is it an African swallow or a European swallow? :)

Leaving it, but got ninja'd
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: cambo on November 21, 2018, 02:08:33 PM
In the first instance of the jump, measuring the sand, the top line appears one frame too early, as the sand is still rising, and the line is also below the true height of the sand, so we have to advance at least two frames to get the sand level with the line. Twelve frames later, after the top line appears, the bottom line appears, but the sand has met the ground three frames earlier. We also observe the smaller particles of sand being buoyed in the air and taking longer to descend. The only explanation for this, is that it was shot on earth with the person being somehow pulled up and suspended in the air to mimic the moons gravity.

I "count" frames differently than you and no I didn't see the regolith travel higher than the boots, perhaps you could use your expertise in counting and post a video that supports your claim

The evidence is in the clip, for anyone that can be bothered to analyse it. I posted the video and explained why the film was not shot on the moon.

 Sand is visible above the actors left boot, early in his ascent.
(https://i.imgur.com/6j96BXe.jpg)

One frame after the first line appears, the finer sand is just reaching its highest point.
(https://i.imgur.com/9Fh1dgA.jpg)

Seven frames later, we see the sand settling on the ground.
(https://i.imgur.com/1k6MO4c.png)

The sand above his boot had to be propelled upwards at a higher velocity than the actor, and the finer sand disperses and disappears on the way down before it reaches the ground. How could that happen if it were filmed in a vacuum? The only two possibilities are, that either I’m making it up or you have impaired vision, as it would be unheard of for a person defending NASA to resort to lying, wouldn’t it?

Quote from: cambo
So we now have two sets of evidence which are irrefutable proof of fakery and cannot be debunked, without resorting to lying

Quote from: bknight
No I don't see any irrefutable proof of fakery.

It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence, but when we see seemingly educated adults displaying such behaviour, there must be more to it. It has to be indoctrination, although there will be some that stand to make financial gain by defending NASA’s lies, and I am certain there is at least two of these people on these forums.

 Explain to a group of people that any object, regardless of size or weight will fall at the same speed in a vacuum and show them the jump salute with instructions on how to analyse the video, and they will all come to the same conclusion as I did. Explain to people how to determine the size, the earth would look from a given distance, and then ask them to compare their findings to what we see on Apollo 11’s alleged transit to the moon, and again, they will also come to the same conclusion as I did. When I presented my evidence, I failed to take into account, the difference in specs between my video camera and the Apollo 11 on-board camera, but if I had, then the results would be even more damning.

Your only response is that you cannot see what I see, without giving any evidence to support your assumption that what you see is what you would expect to see. I challenge you to give me just one piece of solid proof that the moon landings were genuine.

How about the reflectors? We don’t need a reflector to bounce a laser off the moon.

The lunar samples? In short, we only have NASA’s word, and when I say we, I include the geologists. Now here’s a novel idea, why not as well as a geologist being able to request a sample for delivery, he or she could also have a “pick up in store” option where they could make an appointment and browse through those hundreds of kilos of moon soil and rocks and be allowed to choose which specimen they would like their sample taken from, and then watch, while they cut them a slice.

Examining a tiny piece of rock might indicate that it didn’t come from earth and it may even be somehow possible to determine with some degree of accuracy that it probably originated from the moon, but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions. NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.

Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon, so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret? If you think this is a minor point, then you haven’t thought it through, as this third party evidence, along with the lost telemetry data and technology would surely have gone a long way in silencing us conspiracy nuts.

Russia would have blabbed? Even if the US and the Soviets weren’t in cahoots at the time, how would they go about proving it? They couldn’t track the Apollo missions, so the best they could do was listen in on radio transmissions coming from the direction of the moon, when they were lucky enough to be in site of the moon during a transmission. Those transmissions wouldn’t have given the Russians any cause for concern, as they did it themselves, during the Zond 5/6 missions, before the alleged Apollo 8 mission took place. A Russian voice was picked up coming from the crafts, giving the impression that the flights were manned, when it was actually a tape recording. The Zond 5 transmission supposedly had NASA flapping for a short while, thinking they’d been beaten to yet another milestone in manned space exploration.

The Russians knew it was faked because they knew it couldn’t be done, but to accuse the US of fraud, without proof would be seen as sour grapes to the rest of the deluded world, and anyhow it was best to bite their tongue in the knowledge that they and others would now have a free licence to fake the shit out of space, and that cheap wheat sure did come in handy. It seems strange that one nation would help feed another nation with whom they were in conflict with, as wouldn’t it make more sense to help starve them?

What about the rover and this rooster tail thing? As I understand it, the alleged lunar dust, thrown from the wheels of the rover forms an arc, resembling a rooster tail, as oppose to a parabolic arc, which we would see on earth. Apparently, the air resistance on earth is the reason for the parabolic arc, but as there is no air on the moon, the alleged dust falls straight back down. What?! Surely the opposite would be true, as with no air resistance, the alleged dust would be allowed to follow its trajectory and therefore form a perfect parabolic arc? Or am I missing something? I’m actually not sure what I’m supposed to be looking at, as I can’t see anything in the rover footage that wouldn’t be observable here on earth. It’s definitely not the backward C thing, so I’d be grateful if someone could post a photo which clearly shows the alleged dust forming the shape of a rooster tail, thanks.
(https://i.imgur.com/DguXj7v.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HzOucqA.png)

As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there is only one source of evidence available that could possibly prove it one way or another, and that is the video evidence, and sadly for you, it all points to a hoax. Kubrick would never have openly admitted to his involvement in the fraud, but they chose to end his life anyway, as he was about to blow the lid on the vile and deviant corruption within our governments and secret societies, of which he was exposed to. Who knows what was in those twenty minutes that he refused to cut from his last film, a couple of days before he was murdered? The likes of Sibrel and Percy are allowed to live because they are nobody’s, and anyway, NASA seem to be quite happy to let the debate linger on as long as they have stooges such as you to fight their corner.







Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: JayUtah on November 21, 2018, 03:07:20 PM
Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon...

You don't read Russian astronomy magazines, apparently.

Quote
...so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret?

Thank you for confirming you know nothing about space operations.  Radio frequencies and general orbital characteristics for non-orbit missions were routinely published starting in the early 1960s for the purpose of deconflicting communications and tracking.

You realize we can tell you're just making all this up as you go.

Quote
It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence, but when we see seemingly educated adults displaying such behaviour, there must be more to it. It has to be indoctrination, although there will be some that stand to make financial gain by defending NASA’s lies, and I am certain there is at least two of these people on these forums.

Poisoning the well only works if you're not the one who's demonstrably ignorant.  Obvious troll is obvious.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on November 21, 2018, 04:27:01 PM
Cambo, you can pile in the ad hominems all you like, it doesn't hide your lack of knowledge and it doesn't prove whatever point you're gish-galloping through at the moment.

I could be getting a a 6 figure pay cheque every month from NASA but it wouldn't make either of us right. What matters is whether the information you are given is correct. It is. The information you have so far given has not been correct.

Here, have a thread from Cosmoquest about Soviet monitoring of Apollo for free:

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-20447.html
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bknight on November 21, 2018, 04:39:48 PM
Because of the way you post I'll only give you a tidbit of the laundry list you provide.  When discussing the sand, again I have watched the video and the blurry images you present and of the video, there is no proof that the sand moved higher than the boots, perhaps it is your zeal to prove something that lets you see events that ae not present.
However, let me ask you a gravitational question, IF as you belief, but not proven, that the regolith goes higher than the boots, why is this proof that the sequence was shot on Earth.  Isn't gravity universal?  No sand would go higher than the boots unless it has been given extra energy to do so the formula for distance


https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/how-to-calculate-time-and-distance-from-acceleration-and-velocity/

and I chose that particular site as, you are a dummy or troll as Jay has indicated.
Fine material will not go higher that the boots unless there is that little bit of energy added.


Now as to my being:

"unheard of for a person defending NASA to resort to lying, wouldn’t it?"  Of course it would be not unheard-of for an HB to tell lies, the history is ripe with HB's lies.

"It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence, but when we see seemingly educated adults displaying such behaviour, there must be more to it. It has to be indoctrination, although there will be some that stand to make financial gain by defending NASA’s lies, and I am certain there is at least two of these people on these forums."

I have admitted many times concerning the errors I have made, unfortunately, you haven't.  Search the forum and you will sell my admissions.  Indoctrination?  that is rich, why don't you use a more proper term educated and versed in the Apollo program, by reading the literature.  Financial gain by defending.. That is rich NASA doesn't pay anyone to stand and knock down the BS you throw out.

Further you really need to spend some time in a physics book, this is high school level.  The regolith will depart the wheels with whatever the force is predominant.  If ANGULAR force is greater then the dust will travel in an arc, if the lateral force is greater then the path will be parabolic.  You cherry pick images, as thee are many that show parabolic paths.  Now who is lying?

I agree with Jay you are a troll, plain and simple.



Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: molesworth on November 21, 2018, 04:45:41 PM
Picking just a few points out of your stream-of-consciousness blather :

Examining a tiny piece of rock might indicate that it didn’t come from earth and it may even be somehow possible to determine with some degree of accuracy that it probably originated from the moon, but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions. NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.
Isn't this putting the cart before the horse?  You've decided the samples are not of lunar origin, therefore you aren't willing to look at any evidence that they might be.  You're not trying to have any kind of rational discussion, you're just reinforcing your own beliefs.

Quote
The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.
Not true.  And a small amount of research would have turned up plenty of reports of tracking of various missions.  The fact that you are either too lazy, or too afraid (in case it disproves your belief) to properly research the information, doesn't mean it ceases to exist.

Quote
Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon
ditto...

Quote
so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret? If you think this is a minor point, then you haven’t thought it through, as this third party evidence, along with the lost telemetry data and technology would surely have gone a long way in silencing us conspiracy nuts.
There were no "conspiracy nuts" (glad it's yourself using the phrase) at the time of the Apollo missions, so there was no goal of "silencing" them.  Also, as already pointed out, and again showing your lack of research, the information wasn't secret, and no telemetry data or technology was "lost".  (Yes, some tapes were overwritten, but the data on them had already been processed and copied to other forms.)

Quote
What about the rover and this rooster tail thing? As I understand it, the alleged lunar dust, thrown from the wheels of the rover forms an arc, resembling a rooster tail, as oppose to a parabolic arc, which we would see on earth. Apparently, the air resistance on earth is the reason for the parabolic arc, but as there is no air on the moon, the alleged dust falls straight back down. What?! Surely the opposite would be true, as with no air resistance, the alleged dust would be allowed to follow its trajectory and therefore form a perfect parabolic arc? Or am I missing something?
Yes, you're missing a basic understanding of physics, and also an understanding of colloquial English use of phrases such as "rooster tail" in describing said basic physics.

Quote
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there is only one source of evidence available that could possibly prove it one way or another, and that is the video evidence, and sadly for you, it all points to a hoax. Kubrick would never have openly admitted to his involvement in the fraud, but they chose to end his life anyway, as he was about to blow the lid on the vile and deviant corruption within our governments and secret societies, of which he was exposed to. Who knows what was in those twenty minutes that he refused to cut from his last film, a couple of days before he was murdered?
Can I ask what brand of tinfoil you prefer for your headgear??

I do love your opening statement though :
Quote
It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence...
Don't you see any irony in writing something like that?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: onebigmonkey on November 22, 2018, 08:01:41 AM
The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.

How blind are you? Have you even seen one of the launches, you know, the ones tracked from the ground until they disappeared?

No proof they made it into orbit? Seriously? You mean apart from large numbers of photographs taken in Earth orbit prior to TLI?

For example:

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?36

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/catalog/70mm/magazine/?148

Not to mention the many photographs of Earth, and 16mm, taken immediately after TLI, all of which show an exact correspondence with the various weather satellites in orbit at the time, like this montage of Apollo 11 images taken in orbit:

(https://i.imgur.com/hV0RfyX.jpg)
Quote

Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon, so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret? If you think this is a minor point, then you haven’t thought it through, as this third party evidence, along with the lost telemetry data and technology would surely have gone a long way in silencing us conspiracy nuts.

Who says the tracking data was a secret?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19730012127.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19700051154&hterms=apollo+tracking+data&qs=N%3D0%26Ntk%3DAll%26Ntt%3Dapollo%2520tracking%2520data%26Ntx%3Dmode%2520matchallpartial%26Nm%3D123%7CCollection%7CNASA%2520STI%7C%7C17%7CCollection%7CNACA

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19700025195.pdf

Quote
As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there is only one source of evidence available that could possibly prove it one way or another, and that is the video evidence, and sadly for you, it all points to a hoax.

Unfortunately for you the video (both 16mm and live TV) all point to the landings being genuine, no matter on how many occasions you say otherwise.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Jason Thompson on November 22, 2018, 08:21:59 AM
The evidence is in the clip, for anyone that can be bothered to analyse it.

Still avoiding the understanding that looking at a cloud of dust doesn't equate to looking at a single object.

Quote
The only two possibilities are, that either I’m making it up or you have impaired vision,

Or you are wrong. Explain why you keep failing to include that possibility.
Quote
It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong

Even sadder when people won't even consider it when presenting their conclusions.

Quote
Explain to a group of people that any object, regardless of size or weight will fall at the same speed in a vacuum and show them the jump salute with instructions on how to analyse the video, and they will all come to the same conclusion as I did.

Of course, because your 'analysis' is based on a faulty premise. Typical HB argument: take a true simple statement, then conclude that any apparent deviation from it is proof of something nefarious rather than an example of how the complexity of reality sometimes makes for some apparently anomalous observations.

Quote
Explain to people how to determine the size, the earth would look from a given distance, and then ask them to compare their findings to what we see on Apollo 11’s alleged transit to the moon, and again, they will also come to the same conclusion as I did.

Nope. Already answered that one. With information about the FOV of the camera and the distance of the Earth and it looks exactly right. You fail to put up any calculation to prove your point.

Quote
When I presented my evidence, I failed to take into account, the difference in specs between my video camera and the Apollo 11 on-board camera, but if I had, then the results would be even more damning.

The mere fact you considered your video camera to have any relevance to the problem at all is pretty damning for your 'analysis' (put in inverted commas because nothing you have done bears the slightest resemblance to actual analysis).

Quote
I challenge you to give me just one piece of solid proof that the moon landings were genuine.

Really not how this works, and in any case you have already pre-emptively dismissed any and all proof that can be offered as either fake (from NASA) or fake (from lying people supporting the NASA version of events).

Quote
How about the reflectors? We don’t need a reflector to bounce a laser off the moon.

No, but you get a stronger signal if you do use a reflector.
 
Quote
but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions.

That creaking sound must be those goalposts shifting again.

Quote
NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

Repeating that assertion won't make it true.

Quote
The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.

There is no proof of any of your alternatives either, so no basis on which to conclude fakery.
 
Quote
Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence

There we go again. Either no evidence or NASA-influenced evidence.

Quote
so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret?

There is a difference between 'kept secret' and 'I haven't seen it'. The data were published before every mission.

Quote
Kubrick would never have openly admitted to his involvement in the fraud, but they chose to end his life anyway

Three decades and multiple administrations later. That's some real efficient work.

Quote
as he was about to blow the lid on the vile and deviant corruption within our governments and secret societies, of which he was exposed to.

Since, apparently, you know a lot about this corruption, how would killing Kubrick help keep the lid on it? Or are you expecting a death squad visit some time soon?
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on November 22, 2018, 10:09:14 AM
My Gods, they never stop with the Kubrick thing.  Yes, there's the obvious and frankly stupid "no one tracked the missions" error, but come on!  They won't even do the work to fit directing Apollo missions into Kubrick's known schedule for the time to realize that it doesn't work.  Much less any of the other reasons Kubrick would have been a terrible choice.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: ineluki on November 23, 2018, 06:49:43 AM
As I’ve said on numerous occasions

Yes that's the problem with you disgustingly dishonest Troll, you say the same things over and over, even after you get explanations a 9 year old would understand...

Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Dalhousie on November 24, 2018, 01:01:46 AM
Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

I know this is post necromancy and I should not feed the troll, but this is so funny I can't resist responding.

Gravity is measured in geophysics in milligals.  Incidentally this is an SI unit, none has been defined as yet.  A standard gravity would be 980.665 gal, or 980665 millgals.

Los Alamos indeed lies over a gravity low of 260 milligals.  Not only does this very large anomaly extend north into Colorado, it is clearly related to geological structure.  Plus of course a low 260 milligals is all of 0.0265% less than a standard gravity, and detectable only with sensitive instruments.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0061/html/nm_boug.htm
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: BDL on November 24, 2018, 12:29:56 PM
Jay, I'm curious and I apologize if you have already answered, but have you met Sibrel up close and personal?

No, we've never directly met.

If you do decide to meet with him, be prepared for a bible duel. He’s pretty infamous for bible-poking battles.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: benparry on November 24, 2018, 02:34:12 PM
Wow is this guy still getting responses lol
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: apollo16uvc on November 24, 2018, 06:37:08 PM
My Gods, they never stop with the Kubrick thing.  Yes, there's the obvious and frankly stupid "no one tracked the missions" error, but come on!  They won't even do the work to fit directing Apollo missions into Kubrick's known schedule for the time to realize that it doesn't work.  Much less any of the other reasons Kubrick would have been a terrible choice.
I have been looking into that for some time. If you take into account how long 2001 a space odyssey took to make, and multiply that by all the live footage from the Apollo missions, it becomes pretty clear he did not have enough time.

This is not even taking into account the tens of thousands of photos, and 16mm footage, from different locations.

Would like to see your calculations!
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: MBDK on November 25, 2018, 01:59:52 AM
The sand above his boot had to be propelled upwards at a higher velocity than the actor, and the finer sand disperses and disappears on the way down before it reaches the ground. How could that happen if it were filmed in a vacuum? The only two possibilities are, that either I’m making it up or you have impaired vision, as it would be unheard of for a person defending NASA to resort to lying, wouldn’t it?

I see you have little to no grasp of basic physics or anatomy.  Acceleration equals Force divided by Mass, or A=F/M.  When you jump flat-footed, you don't actually jump with your foot flat.  Your heel comes up and you jump off of the balls of your feet with a little extra push from the toes.  As you do this, your heel lifts completely just before the rest of your foot does.  (https://www.thehoopsgeek.com/the-physics-of-the-vertical-jump/) This is why any fine evenly distributed particles you may be standing in will rise from the heel first.  Now, back to the equation.  Obviously, from the BASIC physics involved, the mass of the fine particles will be much less than the mass of a human resulting in greater acceleration. However, the force applied to the fine particles will not be equal to the total force provided to the jumper.  This is because the heel lift, that starts the jump AND the particulate acceleration, is just the initial lifting force.  Also, the force applied to the particles is only that which is contributed by the friction of the jumper's feet/shoes/boots, as there is no other avenue to impart it.  The final push off the balls and toes is yet to come.  So, two things happen.  The particulates are accelerated prior to the completion of the jump force AND the forces upon the particulates and the jumper are exponentially different. 

Conclusion:  The physics involved, regarding the relative heights reached by the particulates and the jumper, is the result of a complex and uneven exertion of forces.  Therefor, there can be no expectation of their relative heights gleamed purely from photography, and your claim for there being only two possibilities is utterly ignorant.

As far as dispersion goes, such dust in a vacuum would naturally spread out, as there is no air to slow and clump it into a cloud.  Your pictures of the LRV and the dune buggy actually prove this.  At the bottom of the LRV's rooster tail, the dust is spreading out and can be seen through easily.  As for the dune buggy, the dust is clouding up considerably more at the bottom of its rooster tail than it does in its arc, due to its reduced speed and further billowing caused by the atmosphere.

Note:  Edited for punctuation and reworded "with the relative heights" in my conclusion to read better.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: gillianren on November 25, 2018, 10:56:31 AM
My Gods, they never stop with the Kubrick thing.  Yes, there's the obvious and frankly stupid "no one tracked the missions" error, but come on!  They won't even do the work to fit directing Apollo missions into Kubrick's known schedule for the time to realize that it doesn't work.  Much less any of the other reasons Kubrick would have been a terrible choice.
I have been looking into that for some time. If you take into account how long 2001 a space odyssey took to make, and multiply that by all the live footage from the Apollo missions, it becomes pretty clear he did not have enough time.

This is not even taking into account the tens of thousands of photos, and 16mm footage, from different locations.

Would like to see your calculations!

I haven't bothered with calculations, honestly.  It's just that, you know, he made A Clockwork Orange in the middle of Apollo.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: bobdude11 on November 27, 2018, 01:01:54 PM
So Cambo,
 I just have a couple of things in response:


If you choose to ignore or dismiss this post, I will assume you have no response and are unable to provide any new arguments/'evidence' and therefore, to me, your claims, as of this post, are null and void until you present new and independent arguments complete with all of the data and the calculations used to derive that data and your conclusions.
Title: Re: Faking the moon landings
Post by: Peter B on December 03, 2018, 09:45:25 AM
The lunar samples? In short, we only have NASA’s word, and when I say we, I include the geologists. Now here’s a novel idea, why not as well as a geologist being able to request a sample for delivery, he or she could also have a “pick up in store” option where they could make an appointment and browse through those hundreds of kilos of moon soil and rocks and be allowed to choose which specimen they would like their sample taken from, and then watch, while they cut them a slice.

Maybe that could be a Thing...if geologists had the money to fly around the world and spend a few days in Houston browsing through hundreds of samples.

It's just a darn site cheaper to browse the catalog in the comfort of their own office and have the sample sent through. Remember, the catalog tells the scientist the exact type of rock in each sample, with details about its uniqueness. Go to https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/samples/ and pick a few samples at random. You never know, you might learn a bit about how each sample is a little different. And of course, if you bothered to learn a bit about science you might understand why a scientist might want one particular sample out of all those listed, rather than any other. Then, having asked for exactly that sample, she'd very quickly know whether she'd been given a piece of that specific sample as opposed to something from one of the others.

Why do you suggest your "pick up in store" option? Are you thinking of setting up a charter company to fly those cashed-up eggheads?

Quote
Examining a tiny piece of rock might indicate that it didn’t come from earth and it may even be somehow possible to determine with some degree of accuracy that it probably originated from the moon...

OMG, you finally got there. You actually accepted the idea that the Apollo rocks could have come from the Moon. Well done!

I take it then you accept the scientific consensus that these rocks, while similar to Earth rocks, also have distinct chemical differences which make terrestrial origin impossible.

Quote
...but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions.

To some extent I think you'll find scientists couldn't really care less how NASA came into possession of these rocks which you say "...probably originated from the moon..." They just want to do some good sciencey lovin' on their sample - to find out stuff about the geological history of the Moon, or something about the solar wind, or whatever.

But regardless of whether the scientists care or not how the rocks came to be on the Earth, the fact remains these Moon rocks are on the Earth. So if you accept they're Moon rocks, you now have to explain how ~380 kilograms of the stuff of the Moon is now on Earth, in a way that doesn't involve them flying through the Earth's atmosphere as meteorites.

Go on, take your time. See if you can do it without invoking the TARDIS.

Quote
NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

You what? So after just accepting the Apollo rocks "...probably originated from the moon..." you now say they don't exist? What are they, Schroedinger's rocks? They simultaneously came from the Moon and don't exist?

I think a little more explanation might be needed here. Like, a lot little more.

Quote
Russia would have blabbed? Even if the US and the Soviets weren’t in cahoots at the time, how would they go about proving it? They couldn’t track the Apollo missions, so the best they could do was listen in on radio transmissions coming from the direction of the moon, when they were lucky enough to be in site of the moon during a transmission. Those transmissions wouldn’t have given the Russians any cause for concern, as they did it themselves, during the Zond 5/6 missions, before the alleged Apollo 8 mission took place. A Russian voice was picked up coming from the crafts, giving the impression that the flights were manned, when it was actually a tape recording. The Zond 5 transmission supposedly had NASA flapping for a short while, thinking they’d been beaten to yet another milestone in manned space exploration.

LOL! Oh, stop it! Now we have Schroedinger's Cold War. The USSR was simultaneously "in cahoots" with the USA and causing a flap for NASA.

Quote
The Russians knew it was faked because they knew it couldn’t be done, but to accuse the US of fraud, without proof would be seen as sour grapes to the rest of the deluded world, and anyhow it was best to bite their tongue in the knowledge that they and others would now have a free licence to fake the shit out of space, and that cheap wheat sure did come in handy. It seems strange that one nation would help feed another nation with whom they were in conflict with, as wouldn’t it make more sense to help starve them?

"Da, comrade, we know that going to the Moon is impossible, we just don't know how to prove it." Do you seriously think an argument like that would work, like, anywhere?

Let me just spell this out in case I'm going too fast: if the Soviets knew that going to the Moon was impossible, all they needed to do was explain to the rest of the world what they knew. That way, the rest of the world would know that going to the Moon was impossible, meaning that the Americans going to the Moon must be impossible, meaning the Americans must be faking it. It would be a propaganda coup of the first order.

Oh, and by the way, why was it impossible for the Apollo spacecraft to go to the Moon? I forget whether you ever actually got around to explaining that.