Author Topic: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation  (Read 13079 times)

Offline 12oh2alarm

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 60
  • This dude likes Don Martin cartoons.
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #300 on: June 24, 2018, 12:13:16 PM »
Interesting footage for cambo to peruse:



Crew of Apollo 10 in transit.  This is obviously a cramped, closed space.  Plenty of stuff floating around (helmet, flashlight, John Young). 

Curious how cambo would say it was faked.

Not wanting to put words in cambo's mouth but that was obviously filmed under water. NASA had low-friction, oxygen-enriched breathable water which allowed for the gizmos to spin much longer than in regular water.

OK, I suck at simulating a hoax nut.  ;D

Offline Drewid

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 40
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #301 on: June 25, 2018, 07:35:30 AM »
That'd be a good challenge.
Create rigs for passing the tools back and forth exactly like that, that sort of timing and speed of rotation, in those directions.
Just proof of concept is all, should be easy to make with household materials readily to hand? right?  ;D

Offline Flookie

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #302 on: June 25, 2018, 07:36:37 PM »

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

Damn you guessed. Have to put you on the payroll too.

No, wait, that's misdirection!!! Where are they really pretending to head for ...?

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1201
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #303 on: July 01, 2018, 10:11:50 AM »
cambo asked a question relating to satellite data, wondering all innocently how long it took for the satellite images to be made public.

The answer is "it depends" - mainly on whether there was any public interest in what was on display.

This image



was published in the media on July 23rd. As I have access to a restored version of that image with the original date stamp on I know it was taken on Julian day 203 at 22:43 GMT. Julian day 203 is the 22nd of July. The image was on sale on ebay, until I bought it just now :D

The weather system can be seen in this photo

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/images/print/AS11/38/5693.jpg

and in this live TV broadcast

=182

Other satellite images of the area were published in October 1969 in this in house ESSA publication

ftp://ftp.library.noaa.gov/docs.lib/htdocs/rescue/journals/essa_world/QC851U461969oct.pdf

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 303
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #304 on: July 06, 2018, 10:54:19 PM »
This video has the advantage of actually being shot in zero g. If you look carefully, you can catch the edits between parabolic arcs, but it does a lot better job than that joke of a video that cambo posted:



It shows the ballistic paths that people and objects actually take in zero g.

This video shows how it was done:

"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline ka9q

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2861
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #305 on: July 07, 2018, 03:37:08 AM »
That video really demonstrates some of the limitations of airplane zero-g besides the limited duration. I also noticed it in some scenes in Apollo 13. We should point them out the next time some hoaxer just waves his hands and says "zero gravity airplane flights".

The plane is still surrounded by air so it is never going to be in an absolutely perfect free fall. Objects floating freely in the cabin (which are in true free fall as long as they don't hit the cabin walls) will seem to move somewhat irregularly as the plane jostles around them. You'll never see that in videos from the ISS except when they do an orbit-raising burn (there are cool Youtube videos of a few).

The other day I asked an experienced pilot friend about zero-g maneuvers. He pointed out that not only do you have to fly a perfect parabolic path, you also have to carefully ride the throttles to keep thrust and drag matched as the airplane loses airspeed on the way up and regains it on the way down. You must always keep some forward airspeed or you would lose control surface authority that might put you into a wings-level fall that might not be recoverable.

I still wonder (he didn't know) if planes dedicated to zero-g flight use special autopilots to do these maneuvers, or if they just hang some fuzzy dice in the cockpit so the flight crew can try to manually keep them floating in one place. But even if you did that perfectly, the fuzzy dice wouldn't be at the plane's center of mass so you still wouldn't be flying a correct parabola. You have to slowly pitch the airplane down around its center of mass, and that would push the fuzzy dice to the top of the cockpit even on a perfect parabola.

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #306 on: July 07, 2018, 03:58:39 AM »
Quote
“The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”

“did you know many old typewriters don't have a separate 1 and L key? the typist had to type a lower case "l" for the one and as a result the font was made so it could work for both.”

“Explain to me again why Kubrick was the person chosen to fake the footage?”

“he's definitively proven that he doesn't know anything about film.  Or Kubrick”

“Super, and in the middle of all of that effort, Kubrick squeezed in Apollo. Sure.”

“with all this control the Powers That Be have to ensure no one spills the beans, and Kubrick goes off happily planting clues that to you are "obviously" about a hoax?”

“I've spoken at length with Tony Frewin, Kubrick's assistant, and he can attest that Kubrick had nothing to do with anything that you're talking about”

“The jumper on its own could be just coincidence.”
“And was, since the costume designer arranged for it on her own and Kubrick didn't know anything about it until he saw Danny Lloyd wearing it on set”

“"A11" is not any sort of abbreviation used in the industry or in government to refer to the Apollo 11 mission”

“once you've convinced yourself that a film is full of Easter eggs, you'll keep lowering your critical standards until you see them”

Ok, I’m a little annoyed that I got the bit with the “Eagle” typewriter wrong, but his intension was the same. I think we are nearly all agreed that Kubrick had a meticulous eye for detail, and with that in mind, if you haven’t seen the video below, then please watch it and come back with your “HONEST” thoughts. I was so taken aback by this video, that I had to go and find the scene, being analysed in the video, to make sure the poster hadn’t manipulated the images I was seeing. This is the sixth lecture, as the poster calls them out of seventeen in total, covering The Shining from start to finish.  After seeing this one, I watched the rest of the series in order, which was no easy task, as this man is by far the worst narrator I have ever come across.

The number of discontinuities in this movie are mind boggling, as objects move, disappear and reappear between consecutive scenes. The total lack of logic in some scenes were so obvious when pointed out, that it had to be deliberate, considering who made the film. One example is when the family arrive at the hotel and we see the luggage they brought with them. They drove there in a VW Beetle and it would’ve required three of those vehicles to carry that much luggage, or should I say equipment?

Having said all this, the poster points to a few instances that are too subtle and obscure to be taken seriously and if we add to this, the way the narrator stumbles over his words and dwells on some minor instances for too long, it can make for painful viewing at times,. As the poster points out in his description, the second half of the eleventh lecture is worth a view also.

There have been several alternative suggestions as to the hidden messages Kubrick was actually trying to convey in The Shining, but one thing’s for certain, he was definitely having a dig at America, for instance, the American flag being hung the wrong way, and the native American atrocities and Apollo were without doubt, part of it. The bears are definitely referring to Russia, although they could also have other meanings, and it’s so obvious, when Danny stands up, wearing that jumper that he is referring to the launch of Apollo 11 and its alleged journey to the moon. I toyed with the idea that maybe he was merely going along with the hoax theory, but that message on the typewriter, confirms to me that he was definitely heavily involved.

When I first saw the film, I remember being not all that impressed with it, but now that I realise that this film was in part, Kubrick’s confession and not an adaptation of Stephen King’s novel, which he confirms near the end of the film, when we see a crushed, red VW Beetle, the film becomes a masterpiece in my eyes.

Please try and stick with it without skipping through, at least until Wendy and the Doctor leave Danny’s room, as it builds to a point that I’m sure will raise a few eyebrows among you, and if it doesn’t, then to me, you are beyond saving.


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

Scene from the film.
=25

One thing that becomes obvious straight away in the above scene, after watching the video is when Danny is being asked about tony, he looks toward the window area several times, waiting for permission to answer.

Second half of lecture 11.
=623

Quote
“A transparency with current weather that shows signs of rotation?  Amazing!”

“How would your transparency manage to reproduce signs of rotation when it is filmed for extended periods?”

The camera was pointed at the alleged earth for around nine minutes, from when the camera was first fully zoomed in, until the point where they were asked to show the inside of the set. A substantial movement occurs in the first ninety seconds, with around the same amount of movement occurring in the following three minutes, which takes us to the halfway point in the scene. For the last half of the scene, the earth stops moving and in fact moves a tiny fraction in the opposite direction, so sadly, this is more proof that the video was faked.

Movement from 00:00 to 01:30


Movement from 01:30 to 04:30


Movement from 00:00 to 04:30


Movement from 04:30 to 09:00


Quote
“Looks like glare on the window IIRC caused by the coating on the windows and seen in other footage including some from the shuttle.”

“It isn't showing bright blue sky, it's showing glare through the window with the camera set to interior exposure.”

“No, the "bright blue sky" you see is scatter that is blooming on the pickup tube whose aperture is set too open.”

We won’t get anywhere if you all persist in lying, as the white areas are glare from whatever the light source is being shone through the window, whereas the blue area is neither glare or scatter on the pickup tube, as the blue area meets up precisely with the outer edge of the window frame, which confirms that this is the view outside of the window.


This is what glare looks like.


Have not one of you got the balls to admit there is something wrong here? Remember, you would only be admitting that this particular video is fake and not the entire Apollo programme. Most of you are highly educated individuals, who must surely know the difference between right and wrong, which is why I find it hard to understand why you persist in this childish behaviour. At least try and come up with a believable explanation as to why you see nothing wrong with that window image.

Quote
“Physics is physics. A rocket works the same everywhere. It makes no odds what the spacecraft looks like, the principle of operation is the same.”

Launching a rocket with a small satellite on-board may have been possible, but to launch a rocket of Apollo’s alleged weight and expect it to reach orbit is a very contentious issue in some people’s eyes.

Quote
“Firstly, landing on the moon had been done before”

Whether we believe a successful soft landing had already been achieved or not, it wasn’t achieved with the Apollo craft, which would make it lunacy to put people’s lives at risk before testing with an unmanned craft first.

Quote
“What was so unique about landing the LM that made it impossible to believe a couple of professional test pilots would voluntarily pilot it to a risky landing?”

No ejector seats for obvious reasons and no emergency services to rescue them, and the only thing they volunteered for was being part of the fraud.

Quote
“Why? What was so impossible about simulating something using the known laws of physics?”

A flight simulator is modelled from the working plane it is simulating. In the landers case they would only be able to simulate how they assumed it would work in a real environment. They had the tech to do it remotely, so why put lives at risk when it wasn’t necessary? If they had applied a bit of logic to the story they were telling, then it may have been slightly more plausible, but it wouldn’t have mattered either way to Mr Kubrick, as he was only in it for the money and the fame, he knew he would eventually receive.

Quote
“I haven't dismissed everything you can possibly provide as fake before you even provide it. Not that hard to understand, is it?”

Now that’s a lie, as it’s likely that you all have debunking sheets at the ready, which cover every possible scenario, that a HB could throw at you, plus a few more that we haven’t thought of yet. 

Quote
“The difference is my conclusion was arrived at with a sound understanding of science and physics whereas yours is based on incredulity and a strange conviction that because you don't get something it cant be real.”

You come to your conclusions because you say you understand science, whereas I come to my conclusions because of the evidence I see before me. How does science prove that we went to the moon? Give me some examples of scientific facts which prove this to be the case. You are the one exhibiting incredulity here, as you find the idea that a government would tell such a huge lie, so incredible that you will wave away all evidence, no matter how credible, as being nonsense.

Quote
“Why? How many aircraft were ever tested unmanned before taking off with a pilot in?

But in any case, the Apollo spacecraft were tested unmanned. Your failure to understand that testing does not mean flying the entire mission is your probem, not ours.”

Your complete lack of logic makes you and your fellow NASA followers a difficult bunch to argue with, as only a child would compare an aircraft to a spacecraft, as they are two completely different concepts. Why would they choose military pilots to man these crafts, when it would be logical to employ the very people who designed the craft, as they would know them inside out and would understand the principles of space flight. Who flew the first plane? Who drove the first car? The reason they chose those men is obvious, as it was to instil a sense of bravery, pride and patriotism into a nation that had very little to be proud of at that time.

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #307 on: July 07, 2018, 04:23:50 AM »
Quote
“Your arguments are not logical. It is not logical to begin a debate by dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you”

I disagree, as I think my arguments display both logic and common sense, and I joined this thread to give reasons why I don’t believe in the moon landings and not to dismiss anyone that disagrees with me, so your ideas to the contrary are all in your head.

Quote
“Why? How deep is the rock and how much regolith would have to be blown away to expose it, and is the engine capable of excavating that amount? Same old 'it either blew all or none of the dust away' crap”

I was merely responding to your assumption that the lander would have blown the dust clear over the horizon, in which case I would assume it was powerful enough to blast away the lunar soil underneath it, leaving nothing but bare rock. On the other hand, if the soil was feet deep rather than inches, then we would see a massive crater.

Quote
“They took their first flights manned. That is what test pilots do!! The reason being that control systems were not yet developed to be reliable enough to control aircraft remotely.

In fact, it was for this reason that the GAF Jindevik, a remote controlled drone developed in Australia for target towing, was first tested using a manned prototype.

This is a case of the exact opposite of what cambo is claiming, testing the aircraft manned before allowing it to be flown unmanned!!”

The lander was capable of landing remotely, as was the case with Apollo 11’s descent until its computer allegedly went tits up.

Quote
“Diddums. It's my site, I pay for it, I decide the content and I am under no obligation to massage the egos of idiots.  You are also completely wrong. I provide sources to all the images I used in the introduction to every mission. If you bothered to look at all of the pages you might find that I actually own physical copies of some of them, and it's only the expense of it that stops me buying more, like this one:

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=18269247226&searchurl=kn%3Dmeteorological%2Bdata%2Bcatalog%26sortby%3D17%26n%3D100121503&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title3


I’m probably nit-picking here, but why show this book, when it would not cover the Apollo 11 mission?

Quote
“Far from being some sort of secret Sibrel supposedly stumbled across they were always known about and the content was always available”

Wrong, only the footage shown at the time was available, and the fact that ten minutes were cut out during a live broadcast proves that the Apollo footage wasn’t live. Do you think the live news broadcast was edited? Then go find the unedited version, showing the missing ten minutes. I guarantee you won’t find it, as I am certain that the broadcast, you gave a link to on your site was unedited.

Quote
“Why do assume that it says 'talk'? Did someone tell you? You are making a priori judgements based on someone else's script and fitting your conclusions to 'evidence' accordingly. As for your later comment, I own a copy of the Apollo 11 Spacecraft Films box set, and the "talk scene" is not omitted.”

You are right of course, as the human brain can be easily fooled by the power of suggestion, but the fact that it is a third party who says the word, coupled with the fact that the word doesn’t appear in the flight record, tells me they have something to hide. My copy of that box set arrived a few days ago and I can confirm that the word is there (Sibrel, the lying sod). I have a strange feeling of pride, now that I own it and although I know it is all fake, it’s a piece of history nonetheless.

Quote
“What seems obvious that it is Earth, showing the exactly what it should show. Have you any proof as to how big the Earth should appear from that distance? There's plenty of astronomical software to help you out there”

https://sizecalc.com

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


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


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

Quote
“And we're still waiting for you to come up with any kind of sensible suggestion as to how they managed to produce a live colour image of Earth with accurate weather imagery superimposed on it for a live TV broadcast.”

My explanation of how they managed to produce an image of the earth with accurate weather patterns is a hell of a lot more plausible than you saying that the blue area in that window is merely glare, and you also suggesting that the size of the earth, when the camera is zoomed out, is as it should be, for which you haven’t even given an explanation yet, never mind a plausible one.

Quote
“It was a transparency" doesn't fall into that category because at the time of the broadcasts they did not have the images they needed to show the whole globe”

You persist in your assumption that weather patterns would be impossible to predict in advance, whereas I have shown you evidence to the contrary.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p37a.htm

Here’s a snippet from the above page. “The overall track of the storm, and specifically the September 14 picture, was used to provide reliable advanced warning to the island of Wake”

Quote
“See the white dot in the picture below? That’s apparently the earth, you’d be forgiven for thinking they were half way to the Sun”

“Amazing how it resolves to Earth when they zoom in on it though”

I was referring to its size.

Quote
“The missing 10 minutes may be missing from the internet, it does not mean that they are missing from the original broadcast. Sibrel's claim that they were not publicly available until 2002 is very much at odds with the opening screen in this which shows that the footage was available in 1994.”

That caption most likely shows when it was compiled and not the date when it was released to the public. If it was released in 1994, then we would be able to trace the media through which it was released on. You won’t find it, because it doesn’t exist, as it’s now, common knowledge that the bulk of these transmissions weren’t officially released until 2002, so unless you can point to the actual media it was released on, then you need to leave this one alone until you can do so.

Quote
“Your evidence is not 'nailed on' - it pretty much isn't your evidence, it's just a regurgitation of someone else's”

Although the evidence isn’t mine, I felt the need to explain to you all, the reasons why this is proof that the footage was faked.

Quote
“If you think anyone at any level putting together systems as complex as those for Apollo wouldn't have noticed it was fake, you're deluding yourself.”

Anyone at any level? And you say I’m deluded.

Quote
“The Youtuber contended that he could duplicate the "hammer and feather" video. He failed miserably.

Since lying and crying "nit-picking" is the only response you have, I'll have to declare victory again.”

Whether or not the video is precise to the millisecond, isn’t the issue here. The video shows how easily the Apollo feather and hammer experiment can be replicated on earth, but having said this, I admit that the You Tuber didn’t manage to make his feather bounce.

=883

Quote
“Oh? You say that the Apollo third stages are at the bottom of the ocean? These people say that they saw Saturn third stages and Apollo spacecraft leave earth orbit and head for the Moon:

https://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html


Notice that there are witnesses to, and they provide contemporary photographic evidence of, among other things, Apollo TLI,  S-IVB shroud deployment, and command module reentry. Or are they in on it, too?”

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

=860

And as the years roll by, it doesn’t get any better.
=16606

Quote
“Here's an astronomer who found Apollo 12's third stage. He thought it was an asteroid, but the spectroscopic signature of titanium paint identified it as a S-IVB”

It was never proven, but just assumed.

Quote
From gillianren  page 16  reply #230

“I'm not going to go back and dig through to figure out which responses are to me (again, Cambo, please leave in the tags that show who you're responding to”

Due to the large number of responses to my posts, I find it easier to gather them up into a word document and post my responses in one go, so in future I’ll try and include the poster, the page and the post number, and if your still not satisfied, then tough!

Quote
From molesworth  page 16  reply #233

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

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

Quote
From Abaddon  page 16  Reply #239

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

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

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

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

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #308 on: July 07, 2018, 05:00:26 AM »
Quote
From Abaddon  page 16  Reply #239

From cambo
“We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.”

From Abaddon
“Nope. You have no evidence at all.”

Oh but I do. It’s in the dust!

Quote
From Abaddon  page 16  Reply #239

From cambo
“It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.”

From Abaddon
“Sure. Now explain it.”

A probe, possibly placed there months in advance, so why don’t you explain why this wouldn’t be possible.

Quote
From gillianren  page 17  reply #251

 “How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?”

From cambo
“I must have missed that one, so you are telling me there is an uncut scene where they walk for miles? Really?”

“Yeah, you missed that one.”

From gillianren
“Funny how these people know so much about Apollo without ever really doing research on the Apollo record, isn't it?”

So post the damn clip and prove you’re not lying.

Quote
From Jason Thompson  page 18 reply #264

“Ah, but NASA 'accidentally' sent him the wrong stuff, thus blowing the hoax wide open. Which of course means NASA is simultaneously competent enough to pull of a hoax that basically fooled the world, but too inept to avoid sending out the key bit of footage that blows open the whole story to any old joe who asks for it”

These are the same people that taped over the original Apollo 11 footage, and it never fooled the whole world, only you lot.

Quote
From Jason Thompson
“No HB has ever been able to explain why such fotage a) was ever made in the first place, b) was retained at all when it would be so easy to destroy it, and c) was so poorly controlled that it could be accidentally sent to some nobody who requested it.”

Well let me take a stab at it.

a) Two of the four alleged transmissions were aired on live news broadcasts, in edited form and the other two were allegedly unscheduled broadcasts, but more likely different takes in order to decide which of them would be billed as the live broadcast. It’s all in the flight record, which I’m sure was amended after realising their balls up.


b) The second alleged broadcast should definitely have been destroyed, as it totally contradicts the first and third alleged broadcast, but due to their incompetence it never happened.

c) Because they were incompetent

Quote
From jfb  page 18  reply #266

“Interesting footage for cambo to peruse:

Crew of Apollo 10 in transit.  This is obviously a cramped, closed space.  Plenty of stuff floating around (helmet, flashlight, John Young). 

Curious how cambo would say it was faked.”

Well this one completely through me at first, as it’s the first piece of evidence I’ve seen from any of you that I had trouble with. I was telling myself it must be fake, even though it looks genuine. Could Apollo 10 have actually achieved orbit? They do seem to be in a bit of a rush while performing their little stunts, which would suggest they had a limited amount of time, and I think this could be the key, so it looks like they were able to simulate Zero G for a longer period than we see on board your run of the mill commercial Vomit Comet. The bulk of the action occurs in a fifty eight second clip, which would be twice the time experienced on a normal parabolic flight, but I see no reason why those clever people at NASA wouldn’t be able to achieve longer periods of weightlessness in an aircraft flying at a higher altitude.

Quote
From Peter B  page 19  Reply #275

“you know what? You can match the views in Apollo photographs against maps of the landing sites - they match”

I’m sure they do, who do you think mapped the moon?

Quote
From Peter B
“NASA can pull off the most amazing bit of fakery in the 20th century, and they somehow failed to notice the evidence you can spot”

It is indeed puzzling as to why they would show us footage that is so clearly faked, and I can only assume that they thought the public would be too dim to pick up on what they thought were minor details.

Quote
From Peter B
“Wow, so all the people who tested the LM during and after construction - its electrical systems, its environmental systems, its reaction control system, its engines, and all the rest of it - they all didn't have a clue? Please tell me, how do you load hypergolic chemicals into LM fuel tanks and run its engine and measure the fuel flow rates and calculate its thrust and somehow have that part of a fake?”

You are missing the point here, as you are assuming the thing would actually work. A couple of videos showing its rocket engine firing would suffice in making people believe they were actually conducting tests. They couldn’t even get a prototype to work properly in an environment they knew, as it was too unstable, but when we look through the window of the Apollo 11 LM, the descent is so smooth, you’d think it was on rails.


Quote
From Peter B
“A smiley goes a long way”

I prefer to read the reactions to my good old subtle English wit as it amuses me.

From Peter B

From cambo
“I wasn’t there to witness it, as I live thousands of miles away, but I can remember reading an article in a newspaper at the time. I’ll try and dig it up for you”

From Peter B
“Dig away. We'll wait”

See what I mean? Remember ages ago, when I said I’d read an article in a newspaper and I was asked to find the article and prove it? You people are so amusing, although a little slow on the uptake. :) :) :) :) :) :)

Quote
From Peter B
“any spacecraft transmitting while in lunar orbit would have its radio transmission frequencies shift in measurable ways which would differ from the actual orbiting CM or the LM stationary on the Moon's surface. Sorry, you lose. Again”

Differ from the actual orbiting CM? What CM? To you, logic is just a meaningless word, and what would stop them having a transmitter on the surface, as well as in orbit, as I’m sure the Americans and Soviets would have something worked out between them.

Quote
From Peter B

From cambo
“we can see that the alleged earth is noticeably different in colour from the first and third videos, which suggests a different method of trickery was used.”

From Peter B
“Very good, Sherlock Holmes. Now please explain what you've done to eliminate every other possible explanation for the change in colour.”

Absolutely naff all, as the contradicting views through the windows from the interior shots, make any further investigation unnecessary.

Quote
From Peter B

From cambo
 “As for zero gravity, apart from the torch trick, there is next to no suggestion of it at all. During the third transmission, one of the supposed astronauts says “Zero G is very comfortable, but after a while you get to the point where you sort of get tired of rattling around and banging off the ceiling and the floor and the side”. So with nearly three hours of footage, over four transmissions, we never see an example of this? All we get is the very odd close-up view of a person, with a slight hint of a swaying motion”

From Peter B
“Oh, give me a break. How much footage do you want of weightless astronauts that can't be faked in the Vomit Comet?”

Are you saying that there is footage of the alleged Apollo astronauts in space that cannot possibly be faked?

Quote
From Peter B  page 19  Reply #276

“You manage to find one dodgy conspiracy theory video and somehow manage to miss the dozens of other videos showing periods of minutes and longer where people are obviously weightless.”

I have to disagree, because when it comes to the ISS, it’s as if they are deliberately trying to get themselves caught out, and with the invention of CGI, how can anything be obvious?

Quote
From Peter B

From cambo
“I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions”

From Peter B
“Ah, so all the people who work at the Tidbinbilla Tracking Station, just outside Canberra, as part of the Deep Space Network, are all...what? Playing "World of Warcraft" all day? Why don't they spill the beans? Or does MONEY! work here in Australia too?”

Is this the same Deep Space Network ran by NASA?

Quote
From Peter B
“The gases are emerging from the engine bell at a couple of thousand metres per second and interacting with material (dust, sand, whatever) on a Moon with one-sixth of the Earth's gravity: that material is going to disappear over the horizon rather than settle on the ground a few metres away”

From cambo
“You have your assumption and I have mine, but if your assumption is correct, there would only be bare rock for miles”

From Peter B
Dear Lord, never mind my assumptions, where do you pull your assumptions from? Why would there only be bare rock for miles?

Really? God, you people are so irritating at times and if I had a proper hobby, I’d be long gone. It was a response to you, saying that the gas would be expelled at a couple of thousand metres per second. My reply was exaggerated in an attempt to get my point across, that if you was correct, then there would be a very significant amount of disturbance. I’m sure you do this deliberately in the hope I’ll get pissed and disappear, and to be honest, I’m nearing that point, as this debate is going nowhere.

Quote
From Peter B
And yes, 27 seconds would probably be manageable on a Vomit Comet. Of course, that means that the Mythbusters would have to be in on the fake too, along with the chef and everyone in the production company. And I'm sure they'd never spill the beans. Nope. Not a chance. Not with all that MONEY!

It’s a TV show, they knew they weren’t conversing with the astronaut, as it was just edited to look that way. Those two muppets were just reading their lines, and the producers gave NASA the script and NASA produced a video to fit in with that script. Now why on earth would the producers suspect foul play?

Quote
From Peter B  Re: SKYLAB  page 19  Reply #276
“look again at the direction his feet push off each time he takes a step”

Nope, he’d float away, and if you were honest, I think you’d agree, but honesty isn’t something you people are good at.

Quote
From Peter B
“it was recorded live, so it wasn't recorded ahead of time”

What gave you that idea? That’s gullibility taken to the extremes!

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #309 on: July 07, 2018, 05:18:48 AM »
Quote
From Peter B  page 19  Reply #276
“watch how the clothes of the wind tunnel people flutter in the wind - the Skylab astronauts' clothes don't do that.”

First of all, we can only see their clothes rippling, when in close-up, and not moving around, and even then you need to be looking for it. Secondly, the alleged Skylab astronauts clothes are snug fitting, and coupled with the quality of the video, it would be almost impossible to spot.

Quote
From Peter B
“the wind tunnel people don't speak, and we don't get to hear how loud the dang thing is - the Skylab astronauts are talking throughout”

You mean the voiceover? It’s people like you who get scammed through Emails and phone calls, and I’ll be willing to bet, if it hasn’t happened already, you will be caught out sooner or later.

Quote
From Peter B 
“you can see the path the air takes in the wind tunnel - where's the equivalent in the Skylab?”

Not sure I’m with you on this one, how do you see air? What exactly is showing you its path?

Quote
From AtomicDog  page 19  Reply #277

“Try floating a sheet of paper or a blob of water in a wind tunnel and see what happens”

I would suspect it would be impossible. Oh, hang on, you think I am saying that all the trickery was done in a wind chamber, is that right?

Quote
From AtomicDog
“The wind tunnel guys wear helmets with face shields to keep their eyes from drying out and getting foreign objects blown into them at high speed”

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

Quote
From AtomicDog  page 19  Reply #279
“The wind tunnel guys are using the airstream to maneuver and to orient their bodies-like a skydiver would. On the other hand, the astronauts are moving in ballistic trajectories according to Newton's third law. They push off a surface or each other and do not stop until they encounter a surface or each other. Notice how the wind tunnel guys almost never touch the tunnel surface. They don't need to-they are using the wind as a brake”

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

Quote
From JayUtah  page 19  Reply #282
“And how did you determine this?  Do you realize we have stereo-pair images from several lunar landscapes that allow us to measure accurately the distance to objects in the scene?  Do you understand that we have parallax-controllable sets of images?  Show me the math.”

You mean like we are shown by those brilliant people at Aulis?
https://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax/

So you think because NASA throw a few concocted images at you, it will actually prove something? Show you what math? All you need to do is swap your delusional eyes for your reality eyes, which you will find in your early childhood.

Quote
From JayUtah 
And you're telling us NASA is stupid enough to use shiny wires that can be seen on 16mm film and field-sequential television.  No, film producers of that era weren't that stupid.

I don’t believe I’ve ever mentioned shiny wires, as being evidence.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“Because hands-on experience and correct, adjudicated knowledge are better than watching television.  I live in the desert.  I'm also an engineer, which means working with graded and sifted particulates from time to time.  Dust is simply ubiquitous, and what I see in the lunar videos bears no resemblance to how I see dust, sand, and general particulates behave in an Earth environment”

So you think I’ve never kicked up sand on a calm day? I have a sand pit in my garden for my granddaughters, so I can do this anytime I want, and I can tell you, it acts exactly the same way as we see in those fake videos. If you open your eyes, you’ll notice the alleged moon dust clouds in exactly the same way as sand does on earth. As I have said before, you are only able to see it as fine lunar dust, as this is what your brain has been trained to believe, and no one will ever persuade you otherwise.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“It's clear you've never been within ten miles of any actual advanced engineering and manufacturing facility.  Since aerospace engineering is principally what I do for a living, and what I've done for 30 years, please tell me all about how airplanes and spacecraft are actually assembled.  Please go into as much detail as you need to get your point across, because I guarantee there is no chance you'll be talking over my head.  And the regulars here love to hear the details.”

What would be so complex in following a set of instructions? My job would be to assemble a set of components, which would be passed on to someone who would bolt my finished set of components onto another finished set of components and so on. It’s hardly rocket science!

Quote
From JayUtah 
“No hoax claimant has yet given a convincing reason why all these made men would risk their reputations by agreeing to help perpetrate a hoax which, if they were caught, would amount to criminal behavior.  It's like asking a millionaire if he wants to go pick pockets at the train station.  They have no incentive whatsoever to go along with a hoax and every incentive not to.”

It is that countries government who would be held responsible, and since there is no higher authority, at least that we know of, they will never be found out, and as time goes on, the memory will slowly fade and won’t even appear in history books.

Quote
From JayUtah 

From cambo
“No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive”

From JayUtah 
“Or so you say.  Until they come here and attempt it, you can't say that for sure”

Well you got that one bang on, as I realised a while back that I’m in the wrong place, but I’m here now, so I might as well go with it for the time being. If I’d read up on this site first, I would have realised it’s a closed shop for science nerds, and not a place for low life’s like me to hold a fair and honest debate.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“You're not telling us anything we haven't already heard before and already debunked a hundred times already.  So it's going to be really hard for you to succeed with the "You're all so closed-minded" ploy.”

I strongly disagree, as although you’ve heard it all before, you haven’t debunked as many of the claims as you say you have. For instance, you cannot prove that there should be no disturbance under the landers, as it is just your assumption that the thrust wouldn’t be enough to move the lunar soil, as there has been no demonstration, as far as I know that would prove it beyond doubt. Then we have the flag. Can it be proven that the alleged astronauts arm brushed the flag in that Apollo 15 scene? In fact after watching it again, the alleged astronaut is a hell of a lot closer to the camera than the flag is, judging by his height compared to his height while standing next to the flag.

And then there are those transmissions from Apollo 11 on its merry way to the moon. You see, there are a couple of anomalies in that footage which you cannot explain, without resorting to lying, and we only need one proof of fakery to throw NASA’s version of events into question. I know that not one of you on here will admit defeat, which I find sad, but at the same time, amusing as I know I am right, and your childish hand waving, lying and belittling tactics only makes me laugh all the louder.

Quote
From JayUtah 

From cambo
“It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon”

From JayUtah 
“You're telling us what "there would have to be," but you don't say what or how it was done, or show any evidence that it was done”

Most of the crap regarding Apollo can’t be proved either way, and in this case it is my assumption that there may have been a craft positioned in orbit and something lying on the surface, relaying transmissions. This, however would be hard to prove, but it would be hard to prove that this was not the case, and for all I know, they may have been simply bouncing radio signals off the moon. I mean, how accurate was Jodrell Bank’s tracking system, and as their equipment was apparently by courtesy of NASA, I wonder if NASA were able to fool the system, or maybe, dare I say it, they were so heavily involved that they didn’t need to.

Quote
From JayUtah 

From cambo
“This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told”

From JayUtah 
“Where is your evidence for this?”

You believe in the moon landings, don’t you? You say I do little or nothing to verify people’s claims, but what makes you think that? Is it because my conclusions contradict yours? Contrary to what you assume, I spend hours upon hours scrawling through web pages and videos, trying to gain knowledge from not just hoax sites, but NASA archives, Apollo flight journals and the like, and I recently purchased that triple DVD set from 2002 in order to verify one of the claims made by another member on here. I’d be willing to bet my life’s savings that you spend less than a tenth of the time on hoax sites than I spend on pro Apollo sites. This is another reason why my posts are so infrequent.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“A few of us are professionally qualified in the areas that we speak on regarding the hoax claim, such as photography, photographic analysis, film and theater stagecraft, engineering, geology and science, radio communications, and so forth.  And you'll find that many of us can back up our explanations of things with details and demonstrations.  In contrast, when asked to substantiate the foundation for your beliefs and expectations, you mostly seem to be relying on intuition and YouTube”

Oh I know how qualified you all are, but it seems to me that the more qualified people are, the less able they are to use their own intuition, as the so called facts from NASA are set in stone, and to question it would be sacrilege.

Quote
From JayUtah 
“Have you see the footage from Apollo 13?  From Apollo 8?  Do you realize that there is more evidence than just for Apollo 11?”

I’d prefer to spend a little more time on Apollo 11, as this is where some of the most damning evidence lies, but due to the stubbornness of you people, I cannot really see this episode coming to a conclusion any time soon.

Well despite you peoples stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious, we now have proof, not only of fakery, but we also have a confession from the man responsible. You lose!



Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #310 on: July 07, 2018, 05:28:22 AM »
Movement from 00:00 to 01:30


Movement from 01:30 to 04:30


Movement from 00:00 to 04:30


Movement from 04:30 to 09:00


Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #311 on: July 07, 2018, 05:42:16 AM »
I must apologise to AtomicDog, as the video’s I posted regarding rockets coming back down and the bouncing feather didn’t start at the point I wanted them to, which would have been confusing, so I’ll have one last go.
Rockets

=273

=16606

The bouncing feather

=884


Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 32
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #312 on: July 07, 2018, 05:48:21 AM »
Ok, I'll just give you the time to start watching

First clip 00:04:40

Second clip 04:36:45

Third clip 00:14:44

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1201
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #313 on: July 07, 2018, 11:30:37 AM »
Cambo, you are now being deliberately obtuse in your trolling.

No-one is claiming that weather can't be forecast. What I have very clearly stated is that it is not possible to predict the exact appearance of clouds from one day to the next and I have provided you with several examples where experts in the field (which does not include you) have stated that satellite meteorology in the 1960s was not yet in the position to provide accurate forecasts. Have another:

http://themilitaryengineer.com/tme_mag/07_08_2013/capsule/08_2013/Aug_16.pdf

Quote
"Knowledge of the physical behaviour of this kind of storm has progressed to the point where it is possible to issue alerts and provisional warnings to the public for areas which may be affected by them. But so far, it is impossible to predict the exact times and locations at which these severe storms may occur."

and

Quote
"The public benefit [of satellite information] is tremendous but the system is too new for its potential to be fully realised"

The link you provide does indeed show the path of a hurricane, but it could not have predicted the exact configuration of the storm over time, only that it where it was heading.

And yes, you are nit-picking, you have yet again misunderstood the context of what I posted and ignored the fact that I provide links to every document containing satellite weather data for every mission on my website. The links are there, all you need to do is go look.The point I was making was that the documents I use are not hidden away, they are public, and often the satellite images were published in newspapers when something of interest came up.

Fantastic image of Earth rotating over the course of the live broadcast by the way. How exactly does this prove your case?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1348
Re: Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation
« Reply #314 on: July 07, 2018, 12:02:10 PM »
Quote
“Your arguments are not logical. It is not logical to begin a debate by dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you”

I disagree, as I think my arguments display both logic and common sense, and I joined this thread to give reasons why I don’t believe in the moon landings and not to dismiss anyone that disagrees with me, so your ideas to the contrary are all in your head.

Bullshit. In one of your eariest posts you said this:

Quote
unless you can prove that NASA and all the other space agencies around the world are not lying to us, then you have nothing. Yes, I know I’m giving you an impossible task, but that’s the way I see it, as this fraud is global. Third party evidence just doesn’t cut it anymore, as they have all jumped on the bandwagon, realising what a great way it is to extort trillions in taxes.

Quote
Quote
“Why? How deep is the rock and how much regolith would have to be blown away to expose it, and is the engine capable of excavating that amount? Same old 'it either blew all or none of the dust away' crap”

I was merely responding to your assumption that the lander would have blown the dust clear over the horizon, in which case I would assume it was powerful enough to blast away the lunar soil underneath it, leaving nothing but bare rock. On the other hand, if the soil was feet deep rather than inches, then we would see a massive crater.

Why? Prove it.

Quote
You are right of course, as the human brain can be easily fooled by the power of suggestion, but the fact that it is a third party who says the word, coupled with the fact that the word doesn’t appear in the flight record, tells me they have something to hide.

So you acknowledge that the brain can be fooled by the power of suggestion, but somehow insist yours is immune. Tell us exactly how you have concluded that it is actually a word and not a random noise being interpreted as a word because the narrator tells you it is a word.

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


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


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

WHat information have you used to calculate how big the Earth shold appear in the FOV of the TV camera? DO you even know the FOV of the camera? If not, how are you deciding that's how big it should look?

The Moon appears 0.5 degrees wide from Earth. That would make the Earth 4 degrees across at the time of the first transmission. Your image proposes that the field of view of the TV camera when fully zoomed out is only about four times that, or 16 degrees. Does that seem likely?

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

SO you really can't see why something heading towards a distant horizon might appear to be heading downwards? I don't believe you, because you keep telling us how intelligent you are. The two statements are irreconcilable.
 
Quote
I can put up with your ridicule, in the knowledge that I am not conversing with real people, but rather NASA’s stooges.

Predictable trolling.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2018, 12:04:09 PM by Jason Thompson »
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain