Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 22885 times)

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1791
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #165 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.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

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

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #166 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.”
« Last Edit: May 12, 2018, 03:35:44 AM by onebigmonkey »

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1481
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #167 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #168 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.)
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb

Offline smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1660
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #169 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.
► What you can assert without evidence, I can dismiss without evidence
► When you argue with idiots you risk being dragged down to their level and beaten with experience.
► Conspiracism is a shortcut to the illusion of erudition

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1054
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #170 on: May 12, 2018, 10:09:39 AM »
Don't forget ISRO (India)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2801
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #171 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)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline VQ

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #172 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.

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1481
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #173 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.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 340
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #174 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.
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline mako88sb

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 262
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #175 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?"

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #176 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.

Offline BertieSlack

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #177 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...……….

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1368
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #178 on: May 13, 2018, 03:01:53 AM »
Speaking of Cone, the 3D models I made showed exactly why they never saw it:



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.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2801
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #179 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.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan