Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 4613 times)

Offline bknight

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2405
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #180 on: May 13, 2018, 08:27:15 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.

Nice model, so what was the distance to the edge both in  vertical and horizontal?  If the model can identify.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1149
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #181 on: May 13, 2018, 09:06:58 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.

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.

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #182 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.

Offline Peter B

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 698
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #183 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.
« Last Edit: May 14, 2018, 09:57:00 AM by Peter B »

Offline inconceivable

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #184 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?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #185 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....
« Last Edit: May 15, 2018, 10:19:58 AM 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

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1807
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #186 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.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein.

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

A polar orbit would also bypass the SAA - Tim Finch

Offline jfb

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 104
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #187 on: May 15, 2018, 11:09:07 AM »

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1347
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #188 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?

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1149
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #189 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?

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #190 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...
"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 smartcooky

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1525
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #191 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.
► 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 Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1324
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #192 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.
"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 benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 149
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #193 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

Offline inconceivable

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 27
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #194 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.