Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 4612 times)

Online AtomicDog

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 279
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #195 on: May 16, 2018, 03:46:41 PM »
Exactly!  Nasa would not have let them take a feather onboard.  That's correct!  The feather would have been saturated with pure oxygen.  The LEM was a pure oxygen atmosphere.  Even at 5psi still posed a fire hazard.

Pure oxygen at 5 psi is the same oxygen pressure as air at 15 psi.
"There is no belief, however foolish, that will not gather its faithful adherents who will defend it to the death." - Isaac Asimov

Offline Geordie

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
  • Suspendisse enim veni; remaneat cognitio
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #196 on: May 16, 2018, 04:51:52 PM »
Exactly!  Nasa would not have let them take a feather onboard.  That's correct!  The feather would have been saturated with pure oxygen.  The LEM was a pure oxygen atmosphere.  Even at 5psi still posed a fire hazard.
  I suggest that the feather was stored properly i.e. safely until it was needed. It's not like they were having zero g pillow fights all the way to the moon.

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1347
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #197 on: May 16, 2018, 05:44:46 PM »
Exactly!  Nasa would not have let them take a feather onboard.  That's correct!  The feather would have been saturated with pure oxygen.  The LEM was a pure oxygen atmosphere.  Even at 5psi still posed a fire hazard.
  I suggest that the feather was stored properly i.e. safely until it was needed. It's not like they were having zero g pillow fights all the way to the moon.
imagines that. it is glorious.
Besides, it's made as the same basic stuff as human hair, and the astronauts were not bald.

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 799
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #198 on: May 16, 2018, 06:04:40 PM »
Oh.....is that why the Moonbase crew had to wear those purple wigs?

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

I was gonna ask if Inconceivable had ever tried to burn fingernail clippings. (Err, no, I haven't either. Not intentionally. I can confirm it smells very, very bad.)

Offline raven

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1347
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #199 on: May 16, 2018, 07:00:50 PM »
Oh.....is that why the Moonbase crew had to wear those purple wigs?

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

I was gonna ask if Inconceivable had ever tried to burn fingernail clippings. (Err, no, I haven't either. Not intentionally. I can confirm it smells very, very bad.)
You get a very similar smell when using Nair and related products, which makes sense, in both cases you're breaking down keratin, just one involves combustion. Yeah, it tends to reek.

Offline Willoughby

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #200 on: May 17, 2018, 09:47:06 AM »
Just want to point out the fact that if something was to be filmed in Earth gravity and then slowed down to simulate lunar gravity, if you wanted to speed this back up to the original speed, there is a factor by which you should speed it up that can be easily calculated.  That factor is about 2.48x.  Not 1.67.  Not 2.  Not 1.84.....  Not..."played with the frame rates until it looked right".  The factor is about 2.48X.  Playing with the frame rate until it "looks right" is circular.  The entire point is to speed it up the appropriate amount and THEN observe if it "looks right".  Not play with the frame rates until you get something that you think works and then assert what the factor is.  The factor is based on pure math and physics.  And the factor is 2.48.  Period.  (it won't look right at this speed, nor should it - because it wasn't filmed on Earth and slowed down - go figure).

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

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

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

In lunar gravity :

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

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

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

Another huge problem with the slowed down footage theory is that this was live.  If it were slowed down, it would necessarily have to have been prerecorded on some medium that could be played back at a slower frame rate, and that medium is film - which would have to be developed, etc.  So, it's not like it was merely delayed by a few minutes.  It would have had to have been prerecorded days or weeks in advance - because we are talking about hours upon hours of uncut live footage.  There would have been a lot of film to develop.  Then this playback would have to fool many technicians and pass as a live broadcast.  Again - hours upon hours of playback - uncut.  Kinda hard to do with film.  Not to mention the fact that as this Cambo guy says, there was no script; they just sorta went with the situation.  Yet, there are numerous times where the astronauts are referencing current events.  Things that were happening AT THAT MOMENT, such as specific and unique weather events (hurricanes, etc), the scores of live sporting events, political happenings, and many many other examples of this nature.  Since this entire "slowing down" theory hinges on the fact that it would have all have to be prerecorded, I find it amazing that they were able to accurately predict so many things in a broad spectrum of subjects and goings on in the world that would have been happening during the "live" broadcast that wasn't actually live, but recorded days or weeks earlier.     
« Last Edit: May 17, 2018, 09:50:47 AM by Willoughby »

Offline nomuse

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 799
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #201 on: May 17, 2018, 10:45:42 AM »
Oh My. I just thought about it in terms of editing. Sure, film MOS because why point microphones at what is supposed to be vacuum. Then what?

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

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

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

Sure, you could do it. But not with six people, a super-8, and a week to work.

Offline MBDK

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 127
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #202 on: May 17, 2018, 03:31:35 PM »
What is happening with the "test frame rate until it looks right" is that what looks wrong is everything OTHER than gravity.  Someone isn't paying attention to the actual gravity, but rather they are looking at other movements.  1.84 is probably too fast, but the person making that claim is clearly acknowledging that even at 2X speed, things look too fast - yet he actually hasn't sped it up ENOUGH; not too much.  He needed to slow it down because all those motions unassociated with gravity look too jerky and unnatural when sped up (because it wasn't filmed on Earth and slowed down).  These people just pluck arbitrary figures out of thin air.  On the moon, the ONLY thing different is the downward acceleration due to gravity.  All other motions (waving hands, swinging arms, banging hammers, basically anything that is not in free fall) would be no different on the moon than they are on Earth, so slowing down the footage only addresses the gravity and literally nothing else.  This is why 2X looks too fast - because it IS.  Because all those motions other than gravity are twice the speed they should be.

Very good synopsis of the whole "slo-mo" argument's major deficiencies.  If you don't mind, I may want to post (with credit to you, of course) this on one or more other threads on YouTube, or the like.
Lord John Whorfin: Laugh-a while you can, monkey-boy.

Offline Allan F

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #203 on: May 17, 2018, 05:45:13 PM »
Exactly!  Nasa would not have let them take a feather onboard.  That's correct!  The feather would have been saturated with pure oxygen.  The LEM was a pure oxygen atmosphere.  Even at 5psi still posed a fire hazard.

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

Actually, it's more than 150% relative to Earth atmosphere.
Well, it is like this: The truth doesn't need insults. Insults are the refuge of a darkened mind, a mind that refuses to open and see. Foul language can't outcompete knowledge. And knowledge is the result of education. Education is the result of the wish to know more, not less.

Offline Willoughby

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 79
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #204 on: May 17, 2018, 09:50:07 PM »
Very good synopsis of the whole "slo-mo" argument's major deficiencies.  If you don't mind, I may want to post (with credit to you, of course) this on one or more other threads on YouTube, or the like.

Of course you may use any part of my comment, though you need not credit me.  Credit knowledge if you feel credit is due.

Offline ineluki

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 145
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #205 on: May 18, 2018, 08:08:28 AM »
That's correct! 

Yawn... you aren't even trying to pretend to be more than a troll anymore...

Offline dwight

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 675
    • Live Tv From the Moon
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #206 on: May 18, 2018, 02:11:54 PM »
Imagine the sociological impact that would occur if hoax believers the world over unanimously decided to call the LM the “LM” and not the “LEM”.
"Honeysuckle TV on line!"

Offline Luke Pemberton

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 1807
  • Chaos in his tin foil hat
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #207 on: May 19, 2018, 10:29:33 AM »
Imagine the sociological impact that would occur if hoax believers the world over unanimously decided to call the LM the “LM” and not the “LEM”.

... and they simply looked around them, realised shadows don't need to be parallel, and that their ideological demagogues such as Ralph Rene were spouting crap all that time.
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 cambo

  • Mercury
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #208 on: May 20, 2018, 04:01:48 PM »
Quote
“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=6

=249

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

Quote
“it would still be subject to Earth gravity”

Yes it would.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The internet told you, as it did me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote
“he probably doesn’t know anyway”

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

Care to explain this?”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colin Rourke, Professor of Mathematics

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

Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD

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

Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky

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

Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov

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

Yuri Ignatievich Mukhin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





Offline molesworth

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
  • the curse of st custards
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #209 on: May 20, 2018, 05:20:07 PM »
I'll make apologies to the others for discussing Rosetta rather than Apollo, but the depth of your ignorance, and the extent of your arrogance, are astounding!
And that’s where we have a problem, you have been fed lies in order to explain away the impossible. This knowledge, as you refer to it would only work in a Sci-Fi movie.
If you're going to claim that "gravitational slingshots" (gravitational assist manoeuvres) don't work, then you'll need to do more than just make vague statements like "I don't believe they work" or "I don't think gravity works the same in space" - or whatever nonsense it is you're proposing.  You need to show the flaw in the mathematics and physics.  You need to show your calculations of what happens when a spacecraft passes close to a planet.  Until you can do those things, you're just another random person who doesn't "believe in science" and who isn't prepared to learn enough about it to argue their point coherently.

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

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

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

And finally, to explain why Rosetta is of such interest to me, we have one of the ground test versions of the spacecraft's main processor board in the "trophy cabinet" where I work - or is that just a fake too?
Days spent at sea are not deducted from one's allotted span - Phoenician proverb