It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

page: 21
57
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Seems no Apollo-ites want to argue on the speed change problem...

..Or perhaps no "Apollo-ites" want to waste any more time arguing against ignorant nonsense.




posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

I don't think 'slow scan' means what you think it means.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 12:50 AM
link   
They could have made attempts to cover up for the mistake, as I mentioned earlier...


We'll likely never know why they didn't try to cover their tracks, on this matter. We only know they didn't, and it became their fatal mistake...


They could have said Apollo 11 footage was not shown in actual speed, for whatever reason(s). And it would cover up altering the speed of footage on later missions.

However, if we had been told that the Apollo 11 footage was not shown in the correct speed, for whatever reason(s), then it would bring attention to it, a significance. It becomes an issue, in the public eye.
Not a good idea, obviously.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: AdmireTheDistance

originally posted by: turbonium1
Seems no Apollo-ites want to argue on the speed change problem...

..Or perhaps no "Apollo-ites" want to waste any more time arguing against ignorant nonsense.


Or perhaps they know better than posting ignorant nonsense, unlike yourself...

The speed changes after Apollo 11. I've shown this to you. Simply comparing the two clips set to 2x speed shows these astronauts moving around at obviously different speeds.

That is not 'ignorant nonsense', it is an undeniable fact.

Anyone can see it, and so can you.

Calling it ignorant nonsense, and a waste of time, is truly ironic



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: turbonium1

I don't think 'slow scan' means what you think it means.



I didn't say what it means, so think again.

The point you missed was - they DOCUMENTED the cameras used on the Apollo missions. As the slow-scan camera is an EXAMPLE.

Do you get my point, now?

If so, you can see it is used within context of the main issue, as I've explained in the post.

Now, let's move along...
edit on 7-11-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: turbonium1

I don't think 'slow scan' means what you think it means.



I didn't say what it means, so think again.


That's because you don't know.



The point you missed was - they DOCUMENTED the cameras used on the Apollo missions. As the slow-scan camera is an EXAMPLE.

Do you get my point, now?

If so, you can see it is used within context of the main issue, as I've explained in the post.

Now, let's move along...


They did document it. I suggest you go read the documentation. You've been given the links to it many times, off yo go.

It does not mean they filmed it in slow motion.

If you like, you can explain how they did a live broadcast in slow motion complete with audio. If you don't think it was live, I suggest you contact the people at Honeysuckle creek and ask them where the signal they sent on to the US was coming from. The email address is on the website, let us know how you get on.

Your insistence on repeating the lie (and it is a lie, whether you think it is or not) that the footage is in slow motion does not suddenly make your assertion true. Speeding up the video by some random factor does not help your cause as it proves nothing other than you can speed up video and make astronauts walk funny.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:04 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

You have no idea what it's for or how it works. It's not a camera to show things in slow motion.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Speeding up the video by some random factor does not help your cause as it proves nothing other than you can speed up video and make astronauts walk funny.


But it does NOT make astronauts 'walk funny' in the Apollo 11 footage, which you know, but choose to ignore, over and over again.

Do you claim the two clips I've posted show astronauts moving at the same speed? Yes or no?

If you claim they are at the same speed, which you seem to, then what is your claim based on?

Do you claim they both move faster than 'normal' speed? In other words, are they both moving/walking faster than humans which move/walk on the Earth?


If so, then what is your evidence that Apollo 11 astronauts are moving faster than on Earth?

Do you claim that we cannot move as fast as Apollo 11 astronauts, on Earth? If you do, what specifically is not possible to replicate on Earth, as being 'too fast'?



What is your position on this? Faster? What is faster than normal - specifically - in the Apollo 11 astronaut movements?



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 03:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: turbonium1

You have no idea what it's for or how it works. It's not a camera to show things in slow motion.


You have no idea that I never said that, even after I explained that clearly.

Show me where I claimed this, other than a creation of your own, in fantasy-land...


I'll wait for you, so please go right ahead....



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Do you need more time?



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 04:16 AM
link   
A week or so, perhaps?



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 04:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
A week or so, perhaps?


Oh, I'm sorry. Did you think I was looking at the thread every few seconds?

Go back to your post where you're kvetching about them supposedly not running at normal speed. Your last sentence is about them documenting having a slow scan camera. I'm on a phone so it's a pain to cut and paste it for you. But you know where it is.

Face it, you got caught. Embrace the error instead of claiming you stuck it in for informational purposes.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 04:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
A week or so, perhaps?


Given your posting pattern I hardly think that is something you can comment on.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 05:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

Speeding up the video by some random factor does not help your cause as it proves nothing other than you can speed up video and make astronauts walk funny.


But it does NOT make astronauts 'walk funny' in the Apollo 11 footage, which you know, but choose to ignore, over and over again.



Yes it does.



Do you claim the two clips I've posted show astronauts moving at the same speed? Yes or no?

If you claim they are at the same speed, which you seem to, then what is your claim based on?


I am not claiming anything, I am stating for a fact that they are on the moon. You altering video speeds only proves that you are altering video speeds. Their movement does not then match the audio, does not look natural and the material they disturb does not behave as it would on Earth or the moon.



Do you claim they both move faster than 'normal' speed? In other words, are they both moving/walking faster than humans which move/walk on the Earth?


They are walking at the correct speed for the moon. Your inability to see that is not my concern, you manipulating video to prove a bogus point proves nothing.



If so, then what is your evidence that Apollo 11 astronauts are moving faster than on Earth?


I said your speeding up of the film makes them move too fast. Perhaps the subtlety is lost in yoyu.



Do you claim that we cannot move as fast as Apollo 11 astronauts, on Earth? If you do, what specifically is not possible to replicate on Earth, as being 'too fast'?


They are not moving too fast for lunar conditions, their movements when you speed up the video are speeded up. Why do you have to fake video footage to prove your point?



What is your position on this? Faster? What is faster than normal - specifically - in the Apollo 11 astronaut movements?


I have stated my position quite clearly: Their movement is perfectly normal for the lunar environment. You falsifying the video record only proves that you can falsify the video record in an attempt to re-write history. Deal with the events as presented, not your fake version of it.



posted on Nov, 7 2015 @ 11:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1
Here's a source which proves that wires/harnesses would, indeed, work for the Apollo 'moon walks' ...

en.wikipedia.org...

A change in direction, using a wires/harness system, just like I told you...


your link that you say is so called proof that it will work for apollo moon walks is false.

all lunar surface footage contains three-dimensional movement.. the link you posted is what they used in theatres, which is predominantly two-dimensional movement.. ie. the proof you posted only shows up down and left right movement got the clue yet?? or do i need to spoon feed you more?..

next problem, your proof, if it was done in 3 dimensions it would mean that ONLY one astronaut will be shown at all times otherwise a clash of rigging will ensue.

next problem, the system you posted and cited it as proof are wired harnesses, with motion controlled completely with motors.. as the entire mass of the person is to be suspended when in use and not when they are on the ground. so this whole looking like 1/6th G illusion is lost.
what i mean is if you want to have a 1/6th G look you need to suspend 5/6 of the weight at ALL times, which your rigging does not.

next problem, also has to do with the rigging, every single minor movement will need to be perfectly synched with the astronauts movement.

next problem, stability, your wired harness is in general hooked up to the rear portion of the subject, meaning the COG will be in front of the pivot point, meaning all subjects will lean forward as the wired harness pulls them up, but in some of the footage astronauts fall backwards when jumping..

and you would think that if they used such advanced harness system back in the 60's that that technology would have trickled down into theatres by now.



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 12:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: turbonium1
A week or so, perhaps?


Oh, I'm sorry. Did you think I was looking at the thread every few seconds?

Go back to your post where you're kvetching about them supposedly not running at normal speed. Your last sentence is about them documenting having a slow scan camera. I'm on a phone so it's a pain to cut and paste it for you. But you know where it is.

Face it, you got caught. Embrace the error instead of claiming you stuck it in for informational purposes.


You could have hit the 'quote' button on my post, while you were on the phone, instead of writing a post about how it's such a pain to cut and paste from my post, while on the phone. Maybe you didn't know about the 'quote' button, but now you do. Of course, you managed to write your post while on the phone, and could have cut and pasted after the phone call, but no matter....

Here's what I said...


originally posted by: turbonium1
Seems no Apollo-ites want to argue on the speed change problem...

To move at two different speeds cannot be done, if they were actually on the moon....as we all know.

If the missions were filmed 'live', on the moon, as claimed, and transmitted to Earth, and was then shown 'live' on our TV sets, as claimed...the astronauts would all move/walk/etc. AT THE SAME SPEED!

If any mission(s) were not shown as actual speed, or if all missions were not shown at the actual speed, it would have been mentioned, at the time. It was never mentioned, at the time, or in 45+ years since then...

They DOCUMENTED all the Apollo 'lunar surface' footage as genuine, as correct. The entire process was documented, from start to finish. The cameras used were all known, film speeds were all known, transmission processes were all known, and so forth...

They specifically mentioned one of the Apollo 11 cameras as being a 'slow-scan' camera, within their documents.


It is beyond any excuses, and you know it..



Note what I said, again...

They DOCUMENTED all the Apollo 'lunar surface' footage as genuine, as correct. The entire process was documented, from start to finish. The cameras used were all known, film speeds were all known, transmission processes were all known, and so forth...

They specifically mentioned one of the Apollo 11 cameras as being a 'slow-scan' camera, within their documents.


I said "They DOCUMENTED all the Apollo 'lunar surface' footage as genuine, as correct...."

I followed that with an example, off the top of my head, because I remembered them specifically documenting the 'slow-scan' camera. If you read the paragraph just before that, then you would know that I said they documented all the footage, and the cameras, and the film speeds, etc. - To know that, and to know that 'slow-scan' cameras WERE documented, would NOT equate to a 'slow-speed', 'slow footage' camera.

I never said or implied 'slow-scan' meant 'slow-speed, slow footage'. You made it up.


Here's the point -

Don't assume you know what I'm saying, unless you can actually quote me saying it, directly, word for word.

NOT what you think I said. NOT what you think I meant to say. NOT what you want me to say, although I never did

And, that way, you'll never need to use a phony, er, phone excuse, anymore..


As you said - Face it...you've been caught. Embrace the error. Don't blame your phone...



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1


The entire process was documented, from start to finish...


As you said - Face it...you've been caught. Embrace the error. Don't blame your phone...



I know all about the quote button. But whacking out 100 lines of your logarrhea takes several minutes. So, yes, quoting you on the phone browser is a pain. And as I said, you knew what I was referring to.

Now you're trying to say you were just listing things NASA documented. Right. Sure.

You betcha. We all believe you. I'm real sure you decided to tell us they knew a slow scan camera was onboard was just a random thing to mention in the context of them faking film speeds.

edit on 8-11-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 02:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

I am not claiming anything, I am stating for a fact that they are on the moon. You altering video speeds only proves that you are altering video speeds. Their movement does not then match the audio, does not look natural and the material they disturb does not behave as it would on Earth or the moon.


It's always about 'dust', which is not an object, but thousands of small objects, which are dust particles, clustered into dust 'clouds'. A poor quality video shows a dust cloud, and we just draw a thick line where you think the dust cloud peaks. Let's call it... 'Apex' 1. Go to a later point in the clip, where you see the dust is descending. Draw another thick line where you think the cloud peaks again. Measure between your two thick lines, add in the time period, to calculate that it is - what a shock! - indeed, the speed of dust in 1/6 g. Now, that is science at its best!

What particle would be used in validating Apex 1? I assume you're using the same particle to validate Apex 2, right?
Oh, I forgot, you don't use a specific particle, you use a cloud of particles. What do you think you are able to measure?
Your line is utterly useless. Thousands of particles could span across the width of that line. Thousands more could be above that line, as well, but it's impossible to see them in crappy videos. That's why I told you they can't be used as a valid source here.

I could arbitrarily set a line for Apex 1 far above yours, and set a line for Apex 2 far below yours, and it would be just as valid as your lines are. I can set the lines to calculate 1 g, or 1/2 g, or 1/4 g, if I chose to. Just like your video did to calculate 1/6 g.

You can't prove me wrong, either.

That's the game you're playing here, and it doesn't work. It's nonsense science, and you bring it up whenever your latest argument fails.

The audio? You can't see them speaking, on the 'moon', so you can't claim to know that they're speaking. The audio is added later, to match up with their movements. It is quite convenient that their visors hide their faces, so we can't actually tell if they are speaking! How about that!


I said..



If so, then what is your evidence that Apollo 11 astronauts are moving faster than on Earth?




originally posted by: onebigmonkey
I said your speeding up of the film makes them move too fast. Perhaps the subtlety is lost in yoyu.



First of all, I didn't speed up these clips, others did..

Now..

The astronaut is NOT moving too fast in the Apollo 11 clips, he is moving at normal Earth speed.

Here is Apollo 11, at 2x speed...

www.youtube.com...

Compare it to the clip below, from the 34 second mark forward. The Apollo 11 crew is walking to the launchpad..

www.shutterstock.com...

Do you need a side-by-side comparison, to help convince you that the Apollo 11 astronaut is, as I said, moving at normal speed? He is being suspended by wires, that is the only difference. But, the speed of their movements is EXACTLY THE SAME

And here's the clincher. The Apollo 15 clip at 2x speed...

www.youtube.com...


The astronauts in the Apollo 15 clip are obviously moving too fast, compared to normal Earth speed. They clearly move faster than the astronaut moves in the Apollo 11 clip, and faster than the Apollo crew walking to the launchpad.

Again, do you need a side-by-side comparison to grasp this very obvious point?

Even a child could tell you the difference in the speeds, but maybe you have some difficulty with it...



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: turbonium1


The entire process was documented, from start to finish...


As you said - Face it...you've been caught. Embrace the error. Don't blame your phone...



I know all about the quote button. But whacking out 100 lines of your logarrhea takes several minutes. So, yes, quoting you on the phone browser is a pain. And as I said, you knew what I was referring to.

Now you're trying to say you were just listing things NASA documented. Right. Sure.

You betcha. We all believe you. I'm real sure you decided to tell us they knew a slow scan camera was onboard was just a random thing to mention in the context of them faking film speeds.


It was - as I've explained to you - a camera I recalled being used on Apollo 11, which they documented, and specifically mentioned it as a 'slow-scan' camera. If I meant a 'slow-speed' camera as a 'slow-speed, slowed-down footage' camera, then I would SAY SO.

But, as you found out, I did NOT say it was. I've never claimed, or implied, in any way, that a 'slow-scan' camera is equivalent to a 'slow-speed, slowed down footage' camera.

YOU did. You are trying to put words in my mouth, which I never said.

You were caught in a lie, making up false claims for me.

I suggest you quote me next time. And stop fabricating my claims.




edit on 8-11-2015 by turbonium1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 8 2015 @ 03:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

It's always about 'dust', which is not an object, but thousands of small objects, which are dust particles, clustered into dust 'clouds'.


There's your first mistake. It doesn't form a cloud.



A poor quality video shows a dust cloud, and we just draw a thick line where you think the dust cloud peaks. Let's call it... 'Apex' 1. Go to a later point in the clip, where you see the dust is descending. Draw another thick line where you think the cloud peaks again. Measure between your two thick lines, add in the time period, to calculate that it is - what a shock! - indeed, the speed of dust in 1/6 g. Now, that is science at its best!


And I guess you can prove differently right? Go ahead and post your maths.



What particle would be used in validating Apex 1? I assume you're using the same particle to validate Apex 2, right?
Oh, I forgot, you don't use a specific particle, you use a cloud of particles. What do you think you are able to measure?
Your line is utterly useless. Thousands of particles could span across the width of that line. Thousands more could be above that line, as well, but it's impossible to see them in crappy videos. That's why I told you they can't be used as a valid source here.


You telling me something doesn't suddenly turn it into a fact. Leaving aside your assumptions about what you think I may or may not have done, the main factor in proving the lunar material kicked up by rovers and astronaut feet is the way it behaves: It does not billow as a cloud. It disappears to the horizon at top speed when dispersed by the descent engine, and stops as soon as the engine does.

This is not how dust in an atmosphere behaves.


I could arbitrarily set a line for Apex 1 far above yours, and set a line for Apex 2 far below yours, and it would be just as valid as your lines are. I can set the lines to calculate 1 g, or 1/2 g, or 1/4 g, if I chose to. Just like your video did to calculate 1/6 g.

You can't prove me wrong, either.


And you can't prove yourself right. Neither can you provide any evidence of disturbed lunar material behaving as if it was in an atmosphere. Neither can you provide any evidence whatsoever that the film has been speeded up. Not one piece. You assume it has, and act is if that assumption has some foundation in fact, but you have nothing but that assumption to base your position.

Mo-one is measuring an individual particle. They are looking at the aggregate behaviour of the entire mass of disturbed material. You could do the same and prove it is wrong. Or not...



That's the game you're playing here, and it doesn't work. It's nonsense science, and you bring it up whenever your latest argument fails.


I am not playing a game and you have no understanding whatsoever of any kind of science.



The audio? You can't see them speaking, on the 'moon', so you can't claim to know that they're speaking. The audio is added later, to match up with their movements. It is quite convenient that their visors hide their faces, so we can't actually tell if they are speaking! How about that!


And you can't prove they aren't, yet everything that is said matches up with everything they do, including views of Earth that contain time and date specific weather images including rocks and craters that were not known to exist before the missions. Live broadcasts, sent to dishes pointing at the moon all over the world.



I said..



If so, then what is your evidence that Apollo 11 astronauts are moving faster than on Earth?




originally posted by: onebigmonkey
I said your speeding up of the film makes them move too fast. Perhaps the subtlety is lost in yoyu.



First of all, I didn't speed up these clips, others did..


Oh right, so you haven't done any kind of work to support your claim whatsoever and are just relying on other people's nonsense? OK...




Now..

The astronaut is NOT moving too fast in the Apollo 11 clips, he is moving at normal Earth speed.

Here is Apollo 11, at 2x speed...

www.youtube.com...

Compare it to the clip below, from the 34 second mark forward. The Apollo 11 crew is walking to the launchpad..

www.shutterstock.com...


You think that looks normal? Find me some video of someone moving exactly like that. The 'walking to the bus footage' is nothing like it.

Did you listen to the audio? Hilarious.



Do you need a side-by-side comparison, to help convince you that the Apollo 11 astronaut is, as I said, moving at normal speed? He is being suspended by wires, that is the only difference. But, the speed of their movements is EXACTLY THE SAME



No, you need glasses.




And here's the clincher. The Apollo 15 clip at 2x speed...

www.youtube.com...


The astronauts in the Apollo 15 clip are obviously moving too fast, compared to normal Earth speed. They clearly move faster than the astronaut moves in the Apollo 11 clip, and faster than the Apollo crew walking to the launchpad.

Again, do you need a side-by-side comparison to grasp this very obvious point?

Even a child could tell you the difference in the speeds, but maybe you have some difficulty with it...



Nonsense. This is a typical "Emperor's new clothes" line of debate. Repeating a lie does not make it true. Do you have any kind of measurement to prove the difference in speed of movement? Anything? Or are you just relying on bold claims hoping no-one will check. Support your claim or don't bother with it.

I'll say it again, manipulating video proves nothing other than you can manipulate video. Look at the way the dust kicked up behaves, Where are the billowing clouds? How far does it travel? Are these things consistent with a lunar environment or not?

Now I await your report on the equipment and techniques needed to slow down live TV broadcast for several hours at a time, complete with synchronised audio. Do you need a week?
edit on 8-11-2015 by onebigmonkey because: parsing



new topics




 
57
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join