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: 26
57
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Thus the need for a covert channel and (past posting)




posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Cauliflower

Except there was no covert channel.



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Lots of possible scenarios.
If you were going to organize a hoax so that all observers would support the hoax story you would need a covert channel.

Perhaps the Jodrell bank dish was the only listening tool available to receive the "true" data stream?



posted on Nov, 24 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cauliflower
a reply to: onebigmonkey

Lots of possible scenarios.
If you were going to organize a hoax so that all observers would support the hoax story you would need a covert channel.


And if you weren't organising a hoax then you wouldn't. There was no covert channel.



Perhaps the Jodrell bank dish was the only listening tool available to receive the "true" data stream?



As they were on the moon you cant have just one receiving dish - you need lots. Jodrell was able to detect the landing because it had the moon in view when Apollo 11 landed. When they did the EVA over 6 hours later it did not.

The TV broadcast of the EVA was covered mostly by Honeysuckle Creek in Australia. Audio was intercepted by an amateur radio enthusiast who only heard one side of the conversation - the astronauts.
edit on 24-11-2015 by onebigmonkey because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos
apparently you didnt know and continue to feign stupidity as you still try to say that humans can only move at one constant speed.

so therefore dancing fast and then dancing slow is impossible in your mind.


You need to understand exactly what the term 'constant' refers to ....

The noun constant may have two different meanings. It may refer to a fixed and well defined number or other mathematical object. The term mathematical constant (and also physical constant) is sometimes used to distinguish this meaning from the other one. A constant may also refer to a constant function or its value (it is a common usage to identify them). Such a constant is commonly represented by a variable which does not depend on the main variable(s) of the studied problem. This is the case, for example, for a constant of integration which is an arbitrary constant function (not depending on the variable of integration) added to a particular antiderivative to get all the antiderivatives of the given function.

en.wikipedia.org...(mathematics)

In an experiment following the scientific method, a constant is a variable that cannot be changed or is purposely not changed during the experiment. Some constants are purposeful and selected by the scientist to control an experiment while others are more universal and beyond a researcher's control.]/i]

www.ask.com...

That's how I meant we move in a constant speed, within the same environment, whether faster or slower in doing so...


originally posted by: choos

so apparently nasa slowed all the footage of the astronauts down to 50% for the apollo 11 mission to make it realistic, but as soon as they are in the LM and about to leave they immediately switch the slow down to 33% because it looks more realistic??

what reason would they have to change the slowdown speed mid mission??



It is not relevant to the issue, as I said..

The astronaut speed of movement is the issue, so don't think you can avoid it ...



posted on Nov, 27 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

That's how I meant we move in a constant speed, within the same environment, whether faster or slower in doing so...


and you still feign stupidity.. it doesnt matter how many different definitions of the word constant you copy and past you can paste a thousand..

the fact is you stated that humans CANNOT move at two different speeds within the same environment it doesnt matter here is a refresher:


originally posted by: turbonium1
Humans cannot move at two different speeds in the same environment,


so if humans cant move at different speeds in the same environment then all movement throughout their lives are at a constant speed, thus the dancing at different speeds, even typing you are claiming that if someone types at 20 wpm it is impossible for them to suddenly change to 3 wpm because that would break your laws of physics.

just admit you made a mistake change it and move along.



It is not relevant to the issue, as I said..

The astronaut speed of movement is the issue, so don't think you can avoid it ...


maybe not related to your issue but my issue with it is your reasoning/logic..

apparently it is perfectly fine for NASA to film Apollo 11 at both 50% and 66%.. you see absolutely nothing wrong with NASA filming at both those speeds for the one mission at all.

so what was your reasoning that they filmed at 66% for the apollo 12-17 again?
edit on 27-11-2015 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Calculations.

Any time you like.

I'll make it simple for you:

How long does it take to fall the roughly 3 metres in the film?

How far would an object fall in Earth gravity in the same time?

In your own time.


We can replicate the Apollo 11 astronaut when the film is at 2x original speed, with normal speed.

We cannot replicate the Apollo 15 astronaut moves at 2x original speed, since they move much too fast, compared to our normal Earth speed. It isn't likely possible TO replicate it on Earth, at such a maniacal pace!


I've also shown you a comparison of Apollo 11's astronaut at 2x speed, to the Apollo 11 crew walking on Earth. Apollo 11's astronaut at 2x speed is no faster than a normal walking speed, as we can see.

You want me to take some unknown 'measurements' to prove it is normal speed, when there is nothing at all which supports your claim, in the first place!

If you can't even support your own claim, it's just worthless chatter...



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 03:18 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Saturday already, doesn't time fly.

They aren't unknown. It is quite easy to find out the distance of the fall and to measure how long it takes in the film.

You can do this for Apollo 11 and for Apollo 17.

Yet you haven't.

You could quite easily prove your point, but you choose not to. Seems like you don't have enough faith in the theory you've copied to back it up with hard facts.

If you ever do the calculations, don't forget to work out how far the PLSS would fall in Earth gravity over whatever amount of time you manipulate the video to end up with. Make sure you publish those figures so that we can see that they make sense.

When you've done that, prove the TV cameras were not on the moon, because I'll repeat it again: all you are doing is proving you can mess around with video speeds. You are not proving they were not on the moon. The calculations you are afraid of doing will prove that actually they were, and your claim of sped up live TV is just nonsense.

When you've done that, you can identify the photo I posted of the ground some pages ago, because like everything else you ducked out of that argument.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 04:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: choos

maybe not related to your issue but my issue with it is your reasoning/logic..

apparently it is perfectly fine for NASA to film Apollo 11 at both 50% and 66%.. you see absolutely nothing wrong with NASA filming at both those speeds for the one mission at all.


Apollo 11 was at 50% speed for all scenes with astronauts in them, and that's the only thing which mattered, anyway.

Why do you think the speed changes from 50% to 66%, in the same Apollo 11 mission? You must have a reason(s), and you can also explain it, right?....

I'll wait for your answer, before going any further..



originally posted by: choos
so what was your reasoning that they filmed at 66% for the apollo 12-17 again?


Technology - a lack of it, would be the main reason.

The first mission - Apollo 11 - was slowed to 50%. We know this because at 2x speed, it becomes normal, Earth speed. You say the speed changes at the end, but not when astronauts move, as I said...

At the time, we had the technology to slow films down to exactly half-speed, as we all know. But they couldn't shoot hours of continuous footage with half-speed.

So that's why they changed the speed - to 66.66%. - it allowed them to shoot hours of continuous footage.


Do you really think that we would move around at exactly half-speed, or at exactly 2/3 speed, or magically change the speed after a mission???

Why would the lunar environment slow down all of their movements, for that matter?

Pure nonsense, all of it.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 04:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: turbonium1

Saturday already, doesn't time fly.

They aren't unknown. It is quite easy to find out the distance of the fall and to measure how long it takes in the film.

You can do this for Apollo 11 and for Apollo 17.

Yet you haven't.

You could quite easily prove your point, but you choose not to. Seems like you don't have enough faith in the theory you've copied to back it up with hard facts.

If you ever do the calculations, don't forget to work out how far the PLSS would fall in Earth gravity over whatever amount of time you manipulate the video to end up with. Make sure you publish those figures so that we can see that they make sense.

When you've done that, prove the TV cameras were not on the moon, because I'll repeat it again: all you are doing is proving you can mess around with video speeds. You are not proving they were not on the moon. The calculations you are afraid of doing will prove that actually they were, and your claim of sped up live TV is just nonsense.

When you've done that, you can identify the photo I posted of the ground some pages ago, because like everything else you ducked out of that argument.


Who brought up the PLSS falling to the ground?

Not me. Get the point, here?

Same as measurements, and calculations, were not mine...

These arguments all originate from your side, and so, it is your side alone which has the burden of supporting them. Not that any of them are actually relevant to the issue, your side thinks so...and your side must also support those claims, if it's even possible...



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 05:06 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


So that's why they changed the speed - to 66.66%. - it allowed them to shoot hours of continuous footage.


The "hours of continuous footage" were shot on video, not film. Please explain the techniques they used to do this.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Walking faster or slower, it is all done at 'normal' speed(s). Therefore, we know all those movements can be replicated on Earth, at the same speed(s), whether it is faster, or slower.

Proof of a normal speed of movement is in replicating those same movements, at normal speed.

Arguing replication is not proof of normal speed, and some phantom 'measurements' are required to prove it...is complete nonsense!


That's Apollo, in a nutshell.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 06:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: turbonium1


So that's why they changed the speed - to 66.66%. - it allowed them to shoot hours of continuous footage.


The "hours of continuous footage" were shot on video, not film. Please explain the techniques they used to do this.


I've explained this already -

This technique was used a few years before Apollo, by Warhol, in his entire film.

The footage was shot at 24 fps. It then was put in a projector running at 16 fps. It resulted in a film shown at 66.66% speed.

To return it to normal speed, we simply speed it up 1.5x.


Do you think it is just an amazing coincidence that speeding up Apollo footage (after Apollo 11) by the same 1.5x rate results in the very same, normal speed?!?



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1


The footage was shot at 24 fps. It then was put in a projector running at 16 fps. It resulted in a film shown at 66.66% speed.

To return it to normal speed, we simply speed it up 1.5x.


That technique is for film; most of what you see is video. It doesn't have frames. How do you do it? Having done it, how do you sync it to the dialog. Be specific, please.



Do you think it is just an amazing coincidence that speeding up Apollo footage (after Apollo 11) by the same 1.5x rate results in the very same, normal speed?!?


Here's an idea: speed up some Apollo footage to what you think is normal speed, then hop from foot to foot as fast as the astronauts do. Then try to keep up with them as they move around.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   
Changing the speed was probably not a concern for them, at the time. Because we cannot distinguish one slow movement from slightly slower movement, in such increments. Whether at 50%, or at 66.66%, it all seems the same - it is all 'slow', just by looking at it.

When there is no reference point, to tell one is slower than another one, we don't notice any difference in speeds.

The reference point is normal speed, to tell they are NOT the same speed, since we know if it is normal speed, or it is faster than normal speed.

It shows Apollo was a fantasy.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 07:18 AM
link   
a reply to: turbonium1

Here, try to hop from foot to foot this fast. Tell me how long you can do it for and how far you got:




posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 07:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

That technique is for film; most of what you see is video. It doesn't have frames. How do you do it? Having done it, how do you sync it to the dialog. Be specific, please.


They said it was video. It was on film. You think they'd be so stupid to say it was on film? Not.

You seem to think it had to be synced to the film, for some reason...they said it was, so it must be true, right? Wrong. Can you actually see their mouths moving, or not? Not. Gold visors were used for that specific purpose, to be sure



originally posted by: DJW001
Here's an idea: speed up some Apollo footage to what you think is normal speed, then hop from foot to foot as fast as the astronauts do. Then try to keep up with them as they move around.


Using wires, it's no problem at all.

The speed is normal, anyway, and is very simple to replicate. I've also shown a comparison clip, to prove it.



posted on Nov, 28 2015 @ 07:40 AM
link   
Btw, your clip shows the later missions, in 2x speed. It is not normal speed, right?

So what should Apollo 11 at 2x speed look like? The same, in being faster than normal speed, right?

It doesn't, which is the whole problem.



posted on Nov, 29 2015 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: turbonium1

Apollo 11 was at 50% speed for all scenes with astronauts in them, and that's the only thing which mattered, anyway.

Why do you think the speed changes from 50% to 66%, in the same Apollo 11 mission? You must have a reason(s), and you can also explain it, right?....

I'll wait for your answer, before going any further..


i dont think that it was changed from speed to speed at all, i believe that what i see is the speed at which it was filmed at..

the reason i mentioned it was changed from 50% to 66% was because i misinterpreted what you were saying when you said it doesnt matter what speed it is anymore when no astronauts are visible..

but since you stated that since slow motion at 66% didnt exist during apollo 11 then obviously ive misinterpreted your intention, however weird your explaination may be.



Technology - a lack of it, would be the main reason.

The first mission - Apollo 11 - was slowed to 50%. We know this because at 2x speed, it becomes normal, Earth speed. You say the speed changes at the end, but not when astronauts move, as I said...

At the time, we had the technology to slow films down to exactly half-speed, as we all know. But they couldn't shoot hours of continuous footage with half-speed.

So that's why they changed the speed - to 66.66%. - it allowed them to shoot hours of continuous footage.


this is the weird explaination i mentioned above, they didnt have the technology to slow footage down 66.66% but had the tech to slow it down to 50%..

you know that andy warhol slowed footage you like you cite so much as proof.. it kinda goes right back into your face in this instance.


Do you really think that we would move around at exactly half-speed, or at exactly 2/3 speed, or magically change the speed after a mission???


i dont think they are moving at exactly half speed or exactly 2/3 speed or changing any speed mid mission for that matter.


Why would the lunar environment slow down all of their movements, for that matter?

Pure nonsense, all of it.


its nonsense to you because your understanding of what you are seeing is inaccurate.
their movements isnt slowed down, only gravity is less making rising and falling seem like it is slowed.



posted on Dec, 4 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: choos

this is the weird explaination i mentioned above, they didnt have the technology to slow footage down 66.66% but had the tech to slow it down to 50%..


They did have the technology to slow it down to 66.66%, as described here...

Empire is a 1964 American silent black-and-white film directed and produced by Andy Warhol. It consists of eight hours and five minutes of continuous slow motion footage of the Empire State Building in New York City.

The film was shot at 24 frames per second but is projected at 16 frame/s, so that, even though only about 6 hours and 36 minutes of film was made, the film when screened is about 8 hours and 5 minutes long.


en.wikipedia.org...(1964_film)

This is proof of my claim, clearly.

You get it, right?



originally posted by: choos
its nonsense to you because your understanding of what you are seeing is inaccurate.
their movements isnt slowed down, only gravity is less making rising and falling seem like it is slowed.


Nonsense.

Nothing shows an illusion of all our movements slowed down in 0g, when moving around in the ISS, for example...

Apollo is the illusion, not based on reality.

Human arms, for example, which all move much too slow, in your 'Apollo-world'.



new topics

top topics



 
57
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join