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.

 

Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

page: 124
377
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2010 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
Concorde you would have to think for yourself


It's interesting you mention Concorde. I've just learned it's designer Ray Noble had misgivings about the moon landings as well.

>>
In an exclusive interview before his death last year, Concorde designer Ray Noble told the Free Press that after half a lifetime investigating the Apollo Moon landings, he concluded that the ‘giant leap for mankind’ was a complete fake.




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
reply to post by WWu777
 


on the flag waving video you linked to, in his first experiment, he assumes that a statically charged balloon in normal atmosphere and gravity will have the exact same effect on a flag as a statically charged astronaut in a low gravity near vacuum.

the video footage he is discussing when he does this is really interesting but i'll need a really good reason to take him seriously after that.


I agree - there are a range of problems with his experiment.

1. The force of gravity holding the flag in place on earth is much higher than the moon, according to the conventional belief that moon gravity is about 1/6th of earths. Therefore a force deflecting a flag on earth needs to be higher.

2. If the flag has the same charge as the guy moving past, then it will indeed move away as he approaches.

3. When he tested with the balloon, he did not impart a charge to the flag first - so the flag was basically neutral. To enhance the charge deflection effect to its maximum, he should have charged the balloon - rubbed it on the flag - then charged the balloon again.

4. The weight and material of the moon flag is not addressed - it is obviously important - but not addressed. A very light flag composed of synthetic material will deflect more than a natural fibre, heavier material.

Lastly - I doubt myself that static charge could create the effect - if the video is authentic, the most likely reason for movement seems to me, to be vibration.

The most interesting observations to me were the lack of dust and crater. While I don't really have an opinion, and don't really care - there certainly was motivation to fake this - and the it would be nothing new. All in all, fairly possible it was faked - but considering the entirety of western civilization is a complete lie - this one is fairly insignificant.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by ppk55
It's interesting you mention Concorde. I've just learned it's designer Ray Noble had misgivings about the moon landings as well.

.................

I'll try and find out a bit more about him.


Oh dear
You should have done that first.
Apart from a few mentions of him saying the Apollo landings were fake all referencing the same article from the same obscure Welsh newspaper he doesn't seem to get a mention anywhere at all. And you word your statement as if he was the designer of Concorde? It was designed by a team and if he was on it then he certainly wasn't significant enough to get a mention. Maybe he designed the little fold up trays on the back of the seats?
He certainly wasn't one of the four main engineers involved in the initial overall design:


The four men who had been most closely concerned wlth the direction of the joint design studies and discussions were, on the British side, Dr A. E. (later Sir Archibald) Russell, technical director of BAC's Filton Division, and Dr W. J. Strang, chief engineer of Filton Division and, on the French side, Pierre Satre and Lucien Servanty, technical director and chief engineer respectively of Sud-Aviation. Each of the four was an aeronautical engineer of international standing.

www.concordesst.com...

Your article re-iterates some of the most laughable and easily disproven hoax theories out there and is conveniently written about someone who is dead.. So we can't even hope to get any further opinion from the man himself.
So basically the local rag from a county in Wales interviewed some old local guy who claims to have worked on concorde (and if he did it's not worth a mention) and makes an entertaining little story, probably because nothing much happened in the area that week.
You really should have done the research before publishing your 'findings'.

But that's HB all over, get all excited and blab about some exciting new revelation without doing the research first and finding out it's a pile of dung. I have to give it to you though, at least your stand by your claims. With embarrassment I assume, but you stand by them.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
So basically the local rag from a county in Wales interviewed some old local guy who claims to have worked on concorde


The 'local rag' might be just a little more than that.
www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk...

Seeing as Noble is a resident of Wales, and this paper is published in Wales, it kind of makes sense they might get an interview with him. Do you only trust Reuters and AAP ?

In addition to the article above, apparently it's caused a bit of a stir on 300 forums, according to the article.

>>>
A FREE Press exclusive on the Apollo 11 moon landing has caused a stir online with Russia’s national newspaper Pravda.

Our front page interview with former Concorde designer Ray Noble, who claimed the Apollo moon landing of 1969 was an elaborate hoax, triggered a major debate with a flood of emails and readers' letters.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Random People

Originally posted by Pinke
So some film processing company (likely not CBS - probably kodak) has just processed moon footage which has 2x the number of expected frames.


I think that film processing company might just be NASA, just a hunch mind you.
They did have a slightly large budget.

The rest of the world was pretty much behind because they were recovering from WW2 and various other hot and cold conflicts.




Inviting you to a possible work flow:
A perforated piece of film might be a half inch to an inch per frame. They're filming in slow motion allegedly so we'll be generous ... We perhaps call it 40 - 50 frames a second. So they have several thousand feet of film. This several thousand feet of film is processed and telecined into standard reels to be broadcast.


You have mentioned this before.
What do you mean by thousands of reels of film?
Where are you getting those numbers from?
Are you referring to the 16mm film?


The point that is being missed here is it's nothing to do with money. NASA would be reliant on Kodak and film makers; members of the population who are traditionally anti-government. Kodak would also have records of who purchased film from them and how much. It's not 'thousands of reels of film'. It's measured in feet. Slow motion film typically requires more film to produce.

You can actually extrapolate the numbers by working out the speed of the film vs real life. Every 25 frames = 1 second therefore the amount it was slowed down by is able to be calculated.

The technology issue is slightly harsher. World War II has nothing to do with this considering some of the best film making techniques in the world came from the Germany. Even if we pretend like the Americans had some kind of advantage a lot of innovations came from other countries anyway, and they would still be dinosaurs in comparison to 1990s.

Money does not solve VFX tech. Give someone 1 billion of any currency in 1969 they would not produce the 'Watchmen' or even Jurassic Park. Film making is a collage of other technologies from many fields which didn't exist in 1980 nevermind 1969. I cannot stress this enough. The 'Hoax disbelievers' have met people half way I think. There are plenty of common sense reasons why we don't have a close ups of the landers on the moon etc ... Before anyone states that telescope owners are conspiring I think it has to be proven that this would have been possible at all.

1. Where did the film crew come from? Is there a list of people who were unavailable from between 1967 - 1969 who could have produced this work?
2. Slow motion. If this work was produced in slow motion - has anyone gone back to check how much film was sold to NASA in that time? The under water slow motion theory isn't possible at all IMO.
3. If they filmed it in orbit how did they get all the equipment up there without anyone noticing? The length of time this would have taken also would have thinned the bones of those film makers forced to stay up there. There would be evidence of this.
4. If there was wire removal how did they manage the elegance of it for extended cuts? How did they produce the wire removal process? Was another process used? If computing was used there would have been a massive 1968 power spike.
5. Lighting, grip and studio gear ... Who had the studio to do this? It couldn't have been a famous or well known studio, or if it was there must have been a giant film being made in there to hide the fact NASA was making a moon landing movie. And NASA couldn't have pulled a batman and constructed one - this would have required many companies working together to produce.

Superman and 2001 are actually evidence against this event. Front projection is easily detectable by most audiences, and will be detected 100% of the time by 9 out of 10 VFX students nevermind professionals.




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Ah yes, Pravda. Always known for their journalistic integrity. The article was posted as part of an extremely long lived "Apollo 11: The Hoax of the Century" thread. It was posted by Viktor Kahn, who goes under the handle "babau." Here's a link to his various threads:

engforum.pravda.ru...

I find this one particularly intriguing:

engforum.pravda.ru...

Before I stray too far off topic, the point is that you can't believe everything you read on the internet. You should also do a bit of "due diligence" by checking out your sources and cross checking them again.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
you can't believe everything you read on the internet.


I agree with you. So what part of this article did you find to be in error ?

Just because you can't google something to confirm facts doesn't mean it's not true. If a newspaper from Wales features a front page exclusive interview with Noble, who also happens to be a resident of Wales, are you just going to refute it out of hand.

>>
In an exclusive interview before his death last year, Concorde designer Ray Noble told the Free Press that after half a lifetime investigating the Apollo Moon landings, he concluded that the ‘giant leap for mankind’ was a complete fake.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:57 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


So you didn't even bother to go to Pravda, did you? Your source was inaccurate. Do you understand how online journalism works, and how it differs from other media? There is a financial incentive to print things that will get "linked" to. By publishing sensationalistic rubbish, online "news" media spread through the blogosphere, drawing viewers to their sites. Would you ever even heard of Denbeighshire if it hadn't posted a re-hash of the "Moon Hoax" dogma and ascribed it to a (very possibly fictitious) local "expert?"



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


I think you are misunderstanding.

The Free Press newspaper obtained the front page exclusive with the Concorde designer who claimed the moon landings were hoaxed.

"In an exclusive interview before his death last year, Concorde designer Ray Noble told the Free Press that after half a lifetime investigating the Apollo Moon landings, he concluded that the ‘giant leap for mankind’ was a complete fake."

So are you calling them liars ? I will email the publisher Nic Outterside to see what he thinks.

www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk...

Lots of internet forums, apparently 300 picked up on it. Just one of them happened to be pravda. "A user named Babau posted the entire Free Press interview on the Main Forum of the Pravda site the day after the story was first published."

www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk...

edit: quote marks

[edit on 27-6-2010 by ppk55]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:45 AM
link   
Just further to my last information spam.

'Howard the Duck' was the first film to use wire removal techniques in 1986. The technique was invented by Industrial Light and Magic.

I don't believe any of the people involved on that shoot had anything to do with the moon landing.

I'm not entirely against the theory that the moon landing could have been a hoax, I just don't see the method.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 



So are you calling them liars ? I will email the publisher Nic Outterside to see what he thinks.


Be sure to ask him about this one when you do:


Having read with interest the debate regarding the ‘fake moon landings’, I personally have seen the radar Doppler shift trace of the lunar module Eagle as it landed on the moon that evening as recorded by the Jodrell Bank telescope....

We can debate until the cows come home, or fly over the moon for that matter, whether man actually set foot on the moon but there is no doubt that a craft landed on the moon in the Sea of Tranquility that night, as confirmed by Jodrell Bank...

Are you telling me ‘fakers’, that with all their resources, the Russians were not monitoring every second of Apollo 11?


www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk...



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


Re the Apollo 15 flag moving this as a well thought out debunking of the hoaxers claims

www.youtube.com...

This guy has a good few videos to denbunk the moon hoaxers and would rip
jw a "new one" no problem!



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


You keep going on about him being 'the concorde designer' but as I showed you he wasn't 'the' concorde designer. In fact, as I said, apart from this interview there isn't any mention of him on the Internet? You seem to be trying to dodge this as quickly as possible while repeating in every post he was the designer of Concorde.. Not trying to be sneaky I hope?
If... If he was a designer on the Corcorde project it could have been for something trivial, hardly a qualification to understand the complex physics involved in Apollo. In fact if he actually used those arguments in the article then I can safely say he has none of the required experience or knowledge to comment on the matter with any kind of authority.

Typical HB tactics, once information supplied is proven to be wrong or questionable quickly ignore the argument against and repeat oneself hoping any readers will not notice and go with your original point.

Pathetic


Edited some questionable spelling...

[edit on 27-6-2010 by AgentSmith]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AgentSmith
 


You will see that about ppk55 he likes to dodge questions that cause him problems DONT YOU! still waiting ppk55 and you know what I am talking about



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Amagnon
 


I can help set your mind to ease, Amagnon, on these bits:


The most interesting observations to me were the lack of dust and crater.


I assume you are referring to the incorrect claims made by "hoax believers" that there shoiuld have been "craters" under the LM descent engine nozzle? AND the other inane claims of "piles of dust" on top of the landing gear leg pads??

All of those (non)-concerns have been thoroughly explained, in this thread and elsewhere. Unfortunately, there is so much drivel from a few rabid posters, the good information gets lost in all the noise, sometimes.

There is no crater for the simple reasons of: The size of the nozzle bell opening, in area, and the reduced power setting at landing, PLUS the height obove the ground when the engine was actually throttled down to zero; The lack of atmosphere (air) that would act (as on Earth) to additionally disturb the regolith -- only the feeble exhaust gases could move any of the loose bits; The layers of regolith weren't that deep, and beneath it was quite hard-packed, having lain undisturbed for billions of years.

The paucity of dust depth (not 'dust' like talcum powder, somewhat more substantial mostly) meant that what WAS loose, and influenced by the engine's exhaust force was spread LATERALLY away...things on the Moon, in a vacuum, don't "billow" like they do in the air on Earth. Some small amounts of regolith soil DID accumluate on the pads' upper surfaces, though. Not enough to see in the many photos, unless they had BOTHERED to actually focus in and take a picture up close...but, WHY bother???


While I don't really have an opinion, and don't really care -


Well, perhaps you should. If only to quell the rampant IGNORANCE surrounding those events -- the same ignorance displayed prominently in this thread, and by that clown "JarrahWhite", and his ilk.



... there certainly was motivation to fake this - and the it would be nothing new.


Specious, irrelevant and completely without merit. Because...



All in all, fairly possible it was faked ...


NO. WAY. IN. HELL. is it "possible"...nor, was it. No way something of that magnitude and scope, with the hundreds of THOUSANDS of people involved could have been "faked" ... NONE of those people who worked on Mercury, Gemini or Apollo, either directly, or indirectly as part of support are likely to be related to the bloke "JarrahWhite"...because, NASA and its contractors sought only the best and brightest.....and THOSE sorts would not have been so easily fooled as "JW" and his merry band of followers...

IQ tests, anyone????

[edit on 27 June 2010 by weedwhacker]



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 



The paucity of dust depth (not 'dust' like talcum powder, somewhat more substantial mostly) meant that what WAS loose, and influenced by the engine's exhaust force was spread LATERALLY away...things on the Moon, in a vacuum, don't "billow" like they do in the air on Earth. Some small amounts of regolith soil DID accumluate on the pads' upper surfaces, though. Not enough to see in the many photos, unless they had BOTHERED to actually focus in and take a picture up close...but, WHY bother???


If I may... so long as we are touching on the subject of dust. I'd like to return a bit of attention to this issue that seems to be ignored or distorted:


The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) reported on the "halo" generated by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume that was detected in the data from Terrain Camera (TC) image. ...
The reflectivity of the "halo" area became brighter than the original one by the Apollo 15* lunar module engine exhaust plume and the probable "halo" area was confirmed.


www.jaxa.jp...

The resolution of the cameras on board Kaguya was not sufficient to show the hardware in detail, but it did spot the disturbed regolith, precisely as one would expect. Any further questions? Or denials?



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Just further to my last information spam.

'Howard the Duck' was the first film to use wire removal techniques in 1986. The technique was invented by Industrial Light and Magic.

I don't believe any of the people involved on that shoot had anything to do with the moon landing.


Who knows but it has nothing to do with wire removal in the 1960's:


The modern technique of wire removal was pioneered by Industrial Light and Magic, when they used it in films such as Howard the Duck (1986), Back to the Future Part II (1989), and Hook (1991).


"The modern technique"



Originally posted by Pinke
I'm not entirely against the theory that the moon landing could have been a hoax, I just don't see the method.



Most of the footage for Apollo was shot on Video as far as I can tell.
Look at the movie Capricorn One for the slo-mo technique used for via video.
Truthfully, Im not sure if it was even possible (ramping speed) on video at the time, but I dont see why not.


Again, for the 16mm footage, where do you
see the need for wires or other special effects?
How many reels of film did the astronauts take with them?
This would limit the amount of footage they would have to fake.


Another thing they could have ramped the speed up or down at will when shooting on film. They didnt need to film all the sequences slo-mo, this was pointed out by PPK55.
Also, can you find me full quality NASA 16mm videos? You claim that audience could
see the special FX in movies like Superman, but those movies are projected on large screens in full color and many people look for problems in movies.
Its all about context, if you know its a fake, then you see the mistakes, if you think its real your mind rationalizes what you see.

That said, there is evidence of wires being used in some NASA footage. The strange movement of the astronauts falling and getting up,




and the light bounce


Its all how you look at it.



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 06:34 PM
link   
context.



Take this video for example:



If they had a little bit more money, time and resources, they could easily recreate the images that NASA had made. But because you know its fake, you see it as fake.
In other words, the context the information is provided will determine how you scrutinize it.

I bet most of cant even identify whats real or fake if you dont know in what context it was made. For example, take these images, I bet nobody can see how these are any different than other NASA photos. Can you see what makes them fake?







[edit on 7/2/2010 by semperfortis]


jra

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by FoosM
That said, there is evidence of wires being used in some NASA footage. The strange movement of the astronauts falling and getting up


I don't see any evidence of wires being used in those videos at all. However it does indeed look strange when the fall and get back up. But then I would expect it to look strange, with them working in stiff spacesuits in a 1/6th G environment on the Moon.

Also, it's not just the astronauts that would need to be on wires, if you were to fake it. Everything the astronauts drop or toss away would also need to be on wires. That's going to make for one tangled mess. And lets not forget about the dust that gets kicked around. How does one fake the dust so that it appears that it's in a vacuum at 1/6th G?


If they had a little bit more money, time and resources, they could easily recreate the images that NASA had made. But because you know its fake, you see it as fake.
In other words, the context the information is provided will determine how you scrutinize it.


The problem I have with comparing that Rammstein video to actual Apollo footage is that firstly, they barely did anything. All the shots are no longer than a second or two, they barely move around. There is no jumping around or bunny/kangaroo hopping, so that saves them from having to attempt any wire work, as it generally looks bad. They just stand there in the spacesuits, playing there instruments, attempt to assemble a flag, play a Star Trek pinball machine, etc.

Big. Freaking. Deal... What I'd like to see some one do is attempt to recreate all the things they did on Apollo. Uncut shots that go on long periods at a time. 360 degree pans. Everything (and I mean EVERYTHING, not just the astronauts) acting and reacting like it's in a vacuum and at 1/6th G.

I have yet to see anyone attempt that. The Rammstein video doesn't even come close. They didn't even do a fraction of the things you see the Apollo videos. While context might play a roll in how we scrutinize something, it barely does in this case. They simply did not do most of the stuff done on Apollo, even with access to current special effects. They're not comparable at all.


For example, take these images, I bet nobody can see how these are any different than other NASA photos. Can you see what makes them fake?


No, could you just state what you think makes them fake and why?

Here are links to the originals for anyone who wants them.

AS11-40-5928
AS11-40-5930



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 08:09 PM
link   
I'll tell you why we have never landed a person on the moon! Ask yourself Why have we never been back? Since 1969 we havn't had anyone walking around on the moon. By now we should have a base up their mining for gold/water/copper/oil/ect/ect/ect. Wouldn't it be cheaper in the long run to mine for minerals on the moon and then launch sattelites from there?

Also, did we land a flag on the moon and claim it as the sole property of the un-united states of america? NO Other country in the world has landed and walked around the moon.......Hmmmmmm maybe it's because they Can't even get out of the megnetosphere without frying up and dying. PERIOD The solar radiation would kill them, And if you think it wouldn't ask them TPTB to send someone back there and prove it. Take a few pics of STARS from the moon, make a structure on the moon that we can see from earth. better yet. go up there with a trenching machine and make a 20,000 mile trench that says "Property of the USA" on the moons surface.



new topics

top topics



 
377
<< 121  122  123    125  126  127 >>

log in

join