Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by AgentSmith
You keep going on about him being 'the concorde designer'

Well that's what the front page article of the newspaper purports.

It reads that Ray Noble, Concorde designer had serious doubts about the moon landings on his death bed.

I've sent an email to to Nic Outterside at the newspaper that claimed the exclusive interview.

www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk...

Let's hope I hear back.

full link to the article is here
www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk...

Originally posted by Pinke
It was sent to a special decoder in each station on earth. The system Kodak developed the footage on the moon and sent it to decoders back at Earth. Better versions were stored in the film magazines and brought back to Earth.

"These spacecraft carried fully automated film processing laboratories. After processing, the film was scanned for radio transmission of the pictures back to Earth." (Quote from NASA)

Video was not involved. Sorry if I've misread your text again.

That quote from NASA sounds like it's referring to the Lunar Orbiter probes which carried a small film lab and it would scan the images and transmit them back.

However, they did not do this with Apollo. Video was used for the live transmissions. There are no film copies from the cameras themselves that were brought back from the Moon. Just video copies recorded on Earth. There is footage from the 16mm Data Acquisition Camera (DAC), but it's mostly of events that weren't shown live, like the LM descent, or during a traverse between geology stations in the LRV and things like that.

reply to post by ppk55


Look at this link your GREAT Ray Noble spouts the usual BS in his interview
lets have a look

www.denbighshirefreepress.co.uk...

From ABOVE

And that, according to Ray, is the real unanswered puzzle.
The astronauts took hundreds of pictures, each one perfectly exposed and sharply focused.


And their film stock was unaffected by the powerful radiation on the Moon… conditions that should have made it useless.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin managed to adjust their cameras, change film and swap filters in pressurised suits. It should have been almost impossible with the gloves on their fingers.

Also in the pictures themselves the shadows could only have been created with multiple light sources and powerful spotlights, claimed Ray.

But the only light source on the Moon was the sun.

The American flag and the words United States are always brightly lit, even when everything around is in shadow.

“If the pictures are fake, then we only have NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon,” said Ray.


WOW never heard any of those before AH!!

OBVIOUSLY yet another hoax believer who knows sorry knew NOTHING! about photography then!

reply to post by ppk55

I've sent an email to to Nic Outterside at the newspaper that claimed the exclusive interview.

Although this strays a tad off topic, I'll try to tie it in at the end. I predict you will get a "form e-mail" that says something along the following lines:

The content of The Denbighshire Free Press is provided by local freelance writers. They have agreed to maintain reasonable journalistic standards, write in our house style and observe all libel laws. After a probationary period in which their work is reviewed by our editorial staff, they are permitted to post directly to our online publication without additional review.

The editor may then promise to "make inquiries" about the "offending item." I make this prediction based on the policies of The Examiner, to which I contribute.

There are a number of things that cast doubt on this story. The function of The Denbighshire Free Press is to keep its rural Welsh readership apprised of events of local interest. Many of its articles take the form of "fluff pieces" celebrating the accomplishments of the locals. Where is the mention of his wife of forty years? The perfect "century" batted at Cambridge? His harrowing experiences in the ill-fated Suez expedition? His recognition from the Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences? After getting that out of the way, a decent writer might want to move on to his ramblings about the "Moon Hoax." Nope, none of that... just a beeline to the usual bullet points about radiation and shadows. In other words, it seems "fishy."

To wrench this aside back on topic, this serves as an example of "evaluating sources." Even if Ray Noble is a real person who really did work on Concorde in some capacity, he is not necessarily any more qualified to reach his conclusions than anyone here. Had he muttered something about "bloody metal fatigue... I told 'em it were only a matter of time before those Concordes started dropping like flies..."well, you might want to listen to him. Moon Hoaxers and specifically Jarrah White ("Hey boss! We back onna track!") will cite "authorities" who are opining outside of their areas of expertise. For example, in one video the only source he could find to support his claims of "deadly radiation" was a chemist best known for his work as a, well, let's just say "9/11 investigator." Not to disparage his competency as a chemist, but he was clearly pulling his Van Allen Belt data out of thin air. Because JW plays fast and loose with his sound bites, it's unclear what the context of the statement really was. Perhaps he was speculating on what might have happened were there a major coronal mass ejection event during the mission. Because the statement was improperly sourced, it's practically meaningless.

Edit to tidy up style.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by DJW001]

reply to post by dragnet53

sure and you still haven't watch Jarrah's videos.

Now how in the heck do you know what I do?

Again?? :shk:

I watched one of his videos and wanted puke, it was utter nonsense.

Now where is that proof again?

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Pinke
It was sent to a special decoder in each station on earth. The system Kodak developed the footage on the moon and sent it to decoders back at Earth. Better versions were stored in the film magazines and brought back to Earth.

"These spacecraft carried fully automated film processing laboratories. After processing, the film was scanned for radio transmission of the pictures back to Earth." (Quote from NASA)

Video was not involved. Sorry if I've misread your text again.

That quote from NASA sounds like it's referring to the Lunar Orbiter probes which carried a small film lab and it would scan the images and transmit them back.

However, they did not do this with Apollo. Video was used for the live transmissions. There are no film copies from the cameras themselves that were brought back from the Moon. Just video copies recorded on Earth. There is footage from the 16mm Data Acquisition Camera (DAC), but it's mostly of events that weren't shown live, like the LM descent, or during a traverse between geology stations in the LRV and things like that.

Thank you for the input, you are correct in one way, but this is a finishing format.

If a film was shot with 35mm and dropped to DVD I wouldn't consider it 'shot on DVD' as a format. Some will see this as a comprehension issue I have, some will understand how I mean it. Professionally you don't refer to the finishing format in any way regarding how a piece was shot, and how it was shot ultimately has a huge effect on how the finishing format looks. Of course the footage was dropped to video for consumers - no other format existed back then. How I interpreted FooSM's words is that he was stating video cameras using VHS or beta tapes were used on the moon.

And right your are about the DAC etc ... It just appears to me as if FooSM is unaware of these items and wishes for me to find them for the person. I just suspect a lot of google and youtube.

(I just get the impression some persons are wanting to 'trip up' other users on the board rather than actually have a healthy discussion - not referring to yourself!)

Sorry for multiple edits but didn't want a new thread but I have a question, too.

Where was the moon in relation to the sun when Apollo landed? I'm sure this information is somewhere but I couldn't find it.

Secondly, would it be useful if I took some of the moon footage and blew it up to a larger size for people to look at? Perhaps both sides of this debate might enjoy looking at some 1080 footage. I can't promise there will be no artifacts or oddities introduced, but I could make it quite large for people to look at.

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Pinke]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by Pinke]

Originally posted by Pinke
...And right your are about the DAC etc ... It just appears to me as if FooSM is unaware of these items and wishes for me to find them for the person. I just suspect a lot of google and youtube.
(I just get the impression some persons are wanting to 'trip up' other users on the board rather than actually have a healthy discussion....)

Do ya think? It's hard to have a healthy debate when some of the arguers don't let themselves be burdened by stuff like facts, knowledge or logic... when the guy who starts it uses terms like 'genius' and whipping', and vanishes when caught lying and misleading the forum... when apollo deniers refuse to acknowledge debunking, but instead jump to other topics (all long debunked).

In regard to the live video, one of my favorite ever demolitions of an Apollo denier occurred when ID.. er.. someone at godli .. er.. another forum claimed that the Apollo s-band system had insufficient bandwidth/range to be used for a live video feed. His claim was broken down into minute detail, a complete link budget was presented and analysed, and the denier's claim was, just like every other one before and after it, completely and utterly destroyed.

Where was the moon in relation to the sun when Apollo landed? I'm sure this information is somewhere but I couldn't find it.

Do you mean from the point of view of the landing sites? That information is available from quite a few sources (you can even work it out using planetarium software), maybe starting here:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

Is that what you mean?


In regard to blowing up the footage, I'd be against that, as we have already seen enough artefacts, thanks! High-res footage is pretty readily available, and if anyone is querying issues, it's much better to do the hard work and get the real high-res versions, imo.

Originally posted by Pinke
(Apologies this will be another double post)

I see these debates as exchanges of information and thoughts, not games to win or lose.

You're accusing a large group of men and women of a criminal act. At least show some respect and do some indepth research on your chosen topic, and be prepared to engage your fellow posters in respectful discussion.

I was just wondering, why are you addressing this to me?

Thank you for the input, you are correct in one way, but this is a finishing format.

If a film was shot with 35mm and dropped to DVD I wouldn't consider it 'shot on DVD' as a format. Some will see this as a comprehension issue I have, some will understand how I mean it. Professionally you don't refer to the finishing format in any way regarding how a piece was shot, and how it was shot ultimately has a huge effect on how the finishing format looks. Of course the footage was dropped to video for consumers - no other format existed back then. How I interpreted FooSM's words is that he was stating video cameras using VHS or beta tapes were used on the moon.

And right your are about the DAC etc ... It just appears to me as if FooSM is unaware of these items and wishes for me to find them for the person. I just suspect a lot of google and youtube.

Im really confused here.
Sorry but it seems you are taking a very roundabout way of correcting yourself or retracting your previous statements. You say you want a respectful discussion, but then you muddle response when someone brings up a fact not supporting your stance. I understand english is not your second language, but how in the world would you think Astronauts took video tape to the moon?

And its still not clear if you understand that much of the footage shot on the moon came from video cameras. You do agree with this right? Because even if that was transferred to 16mm that would be, as you stated, only a finishing format.

Secondly, would it be useful if I took some of the moon footage and blew it up to a larger size for people to look at? Perhaps both sides of this debate might enjoy looking at some 1080 footage. I can't promise there will be no artifacts or oddities introduced, but I could make it quite large for people to look at.

Well yes, seeing 16mm footage at 1080p resolutions would be great!
Will you use a high quality source?

reply to post by CHRLZ


Ahhh...there's some recent history of activity by the "guy" (OP) of this thread...this thread that was started, as I call it, as a "pigeon drop fly-by"...

...when the guy who starts it uses terms like 'genius' and whipping', and vanishes when caught lying and misleading the forum...

Apparently this OP has never met a "hoax" that he didn't like. He ALSO, besides being a Moon landing "hoax" advocate, is a 9/11 'denier'. Yup, that's right...when the facts abut the Apollo landing tear his 'claims' apart, time to take refuge in another, more active (and more recent, so still going strong) load of hooey.....

We see so many of these types of hoaxers, and the people who promote and fall behind them, finally getting their backsides handed to them...it's about time.

(IF 9/11 is too off-topic, then let's say I'm referring to the many UFO hoaxers out there...that relates, at least tangentially, to space, and our manned space program....)

Originally posted by FoosM

I was just wondering, why are you addressing this to me?

I had to hit reply to someone, and some of your general correspondence has some needless 'what the?!' factor.

Im really confused here.
Sorry but it seems you are taking a very roundabout way of correcting yourself or retracting your previous statements. You say you want a respectful discussion, but then you muddle response when someone brings up a fact not supporting your stance. I understand english is not your second language, but how in the world would you think Astronauts took video tape to the moon?

And its still not clear if you understand that much of the footage shot on the moon came from video cameras. You do agree with this right? Because even if that was transferred to 16mm that would be, as you stated, only a finishing format.

English *is* my second language, and it is best not to apologise if you don't mean it. You appear to be revelling in a vague misunderstanding which adds nothing to our debate.

I don't feel like providing a play by play exactly but it did sound like you were implying the entire production was video taped or could have been video taped and mimicked. Yes this as you have pointed out appears ludicrous. I responded to that. It also appeared like you were mostly working from youtube. There are better sources than youtube if this is what you are working from - this may be a misunderstanding.

A lot of the footage I've looked at is the 16mm footage. Format can mean stills in my mind. Yes, I considered the broadcast cameras may have been 16mm or 8mm broadcast cameras. This has mostly been a language issue as you may be able to notice by my response to jra where I assumed the finishing format was video and broadcast format may have been 16mm. You can see I misunderstood jra also - all people have their dumb moments! The footage I've looked at deeply has been from the DAC.

Anyway, I imagine this misunderstanding is immensely boring for other readers and you may likely attempt to make it look more sinister than it is; if its your choice I'd prefer to just end the conversation. I'm a fairly straight up person! As I said, not the best, not special, not important.

Well yes, seeing 16mm footage at 1080p resolutions would be great!
Will you use a high quality source?

This seems to be sarcasm? Forgive me if I'm wrong.

I imagine any footage I uploaded would be met with many web links, and a barrage of information to refute. I believe persons would be better writing a book and then supplying it to you rather than attempting to engage you in conversation as its an endless mix and match all over the place time sink (I notice you debate on many forums with this topic.)

Good conversation, but I don't think there's anything further to be gained here for either of us. And it is not meant to be insulting, but I honestly do believe you should invest in some good books. Your arguement would be much more convincing if you could say at least provide a handful of flawless frames from another production.

Anyway, tip-toeing out the thread.

Kthxbai



[edit on 30-6-2010 by Pinke]

[edit on 30-6-2010 by Pinke]

Originally posted by theability
reply to post by dragnet53

 

sure and you still haven't watch Jarrah's videos.

Now how in the heck do you know what I do?

Again?? :shk:

I watched one of his videos and wanted puke,

it was utter nonsense.

Now where is that proof again?

lmao again!!!

utter horse crap?

so how come if we are so much experts in going to the moon then how come the constellation program didn't go off with a bang? It just went poof like dust in the wind. They never even had a design ready for another moon lander. Yet, didn't they make one in the 60's? You do realize that if we make something that works we always improve it? Just look at computers and at one time they were as big as a 60' TV screen. Now they are as small as a cell phone.

All those 100 of billions of dollars went to what exactly? I wish I knew myself. I should ask Jarrah to see where did all those billions went to in the constellation project.

Originally posted by dragnet53
so how come if we are so much experts in going to the moon...

Who ever said we are experts in going to the Moon?

...then how come the constellation program didn't go off with a bang? It just went poof like dust in the wind.

Because there were many problems. If you actually took the time to follow the programs development, you'd be aware of this. A number of engineers at NASA weren't liking the program either and came up with there own idea in there spare time. The latest version of there proposal is here: Direct v3.0

They never even had a design ready for another moon lander.

I'm pretty sure I went over this with you already. Perhaps you have me on ignore?

They do have a design for a lander called Altair. But finalizing its design was not a priority at this time since it wouldn't be needed until later. Developing the Ares 1 and Orion spacecraft was. The Constellation program received about $3billion per year. This is why the development timeline was stretched out.

All those 100 of billions of dollars went to what exactly?

100 of billions?! Do you even know how much NASA gets per year? They've spent about $9 billion on the program so far.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by jra]

reply to post by dragnet53


Wha...wha....what now???

All those 100 of billions of dollars went to what exactly? I wish I knew myself. I should ask Jarrah to see where did all those billions went to in the constellation project.

Oh, sure...you go ahead, we would love to see him trip over himself some more....let him screw himself deeper into the ground.

Oh, and 'Space Chimp' Ham's great-great-great...errm, better throw in one more 'great', just in case....grandson ( Allegedly! Never was proven that he was in that hotel room when they said he was!! ) tends to agree....

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a6d601cdebe7.jpg[/atsimg]



[edit on 30 June 2010 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by dragnet53

lmao again!!! utter horse crap?

Now when did horses come up? :shk:

so how come if we are so much experts in going to the moon then how come the constellation program didn't go off with a bang?...
All those 100 of billions of dollars went to what exactly? I wish I knew myself. I should ask Jarrah to see where did all those billions went to in the constellation project.

I have an idea , why don't you do a lot more research, then come back and talk about things.

Obviously you need to refresh your understanding about NASA!

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by CHRLZ

 

Ahhh...there's some recent history of activity by the "guy" (OP) of this thread...this thread that was started, as I call it, as a "pigeon drop fly-by"...

...when the guy who starts it uses terms like 'genius' and whipping', and vanishes when caught lying and misleading the forum...

Apparently this OP has never met a "hoax" that he didn't like. He ALSO, besides being a Moon landing "hoax" advocate, is a 9/11 'denier'. Yup, that's right...when the facts abut the Apollo landing tear his 'claims' apart, time to take refuge in another, more active (and more recent, so still going strong) load of hooey.....

We see so many of these types of hoaxers, and the people who promote and fall behind them, finally getting their backsides handed to them...it's about time.

(IF 9/11 is too off-topic, then let's say I'm referring to the many UFO hoaxers out there...that relates, at least tangentially, to space, and our manned space program....)

The truth is found when men are free to pursue it.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

A hoaxer knows that what they are selling is false, thereby they must cover their tracks in every way possible. Criminals figured out a long time ago that if no one is witness to a crime, no one can bring charges against them later especially if all the evidence belongs to them, is investigated by them, and is judged by them.

"Oh crap, my bankrupt business accidentally went up in flames last night....Oh how can this be...WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING? Gosh, i better get in touch with the insurance company..."

Lord knows Larry Silverstein must of just felt horrible about 9/11 right? He must of asked that same question...."who would do such a horrible thing that would free me from a money pit building complex facing a billion dollar restoration, it's lease and then make me a couple billion on top of it, while simultaneously destroying the criminal investigation records of many high ranking public "servants", insider trading investigations, and information such as who had Kennedy Killed and by who erased from the record forever. I can just see his tear soaked cheeks... "Who would do such a thing".....Probably Captain Cave Man Larry....I'll bet you Hannah-Barbara could tell you where Osama is....CAPTAIN CAAAVE MANNNN.

hoax Look up hoax at Dictionary.com
1796 (v.), 1808 (n.), probably alt. of hocus "conjurer, juggler" (1640), or directly from hocus-pocus.

Hocus-Pocus you recognize from Magic. Now what is more magic then the magic of Television? I can tell you.

400,000 nameless people......Nameless people work great, because you can't verify them, but since there is 400,000 of them, no one will look anyway right? Sure is a big intimidating number though. It's worked so far, but it won't hold forever....Promise. TV magic is wearing off....quick 120hz...double the dose...they sense something isn't right.

800 lbs of rocks. Wow rocks. If people will pay their money to own a pet rock, selling them moon rocks isn't even an issue. I'll give that one to you, but I want to know what you named your rock?

Listen to what is said here about the rocks, but more importantly what Pete says who died only a few short months later of a freak Motorcycle accident...I didn't edit this except for the portion cut to play and it is not taken out of context. The original is at Spacerip.com

Why would Pete say this? Would you like to know? To bad he's dead.

Just add Pete's name to the list of astronauts who were trying to tell you something without incurring that somethings debt.

When death is the bargaining chip, it's easy to keep people quiet...Happens all the time. Works even better when they have a family with young children....Like spraying agent orange on a baby or is that candy from a baby? You know the Sortie thing I'm talking about right?

If an astronaut were to come forward and say it was fake, you wouldn't believe, nor would the government leave any credibility to them, so even if one were able to not get killed beforehand, by the time they (USA) would be done with him, it would of been like he never existed let alone set foot on the moon, but instead was luney altogether.

Reflectors. Now there is a reason to believe right? "Di lithium Crystals"
Watch, we will point an invisible laser beam somewhere close to where we think they landed and when the little machine beeps we can tell them that is proof because we have a machine that beeps.

Again, another criminal mind put this one together, because anyone would know that you would dynamically need to aim the "reflector" to fire the beam directly back. In other words, the reflector traveling with the moon in orbit could not fire back directly at the revolving earth with out something tracking the point to return it too and then dynamically re-aim the reflector back to the point of origin. Not only that, have you ever fired a laser at a bike wheel reflector and seen the results? Reflectors spread out light, not direct it back strait and even if it did the earth would not be where it was when it fired the beam.

Try it out, only remember to make your point of travel and return, which must be done by a single beam, to be moving against each other at a scaled distance to that of the moon and make your reflector about the size of a piece of dust. Let me know how you fair, then I'll do some simulator time with you so you can show me just how easy it is to fly into the trade center as a Cessna certified pilot who just took over a 737's controls for the first time ever in a live situation.

Pictures and Movies. Another great reason to believe. This ties in to the whole "if no one witnesses it, no one can bring charge" reasoning, only the minds went to work using the most powerful weapon ever invented and I'm not talking about the New Clear bomb. People get radiated from it every night and day with something they plainly tell you...Programming.

"Turn on, tune in, drop out"...In other words, "Make yourself as dumb as possible"....the voice of a whole generation.

Computer, run "Terrorist" program. Computer, run "Patriotic" program, Computer, run "Religious" program. Computer, run "Commercial" program. TV Program me and my family to be your all consuming non questioning idiots and we promise to talk about what you've programmed us with tomorrow while we work for more money to spend on what you tell us too.

In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

(side note regarding above quote: It was Johnson who made Nasa a priority not Kennedy. Johnson was the head of the comity to find out where the newly formed Nasa was heading. Johnson besides himself owning part of Bell helicopter was a good ole boy and so were all of his Buddies at Northrup and Boeing ,McDonald-Douglas, infact the whole military industrial complex for which Eisenhower had warned not to build on had everything to gain with Johnson pulling the strings. Pulling out of Vietnam was not an option but neither was going to the moon, but nobody actually needed to know that especially when we can still charge them for it....9/11 is part of this same conspiracy as the moon so it's good you bring it up weed. Two reflectors, one beam...I'm with you.

There are as many opinions as there are experts.
Franklin D. Roosevelt

Three from Franky D....

And now, did you all know that the Russians figured out how to exist in a vacuum without the need of exterior protection? I haven't heard any news on this, although by the looks of this picture, it was a while ago.

This photo is from NASA of the Mir as the shuttle approaches to dock.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/43ed4baa2c7d.jpg[/atsimg]

"I went to the moon and all I got was this horrible secret to keep"

We're off to see the wizard the wonderful wizard of OZ (not weatherman). Just need a road paved in gold...Check (fort Knox) We need ruby blood red slippers to walk over other countries with...check(wow lot's of blood on these slippers) We need scarecrow-the terrorist fearing brain wanting American workingclass......Check....We need tinman Russia who desires a heart to play....Check, Lastly we need England, the old cowardly lion who wants some courage to pull off the trip to OZ....as long as we don't fall asleep in the poppy fields of Afghanistan.....Poppies....Ask McChrystal...the poppies got to him.

Peace

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


Where did you find that mir image?

reply to post by letthereaderunderstand


I can't believe I'm even going to reply to this one! (Deep breath.) Okay, let's do it:

Criminals figured out a long time ago that if no one is witness to a crime, no one can bring charges against them later especially if all the evidence belongs to them, is investigated by them, and is judged by them.

I readily concede that your insight into the criminal mind is more profound than mine.

"Oh crap, my bankrupt business accidentally went up in flames last night....Oh how can this be...WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING? Gosh, i better get in touch with the insurance company..."

Too much information? Now you mention it, I did date a girl whose father's rug dealership did burn down a lot... never did trust her, thanks!

Lord knows Larry Silverstein must of just felt horrible about 9/11 right?...(etc.)

This is relevant how?

400,000 nameless people......Nameless people work great, because you can't verify them, but since there is 400,000 of them, no one will look anyway right?

lmgtfy.com...

800 lbs of rocks. Wow rocks.

adsabs.harvard.edu...

I would love to explain concepts like "isotopes" to you.
Then, what's this? A link to a video? As we all know, videos are a form of television.... and television:

what we see (via television) enters directly into our minds with hardly any chance of being questioned, while what we read has to be analysed (at least to the level of deciphering what the words mean) before it can be assimilated...
When you watch TV, brain activity switches from the left to the right hemisphere. In fact, experiments conducted by researcher Herbert Krugman showed that while viewers are watching television, the right hemisphere is twice as active as the left, a neurological anomaly. The crossover from left to right releases a surge of the body's natural opiates: endorphins, which include beta-endorphins and enkephalins. Endorphins are structurally identical to opium and its derivatives (morphine, codeine, heroin, etc.). Activities that release endorphins (also called opioid peptides) are usually habit-forming (we rarely call them addictive). These include cracking knuckles, strenuous exercise, and orgasm. External opiates act on the same receptor sites (opioid receptors) as endorphins, so there is little difference between the two.

Thanks FoosM! You've actually proved yourself useful!
(Though I would have brought up the issue of theta waves, myself,)

When death is the bargaining chip, it's easy to keep people quiet...Happens all the time.

Again, I defer to your expertise...

Reflectors. Now there is a reason to believe right? "Di lithium Crystals"
Watch, we will point an invisible laser beam somewhere close to where we think they landed and when the little machine beeps we can tell them that is proof because we have a machine that beeps.

You have no idea how technology actually functions, do you?

Again, another criminal mind put this one together

Erm, again with the criminal mentality. I believe the rest of your post has been dealt with previously. The thread is only 120 or so pages long. Read them all before you introduce what you think is "new" evidence.

"Turn on, tune in, drop out"...In other words, "Make yourself as dumb as possible"....the voice of a whole generation.

Glad to see you've done your part.

Edit for the sake of concision.

[edit on 30-6-2010 by DJW001]

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
400,000 nameless people......Nameless people work great, because you can't verify them, but since there is 400,000 of them, no one will look anyway right?

They all have names, just because you don't know them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Here's a list of 30+ Canadian's who worked on the Apollo program in various areas. I'm sure one can find many more names if you spend some time looking.

800 lbs of rocks. Wow rocks.

Actual physical samples of the Moon of all shapes and sizes. Studied by people all over the world. What better evidence is there then that?

When death is the bargaining chip, it's easy to keep people quiet...Happens all the time.

It happens all the time? Evidence? Personally I don't think the Government threatening people with death would be very effective. Especially against 400,000 people.

...have you ever fired a laser at a bike wheel reflector and seen the results? Reflectors spread out light, not direct it back strait and even if it did the earth would not be where it was when it fired the beam.

They used a retroreflector. Look it up.

It takes 2.6 seconds for light to travel from the Earth to the Moon and back. How much has the Moon moved in our sky in that amount of time?

And now, did you all know that the Russians figured out how to exist in a vacuum without the need of exterior protection?

You do know that's a window right?

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by FoosM

 

I asked you to point it out, not restate what you have been stating. Point to a specific video and explain why we are looking at a lunar landscape and not a rigged astronaut.

Here's a random scene.

Great, you posted some videos to support your claims.

Note. first of all, how wide the field of vision is. If it were a set, it would be huge.

Well there have been huge sets before.
But watching this particular video I dont see where thats necessary.
It shouldnt have to be that bigger than this:


or this

Also note how high the field of vision is. It extends many, many times the height of the astronaut. I point this out because it means that if he were on wires, they would have to be extremely long wires, which would cause him to swing. The wires would also have to travel quite some distance with the astronaut. Now, do you see anything like a framework to support the astronaut being flown on wires?

Really?
I just cant understand it.
You dont think NASA would go all out production wise to with their special effects?
And did you see anything like what you are showing us during Apollo 11 ( I will adress this later) or 12?
In other words, haven't you noticed that with every mission the special effects are pushed further and further? The terrain looks bigger and bigger, the jumps get a bit higher and longer? The filmmakers for NASA were just getting better at what they were doing.

Just like movies and sequels, Terminator 2 more advanced SFX than Terminator 1.
And I know those particular films are years apart but the film industry works differently than what NASA needed.

I mean this is 1960 and check out the Peter Pan


And this is clearly a stage or set. But look how high and how any people they have rigged on the wires. You dont think NASA could top this? Secondly, NASA could hide the wires easy because the astros had bulky suits and PLSSs. Also the sky was black! Ever wonder why they didnt have stars? Maybe because in the video you would see the wires go past them!

But seriously, are you that impressed by the fake moonscape? You know why it seems so big to you, because you think its real. And your brain, and Im not making fun, just an observation, assumes it real and thinks the recreate it you must need the equivalent. I told you, I grew up believing in Apollo, but the minute I didnt anymore, the way I saw the same pictures and videos changed, and I wasnt impressed anymore, I could see how easily it could be faked. And I wondered, why didnt I see it before?

Notice how the camera pans to follow the astronaut? Notice that the entire sequence is one continuous take? I mention all these obvious facts so that I won't have to repeat them later.

Fine its a long take, Im more impressed by stage plays. What are these guys really doing that is so impressive? Walking around, testing the ground? A few rehearsals and they could do this all from memory. They even get help from mission control Its not that hard. Will the camera pan 360 degrees? Where is NASA's uncut video files? Im very interested to know when they actually cut their scenes, because technically, they wouldnt have to if its a video feed.

I tell you what, I would be impressed if they have a video of an EVA *uncut* from walking around to getting into the Rover, driving a distance, getting out and walking around again. That would be impressive. 10 minute videos are not impressive.

Notice the quality of the motion. As he hops along, his arms and legs move at a pretty normal speed. In fact, he scoots along very rapidly. The only thing "slow motion" is the rate that he (and the dust he kicks up) fall. As CHRLZ pointed out, if you sped the sequence up, his arms and legs would be flailing comically. Again, observe the quality of the motion:

Well I will say this, I was not convinced with the slow motion argument. Then I learned more about video I started to lean to the slow motion effect is due to low frame rates, lower than 50 or even 25. which means then of course they are not actually moving in slow motion. So this could be from the camera or manipulated thereafter.

RCA J-Series Ground-Commanded Television Assembly (GCTA):
Frame rate: 60 frame/s BW / 20 frame/s color (color filters alternated between each field)

Westinghouse Apollo Lunar Television Camera:
Frame rate: (SSTV) 10 frame/s, 0.65 frame/s (not used)

Westinghouse Lunar Color Camera
Frame rate: 60 fields/s, 30 frames/s (color filters alternated between each field - one color "frame" per 3 fields)

It would be interesting for someone to dig into.
that said, his actual walk to me looks like a marionette doll.
And maybe thats what people would look like on the moon, but that doesnt prove they went.

If I watch this video it looks like the cables couldnt reach as far as he wanted to go.
full
He struggles to get a location and is obviously being pulled back.
Now I was trying to figure out if he was on some kind of hill, but that would be pretty extreme, and that would mean they have parked the Rover at an extreme angle which would be strange, since I never seen it parked on an extreme incline. How do you explain it?

And, so long as we're reduced to argumentem ad youtubum, you might want to watch this as well:

Im curious why you linked this video, because to me instead of debunking a hoax, this person has actually helped support it.

see here

The shadow moves position (forward) when the astro supposedly only moved up and down. I didnt see the shadow change position in the video. Actually he kind of moved back. Also, the fact that he jumps the same height and where is the boot print from the first jump, it should have made a deeper indentation. That just doesn't make any sense. Can you make sense of it? And why is the astronaut reflected in the visor so far away?




[edit on 1-7-2010 by FoosM]

dbl post

[edit on 1-7-2010 by FoosM]