Fake Earth illusion - footage from Apollo 11, 1969

page: 53
105
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


A studio set right down here on Earth.

Really? A studio, the entire landing sequence was done in a studio? Ok.


A studio set doesn't have to be indoors...Groom lake had an outdoor Lunar set, for the Astronauts to train on.


Then why, if the engine was shut down 5 seconds after touchdown, doesn't the dust billow after the engine is shut down?


We have been over this already...Because there is no Atmosphere!


Didn't you claim earlier that it should have settled instantly because of lack of atmosphere?


Yes, and that is exactly what it did at about 3:27 on the footage.


You seem to be sort of confusing yourself.


Not at all, it is you that is getting confused..

edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


We have been over this already...Because there is no Atmosphere!
Oh. No atmosphere in the studio in which the entire landing was filmed. Got it.


Yes, and that is exactly what it did at about 3:27 on the footage.
If it was done in a studio, don't you think they could have gotten the timing right?

CHALLENGER Boy, when you said shut down, I shut down and we dropped, didn't we?
CHALLENGER Yes, sir, but we is here, man is we here. How does that look?
www.jsc.nasa.gov...
The LM dropped when the engine was shut down 5 seconds after touchdown? Why?

You haven't actually proved anything.
edit on 2/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You apparently didn't read what he said. You are obviously wrong.


Quote from Captainpudding:
"Are you now trying to say that gold, one of the best conductors known to man, would hold a static charge? The reason the lunar dust stuck to the space suits is because they were insulators. Static is a build up of electrical charge that becomes trapped in an insulator (think of a wool sweater, horrible conductor, but a great static generator) gold wouldn't hold a static charge because electrons flow through it not build up on its surface."

So Psyko, I am obviously correct!



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


We have been over this already...Because there is no Atmosphere!

Oh. Not atmosphere in the studio. Got it.


No its because there is no Moondust on an Earthbound Lunar set!


Yes, and that is exactly what it did at about 3:27 on the footage.


If it was done in a studio, don't you think they could have gotten the timing right?


Do actors always get their lines right?




CHALLENGER Boy, when you said shut down, I shut down and we dropped, didn't we?
CHALLENGER Yes, sir, but we is here, man is we here. How does that look?


www.jsc.nasa.gov...



The LM dropped when the engine was shut down 5 seconds after touchdown? Why?


It was a fabricated story and fabricated stories can end up with lots of mistakes when they are retold over and over. You really believe an experienced military test pilot would say "Yes, sir, but we is here, man is we here."? Are you suggesting he was some Moonshine swilling, Billy Bob, "squeal like pig" redneck?


You haven't actually proved anything.
edit on 2/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Perhaps, but neither have you.
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:15 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Because it didn't...It was a fabricated story and fabricated stories can end up with lots of mistakes when they are retold over and over.

Maybe. But historical records are not "retold over and over". They are records. They don't change.
That quote above is from the mission transcript. It is the conversation between Cernan and Schmitt immediately after touchdown.
edit on 2/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You apparently didn't read what he said. You are obviously wrong.


Quote from Captainpudding:
"Are you now trying to say that gold, one of the best conductors known to man, would hold a static charge? The reason the lunar dust stuck to the space suits is because they were insulators. Static is a build up of electrical charge that becomes trapped in an insulator (think of a wool sweater, horrible conductor, but a great static generator) gold wouldn't hold a static charge because electrons flow through it not build up on its surface."

So Psyko, I am obviously correct!


No. I'm afraid you are incredibly wrong and do not understand electricity, electron flow, and static discharge.

As I stated, a piece of metal can't really "hold" a charge. It needs to have a potential constantly feeding it. The belt in the generator does that.

If a piece of metal has a difference of potential on it, it will discharge it the instant in touches ground (negative or positive potential), because, metal, like gold, is a very good conductor.

Again, the moment the LEM touched the lunar surface, any static potential that it had was discharged and it's potential will consistently remain the same as ground, which has no charge.

Other objects that do not conduct electricity well (insulators or dielectrics such as in capacitors) can have a static charge built on them, and they will hold that charge quite well because they themselves do not conduct electricity very well.

Take a rubber balloon and fill it with air. Rub it against your hair several times, and then move the balloon away. Neither your hair, nor the balloon will conduct electricity very well, yet the friction of rubbing those two together will build up a static charge and why the fine, loose hair now wants to stand up and reach out to the balloon.

Now, take a metal ball and rub your hair with it. You'll find that the results are quite poor as compared to the balloon.
Why?

Because most metals have a lot of free electrons and makes them very good conductors of electricity. While your hand is holding it, it's discharging the same time it's trying to charge.

This is why when you scuff your socks across a wool carpet, especially during the winter when the air is dry and being heated by a heater, if you do it across the room to the door and then touch the metal door handle you get a shock. The metal door handle discharges the static electricity you built up on your body (because your body does not conduct electricity very well, and no where near as good as metal).

I'll be more than happy to discuss this subject in even more depth if you'd like, since I worked with a lot of high voltage devices (radar systems) while I was in the US Navy, and then earned my electrical engineering degree after I got out.



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by ProfessorAlfB

Originally posted by PsykoOps
You apparently didn't read what he said. You are obviously wrong.


Quote from Captainpudding:
"Are you now trying to say that gold, one of the best conductors known to man, would hold a static charge? The reason the lunar dust stuck to the space suits is because they were insulators. Static is a build up of electrical charge that becomes trapped in an insulator (think of a wool sweater, horrible conductor, but a great static generator) gold wouldn't hold a static charge because electrons flow through it not build up on its surface."

So Psyko, I am obviously correct!



No. I'm afraid you are incredibly wrong and do not understand electricity, electron flow, and static discharge.


I do, but you obviously don't.


As I stated, a piece of metal can't really "hold" a charge. It needs to have a potential constantly feeding it. The belt in the generator does that.


No it doesn't...The metal ball on top of a Van De Graff generator accumulates a high voltage positive charge and holds this charge even when the motor turning the belt is turned off.
This is why you have to discharge it with an Earthed rod before touching it after use.


If a piece of metal has a difference of potential on it, it will discharge it the instant in touches ground (negative or positive potential), because, metal, like gold, is a very good conductor.




Again, the moment the LEM touched the lunar surface, any static potential that it had was discharged and it's potential will consistently remain the same as ground, which has no charge.


Not necessarly...You have already admitted there has to be a difference of potential to cause a discharge, but you are used to the Earths soil having a negative "Earth" potential...The following article states that the Moondust exposed to the solar wind becomes positively charged, and the Moondust on the dark side becomes negatively charged ...If the Gold on the landing pads and legs had acummulated a positive static charge too therefore it is possible that there might be no discharge when it touched down on sunlit side the Moon:
Quote: "There is some evidence that the Moon may have a tenuous atmosphere of moving dust particles constantly leaping up from and falling back to the Moon's surface, giving rise to a "dust atmosphere" that looks static but is composed of dust particles in constant motion. The term "Moon fountain" has been used to describe this effect by analogy with the stream of molecules of water in a fountain following a ballistic trajectory while appearing static due to the constancy of the stream. According to the model recently proposed by Timothy J. Stubbs, Richard R. Vondrak, and William M. Farrell of the Laboratory for Extraterrestrial Physics at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,[3] this is caused by electrostatic levitation. On the daylit side of the Moon, solar ultraviolet and X-ray radiation is energetic enough to knock electrons out of atoms and molecules in the lunar soil. Positive charges build up until the tiniest particles of lunar dust (measuring 1 micrometre and smaller) are repelled from the surface and lofted anywhere from metres to kilometres high, with the smallest particles reaching the highest altitudes. Eventually they fall back toward the surface where the process is repeated over and over again. On the night side, the dust is negatively charged by electrons in the solar wind. Indeed, the fountain model suggests that the night side would charge up to higher voltages than the day side, possibly launching dust particles to higher velocities and altitudes.[4] This effect could be further enhanced during the portion of the Moon's orbit where it passes through Earth's magnetotail; see Magnetic field of the Moon for more detail.[5] On the terminator there could be significant horizontal electric fields forming between the day and night areas, resulting in horizontal dust transport - a form of "moon storm"


Other objects that do not conduct electricity well (insulators or dielectrics such as in capacitors) can have a static charge built on them, and they will hold that charge quite well because they themselves do not conduct electricity very well.


Lead Acid batteries hold charge very well and yet the charge is not stored in insulators it is stored in metal (Lead) plates...Go figure!


Take a rubber balloon and fill it with air. Rub it against your hair several times, and then move the balloon away. Neither your hair, nor the balloon will conduct electricity very well, yet the friction of rubbing those two together will build up a static charge and why the fine, loose hair now wants to stand up and reach out to the balloon.

Now, take a metal ball and rub your hair with it. You'll find that the results are quite poor as compared to the balloon.
Why?


Simple, because you can't charge a metal ball by simply rubbing it on your hair! But that does not mean that you cannot charge a metal ball, as the Van De Graff generator demonstrates.
You first need to understand how a materials place in the "triboelectric series" effects how it can hold or generate a static charge. Here is a quote:
"Some atoms hold on to their electrons more tightly than others do. How strongly matter holds on to its electrons determines its place in the triboelectric series. If a material is more apt to give up electrons when in contact with another material, it is more positive in the triboelectric series. If a material is more apt to "capture" electrons when in contact with another material, it is more negative in the triboelectric series.
The following list describes the triboelectric series for many materials you find around the house. Positive items in the series are at the top, and negative items are at the bottom:
•Human hands (usually too moist, though) Very positive
•Rabbit fur
•Glass
•Human hair
•Nylon
•Wool
•Fur
•Lead
•Silk
•Aluminum
•Paper
•Cotton
•Steel Neutral
•Wood
•Amber
•Hard rubber
•Nickel, Copper
•Brass, Silver
•Gold, Platinum
•Polyester
•Styrene (Styrofoam)
•Saran Wrap
•Polyurethane
•Polyethylene (like Scotch Tape)
•Polypropylene
•Vinyl (PVC)
•Silicon
•Teflon Very negative
The relative position of two substances in the triboelectric series tells you how they will act when brought into contact. Glass rubbed by silk causes a charge separation because they are several positions apart in the table. The same applies for amber and wool. The farther the separation in the table, the greater the effect."

.
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 1 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Could you please proof read your replies, especially when quoting and learn how to edit the quotes better?

Sheep skin on my wall says I know what I'm talking about as far as electricity goes.

I'm afraid you're not going to win this argument. You picked a really bad example to use in your generator for the simple fact that I have stated several times now:

The upper metal conductor is insulated from ground and the negative potentials.

The LEM was insulated until it made contact with the lunar surface. The moment it did that, all connected metal surfaces on the outside of the LEM became the same potential as the lunar surface, or what would be in this case "lunar ground".

It was no longer insulated, it was now literally part of the "circuit", in this case, ground. Because of that, the outer surface of the LEM now had the same potential as the lunar surface.

You can sit there all night and say "maybe it didn't" if you want, but it won't change the physics, which say that yes, it will discharge, and be part of the grounding of the moon's surface.

That would be like me sitting here saying: "maybe zebras speak english" when it's known that their vocal chords are shaped to where no, they can't form the same sounds as us.

So again, sorry. I know you're desperate to try and prove that the landings were fake, but I'm afraid you are really reaching when you try to make physics work in ways that it doesn't.

And now I'm off to bed. Early day with my boys scouts tomorrow.
edit on 1-2-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 05:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



A studio set doesn't have to be indoors...Groom lake had an outdoor Lunar set, for the Astronauts to train on.


Then why, if the engine was shut down 5 seconds after touchdown, doesn't the dust billow after the engine is shut down?



We have been over this already...Because there is no Atmosphere!


I literally laughed out loud at this. If it was filmed outdoors at Groom Lake, why was there no atmosphere?

Professor, you really don't know how to read a room. You cannot argue from authority the way you do if you are not an authority. Rather than parrot what hoaxers like Sibrel and White say, look into the many, many ways they have been debunked, and try to find a way to de-debunk them. You seem constantly off balance because you don't understand the tricks they play in order to create a plausible, but wrong, case. If you have a technical objection, please do some actual calculations and show your work. Take some time off, do some research and come up with something fresh, please.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:19 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Okay, I can continue now that I've had some sleep.

Batteries: yes they hold a charge. But not just because they are metal. They hold a charge because they have 2 different kinds of metal, and a third material that chemically reacts with them so that they develop a difference of potential across their terminals.

You can do with with 2 different kinds of nails and a potato (or a lemon).

If you take a battery apart completely with all the parts not touching anything (insulated) and move them apart from each other, then use a volt meter to measure the material to ground, you'll find that the metals no longer have a charge.

Electrolitic Capacitors are a great example of charging something up, and having it hold a charge (sometimes for years) as long as there is no current flow between their terminals.
You can go to a electronic hobby store, and buy a bag of these in various sizes (both capacitance and voltage handling). And use a power supply to charge them up.
Be careful to not touch the leads with your hands or you'll get a bit of a shock. Great joke to play on someone as long as you keep the voltage low. You hold the body of it and hand it to them, they touch the leads, and OUCH!

But their construct is the same: two pieces of metal with a dialelectric (an insulator) between them.

Oh! Word of warning: if you do this, don't exceed the capacitors voltage rating.......if you do it will rupture (pop) and you'll have one of the worlds most horrible smells on your hands (smells like burnt fish oil....blech....).

Triboelectric effect is indeed a type of static charge.

It comes from friction.

Remember the helicopter I told you about in one of my previous posts? That's how it becomes charged............and I also told you how we discharge it so that it no longer has that charge: by making it part of our circuit.

This same helicopter will charge up again when it leaves......but we don't have to hook it when it lands.
Why?
Because when it lands, it discharges.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



A studio set doesn't have to be indoors...Groom lake had an outdoor Lunar set, for the Astronauts to train on.


Then why, if the engine was shut down 5 seconds after touchdown, doesn't the dust billow after the engine is shut down?



We have been over this already...Because there is no Atmosphere!



I literally laughed out loud at this. If it was filmed outdoors at Groom Lake, why was there no atmosphere?


I am glad you found it so ammusing, but you wont be laughing so hard if you subsequently discover the whole thing really was a hoax!
It is not beyond the abilities of the US government to have a large pressure chamber built which could be partially evacuated to simulate the vacuum on the Moon.
The Horizon in the backgrouind in the Apollo photo's and videos never really looks more than about 100 feet away...The likely dimensions of the set inside this chamber.
The cameras used to take the fake pics and vids would not need to be inside the pressure chamber at all as they could have been shot outside from behind thick pressure resistant glass. (Another good reason why they had to doctor the reflections in the visors.)
Ever wondered why security is so tight at Groom lake?


Professor, you really don't know how to read a room. You cannot argue from authority the way you do if you are not an authority. Rather than parrot what hoaxers like Sibrel and White say, look into the many, many ways they have been debunked, and try to find a way to de-debunk them. You seem constantly off balance because you don't understand the tricks they play in order to create a plausible, but wrong, case. If you have a technical objection, please do some actual calculations and show your work. Take some time off, do some research and come up with something fresh, please.


And where are your calculations?
edit on 2/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
You are right: it's not beyond the possibilites to have a large facility built, that they could somehow make mostly a vacuum (it would have to be tremendous in size not only because of the room they would need, especially due to the moon buggy rides done by the later Apollo missions, but because the walls would have to super thick so that the entire place is not crushed in on itself from the outside, sea level air pressure).

However: you can't fake 1/6 gravity.

Every one says that you can by slowing the film or video down. But no. You can't:

Apollo 14 SEQ Bay Pendulum

edit on 2-2-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



I am glad you found it so ammusing, but you wont be laughing so hard if you subsequently discover the whole thing really was a hoax!


Even if it were, they way you keep contradicting yourself and then pretending you were right all along would be pretty funny.


It is not beyond the abilities of the US government to have a large pressure chamber built which could be partially evacuated to simulate the vacuum on the Moon.


Yes, but they are not nearly large enough to accommodate a soundstage.


The Horizon in the backgrouind in the Apollo photo's and videos never really looks more than about 100 feet away...The likely dimensions of the set inside this chamber.


So you believe that the United States has the technology to evacuate over four million cubic feet of air from a structure without crushing, and that this vast structure would be undetectable... but they did not have the technology to send people to the Moon?


The cameras used to take the fake pics and vids would not need to be inside the pressure chamber at all as they could have been shot outside from behind thick pressure resistant glass. (Another good reason why they had to doctor the reflections in the visors.)


Just how thick would the glass have to be? How would the index of refraction of this glass affect the images?


Ever wondered why security is so tight at Groom lake?


No. It is used for testing experimental aircraft and nuclear weapons research. Why do you think security is so tight?



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 


Okay, I can continue now that I've had some sleep.

Batteries: yes they hold a charge. But not just because they are metal. They hold a charge because they have 2 different kinds of metal, and a third material that chemically reacts with them so that they develop a difference of potential across their terminals.

You can do with with 2 different kinds of nails and a potato (or a lemon).

If you take a battery apart completely with all the parts not touching anything (insulated) and move them apart from each other, then use a volt meter to measure the material to ground, you'll find that the metals no longer have a charge.

Electrolitic Capacitors are a great example of charging something up, and having it hold a charge (sometimes for years) as long as there is no current flow between their terminals.
You can go to a electronic hobby store, and buy a bag of these in various sizes (both capacitance and voltage handling). And use a power supply to charge them up.
Be careful to not touch the leads with your hands or you'll get a bit of a shock. Great joke to play on someone as long as you keep the voltage low. You hold the body of it and hand it to them, they touch the leads, and OUCH!

But their construct is the same: two pieces of metal with a dialelectric (an insulator) between them.

Oh! Word of warning: if you do this, don't exceed the capacitors voltage rating.......if you do it will rupture (pop) and you'll have one of the worlds most horrible smells on your hands (smells like burnt fish oil....blech....).

Triboelectric effect is indeed a type of static charge.

It comes from friction.

Remember the helicopter I told you about in one of my previous posts? That's how it becomes charged............and I also told you how we discharge it so that it no longer has that charge: by making it part of our circuit.

This same helicopter will charge up again when it leaves......but we don't have to hook it when it lands.
Why?
Because when it lands, it discharges.


OK, lets assume the Moons soil is at negative Earth potential and the static charge on the LM discharges when it touches down as you say, fine, but from the article I quoted from we know that high energy particles in the Solar wind causes the lunar soil where the particles hit to have a positive static charge. We also know that opposite charges attract so the positively charged dust particles would have been attracted to the negatively charged LM!
edit on 2/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful


You are right: it's not beyond the possibilites to have a large facility built, that they could somehow make mostly a vacuum (it would have to be tremendous in size not only because of the room they would need, especially due to the moon buggy rides done by the later Apollo missions, but because the walls would have to super thick so that the entire place is not crushed in on itself from the outside, sea level air pressure).

However: you can't fake 1/6 gravity.

Every one says that you can by slowing the film or video down. But no. You can't:

Apollo 14 SEQ Bay Pendulum

edit on 2-2-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)


No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!
edit on 2/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)
edit on 2/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



I am glad you found it so ammusing, but you wont be laughing so hard if you subsequently discover the whole thing really was a hoax!



Even if it were, they way you keep contradicting yourself and then pretending you were right all along would be pretty funny.



It is not beyond the abilities of the US government to have a large pressure chamber built which could be partially evacuated to simulate the vacuum on the Moon.



Yes, but they are not nearly large enough to accommodate a soundstage.


A soundstage in a vaccuum?



The Horizon in the backgrouind in the Apollo photo's and videos never really looks more than about 100 feet away...The likely dimensions of the set inside this chamber.



So you believe that the United States has the technology to evacuate over four million cubic feet of air from a structure without crushing, and that this vast structure would be undetectable... but they did not have the technology to send people to the Moon?


In a word, yes. Compared to putting men on the Moon and returning them safely, it would be childsplay to build such a chamber. And I never said it had to be completely evacuated of all its air...A partial vaccuum would have been good enough to fool the public.


The cameras used to take the fake pics and vids would not need to be inside the pressure chamber at all as they could have been shot outside from behind thick pressure resistant glass. (Another good reason why they had to doctor the reflections in the visors.)



Just how thick would the glass have to be? How would the index of refraction of this glass affect the images?


Not as thick as you think. The air pressure at sea level is only 14.7 psi...Even the relatively thin glass in a fishtank can hold that pressure against a partial vaccuum.


Ever wondered why security is so tight at Groom lake?


No. It is used for testing experimental aircraft and nuclear weapons research. Why do you think security is so tight?


Yes they do that too, but they are also safeguarding Alien artifacts and the pressure chamber in question.
edit on 2/2/13 by ProfessorAlfB because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



OK, lets assume the Moons soil is at negative Earth potential and the static charge on the LM discharges when it touches down as you say, fine, but from the article I quoted from we know that high energy particles in the Solar wind causes the lunar soil where the particles hit to have a positive static charge. We also know that opposite charges attract so the positively charged dust particles would have been attracted to the negatively charged LM!


So where did the LM get its negative charge? It is exposed to exactly the same solar wind that the lunar surface is.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



OK, lets assume the Moons soil is at negative Earth potential and the static charge on the LM discharges when it touches down as you say, fine, but from the article I quoted from we know that high energy particles in the Solar wind causes the lunar soil where the particles hit to have a positive static charge. We also know that opposite charges attract so the positively charged dust particles would have been attracted to the negatively charged LM!


So where did the LM get its negative charge? It is exposed to exactly the same solar wind that the lunar surface is.


I didn't say it would definitely have a negative charge I was simply theorising it might for the sake of argument.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



Yes they do that too, but they are also safeguarding Alien artifacts and the pressure chamber in question.


Alien artifacts? Seriously? And as for the vacuum chamber, it is not at Groom Lake, it is near Sandusky, Ohio:

gizmodo.com...

Of course, it did not go online until 1969, so it could not have been used to film the Apollo missions. (Unless they had wicked fast post-production capacity. I'll leave that to Pinke to explain.
) I hope you are beginning to realize that your are arguing with people who can research your side of the "debate" better than you can. As I said, take a break and do some real research.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 09:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorAlfB
 



No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!


Did you actually watch the video? The pendulum on Earth lost 85% of its energy due to mechanical dissipation, including air resistance. The pendulum on the Moon lost only 40%, primarily due to the semi-chaotic state of the system itself. If you speed the footage up, the astronauts motion becomes jerky and unnatural.





top topics
 
105
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join