Apollo 17 Photography Stations Located To Within 50 cm On LROC Map

page: 6
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



By using a combination of slow motion, wires and tilted room (Changing Gravity Room Effect)


Which one did they use here?





posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Do explain how they simulate the moons gravity then. Oh no, you can't...? Sorry I asked.

By using a combination of slow motion, wires and tilted room (Changing Gravity Room Effect)


Funny thing. Back in the 70's they couldn't do that. Back in the 80's they couldn't do that. Not even at 90's.
So they send a pc-farm back in time so they could cgi it.
Funniest hoax theory ever.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Do explain how they simulate the moons gravity then. Oh no, you can't...? Sorry I asked.

By using a combination of slow motion, wires and tilted room (Changing Gravity Room Effect)


How does that explain why the dust does not billow? On Earth dust usually hangs in the air. The dust in Moon videos did not. It falls back to Earth mostly in parabolic ballistic trajectories.

Besides, in a tilted room, wouldn't the dust fall sideways?

edit on 7/12/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Ove38
Gibborium, it's a dummy in a remote controlled toy car ! The cables like the astronaut in the video, are completely stiff, like in a toy car !

Why should they be moving around? What's the cable made out of? How thick is it? Plus, I don't move around much in my car while I'm driving it, just my arms move while turning the steering wheel and that's about it. Why should the astronaut (who is wearing a stiff bulky space suit) be moving around?

In this full size version, the cables are normal. What you see in the video is a remote controlled model car. Look at the "astronauts" left arm, its completely stiff like the cables the whole time. Its a dummy in a fake moon car.


I'm confused. This is a still image. How can you tell that the cables seen in your posted image are not stiff?

By the way, insulated cable in general is pretty thick (and thus stiff). I suspect the rover cables had some insulation, which would stiffen it.

edit on 7/12/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Ove38
 



By using a combination of slow motion, wires and tilted room (Changing Gravity Room Effect)


Which one did they use here?



Another easy trick, seen at 3:30 in this youtube video > www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-7-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Do explain how they simulate the moons gravity then. Oh no, you can't...? Sorry I asked.

By using a combination of slow motion, wires and tilted room (Changing Gravity Room Effect)


Funny thing. Back in the 70's they couldn't do that. Back in the 80's they couldn't do that. Not even at 90's.
So they send a pc-farm back in time so they could cgi it.
Funniest hoax theory ever.


Have you seen the movie "Space Odyssey" from 1968 ?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by Ove38
Gibborium, it's a dummy in a remote controlled toy car ! The cables like the astronaut in the video, are completely stiff, like in a toy car !

Why should they be moving around? What's the cable made out of? How thick is it? Plus, I don't move around much in my car while I'm driving it, just my arms move while turning the steering wheel and that's about it. Why should the astronaut (who is wearing a stiff bulky space suit) be moving around?

In this full size version, the cables are normal. What you see in the video is a remote controlled model car. Look at the "astronauts" left arm, its completely stiff like the cables the whole time. Its a dummy in a fake moon car.


I'm confused. This is a still image. How can you tell that the cables seen in your posted image are not stiff?

By the way, insulated cable in general is pretty thick (and thus stiff). I suspect the rover cables had some insulation, which would stiffen it.

edit on 7/12/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)


Take a look at the video




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


No. How can you tell that the wires are not stiff in that image you posted of the full-sized mockup

...And why does stiff wires necessarily = small-scale RC car, anyway? Can't a full-sized working moon rover (working on the moon, driven by astronauts) have relatively stiff cabling?

edit on 7/12/2012 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


That's not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. You're joking right? I mean as a scifi fan I've seen tons and tons of movies and tv-shows.


jra

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38
By using a combination of slow motion, wires and tilted room (Changing Gravity Room Effect)


That's not a very satisfactory answer since that doesn't solve the 1/6th G issue for everything. Was the entire video record done in slow motion? Because there are many times when the astronauts movements would look clearly sped up, if you were to put it to what HB's would consider "normal speed". How did they fake the Apollo 14 pendulum? Slow motion doesn't work and I don't see how wires or a tilted room would do anything either. So whats your explanation for that?

And what about the vacuum environment? How was all that done? How did they prevent the dust from billowing up in the air? Not even Stanley Kubrick could prevent that from happening when they show the Aries 1B landing on the Moon. Nor could Michael Bay in 2010 with Transformers 3. Check out the close up of the astronauts feet as they hit the ground at about 0:33 into the trailer. The Lunar dust billows in the air very noticeably.

No sci-fi movie that I've seen (and I've seen a lot), has ever come close to accurately depicting 0G/low gravity or a vacuum environment. The only movie that did 0G well was "Apollo 13", but only because they used the "vomit comet". However you are limited to no more than about 30 seconds of 0G before the plane has to pull up. But that works fine for movies since they are comprised of many separate shots. The video from the Apollo missions however goes on from tens of minutes to hours uncut.

So could you again explain how they faked the 1/6th gravity as well as the vacuum environment? Slow motion, wires and tilted rooms are not enough to fake everything, like the pendulum or the parabolic arcs the dust sometimes travels in.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

Another easy trick, seen at 3:30 in this youtube video > www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-7-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix


youtu.be...

how about a falling bag??

and you havent explained how they managed to control the dust behaviour.. was each individual dust particle on a wire?



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by Ove38

Another easy trick, seen at 3:30 in this youtube video > www.youtube.com...
edit on 12-7-2012 by Ove38 because: link fix


youtu.be...

how about a falling bag??

and you havent explained how they managed to control the dust behaviour.. was each individual dust particle on a wire?


The bag, simply slow motion.

dust behavior ???



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by PsykoOps

Originally posted by Ove38

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Do explain how they simulate the moons gravity then. Oh no, you can't...? Sorry I asked.

By using a combination of slow motion, wires and tilted room (Changing Gravity Room Effect)


Funny thing. Back in the 70's they couldn't do that. Back in the 80's they couldn't do that. Not even at 90's.
So they send a pc-farm back in time so they could cgi it.
Funniest hoax theory ever.


Have you seen the movie "Space Odyssey" from 1968 ?


That's not even close. Not even in the same ballpark. You're joking right? I mean as a scifi fan I've seen tons and tons of movies and tv-shows.

The effects are the same, slow motion etc.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ove38

The bag, simply slow motion.

dust behavior ???


why not try and speed it up 2.4 times?? or even 2 times and watch how weird the astronauts movement is..

and when i say dust behaviour, i mean go watch a youtube video of an RC car being driven on loose dirt and take note on how the dust lingers in the air for a long time. compare that behaviour with the behaviour of the dust being kicked up from the apollo 16 LRV video.

heres some help:
rc car on loose dirt
youtu.be...

www.youtube.com...
edit on 13-7-2012 by choos because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 08:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 

The bag is an excellent example of the Moon's 1.62 m/s^2 gravity, or simply put, 1/6th gravity of Earth. The poster of the YouTube video shows these calculations:

. . . the Apollo 16 Flying Bag is analyzed to provide g = 1.54 and 1.57 m/s^2 in agreement with lunar gravity (g = 1.62 m/s^2) and distinct from earth gravity (g = 9.81 m/s^2). Therefore, [the] free fall motion confirm lunar gravity within a 5 % error margin. Moon landing conspiracy theorists have accused NASA to simulate lunar gravity by using wires and decreasing playback speed, but failed to recognize that there is only ONE physically correct playback speed for such an operation: 41 % (SQRT (1/6)) - as seen by using the equation » P = 2pi * SQRT (L / g) « for the pendulum or » t = SQRT (2y / g) « for free fall.

Just slowing down the speed of this action if filmed on Earth would result in causing the astronauts, the action of the toss, and actually any other movement to be out of sync. In other words, it doesn't work.

Consequently, it should be possible to restore the alleged original 1g conditions by increasing the playback speed to 246 % (SQRT 6). Under these conditions objects move as if accelerated by earth gravity (g = 9.81 m/s^2) but movements of the astronauts become incredibly fast, showing the impossibility to simulate lunar gravity by slowing down footage recorded on earth.
Link to AS16 bag toss

Now, the Apollo 14 SEQ Bay accidental pendulum video has also been mentioned:

The accidental Apollo 14 SEQ Bay Pendulum video is also irrefutable. It either happened on the Earth's moon, or on some other celestial body that has 1/6th the gravity of Earth. It cannot be replicated on Earth or any other planet unless it has a specific gravity of 1.63 m/sec/sec. This footage has been discussed many times on ATS and has yet to be refuted. abovetopsecrete.com

Let me list some of the components of this scene.
1. This was an accidental occurrence. It was not an intended experiment, therefore it was not staged or preset.
2. For this pendulum to swing in the manner it does, these things must be in place:
a. There cannot be any atmosphere to interfere with the pendulum (cause any drag)
b. The cycle (length and time interval) requires a gravity of 83.3% less than the Earth's, which equates to 1/6th of Earth's gravity.
3. Even though the accidental Apollo 14 SEQ Bay Pendulum is a compound pendulum, it can be replicated because the parameters are known and fixed. The compound pendulum does not negate the math nor the affect. Apollo 14 Lunar Surface Journal
4. The video is in real time. It is not slowed down.
5. The mass of the pendulum does not change even though the weight will be one sixth on the moon.
6. The analysis video done by BlisterHiker on YouTube is concise and disproves all possible scenarios of fakery. It should be watched to the end.

So, your simple answer of "the film was slowed down" does not suffice.
edit on 7/13/2012 by Gibborium because: grammar and link



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by choos

Originally posted by Ove38

The bag, simply slow motion.

dust behavior ???


why not try and speed it up 2.4 times?? or even 2 times and watch how weird the astronauts movement is..


why, 2.4 or 2.0 ? maybe its 1.8 or 1.679
the correct speed is when the "astronauts" move normal in the studio



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 08:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 



why, 2.4 or 2.0 ? maybe its 1.8 or 1.679
the correct speed is when the "astronauts" move normal in the studio


Whatever. Please take some footage and speed it up until the astronauts' movements look normal.



posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by Ove38
 



why, 2.4 or 2.0 ? maybe its 1.8 or 1.679
the correct speed is when the "astronauts" move normal in the studio


Whatever. Please take some footage and speed it up until the astronauts' movements look normal.





posted on Jul, 14 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Ove38
 


Did the speeded up footage look "normal" to you?



posted on Jul, 22 2012 @ 11:36 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 





top topics
 
29
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join