Why the Moon Landings Could Have Never EVER Been Faked: The Definitive Proof

page: 18
43
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Neither I, Brandon, nor anybody else use shadow direction as an argument of Apollo irregularity, you're arguing a straw man.

As for shadows, regarding Apollo 11, why do the astronauts shadows demonstrably lengthen as they move closer to the camera, and moreover why do they shorten as the astronauts move further away from the camera?
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo


Please cite a video that you can either link or embed for everyone to look at and see what you are talking about please.

Thanks.


You've already had links to footage, it will suffice in this case also.



jra

posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Yes. The Apollo program was compartmentalized.


Can you read my post and explain what you mean exactly?


It is my conclusion that the Apollo program was highly compartmentalized.


Ok apparently I'm going to have to quote part of my own post since you are incapable of reading it and giving me a clear answer...


Originally posted by jra

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
I think we have an issue here of you misunderstanding the concept of compartmentalized; either that or you've inadvertantly contradicted yourself.


Perhaps it would be nice if you clarified what you mean then. Because every time some one comes here and makes the claim that the Apollo program was compartmentalized, they mean that no one knew what they were working on or what others were working on, because they could not see the full picture. Which is an incredibly silly thing to claim.

If you just mean dictionary definition of compartmentalize, that each company worked on certain parts, then I'd have to say yes, obviously. But people who believe Apollo to be a hoax and make claims of compartmentalization, do not mean it by the dictionary definition. So what do you mean?

The three stages of the Saturn V rocket were designed and built by three different companies, (Boeing (S-IC), North American (S-II), Douglas (S-IVB)) and the CSM was built by North American and the LM by Grumman. In order to make sure everything would fit together and work properly, constant and open communication between all those companies was key to making sure it would be successful.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Well perhaps this may come as an inconvenient truth, but THERE ARE gaping holes in the so called footage, if you can be bothered too look through it, that is.

The editing of the Apollo 10 inflight footage is a good place to start.


I have looked, unfortunately for me. There isn't anything I have seen, ever, that would indicate that the landings were faked. The footage, either. I really don't understand why anyone ever thought that in the first place.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Well perhaps this may come as an inconvenient truth, but THERE ARE gaping holes in the so called footage, if you can be bothered too look through it, that is.

The editing of the Apollo 10 inflight footage is a good place to start.


I have looked, unfortunately for me. There isn't anything I have seen, ever, that would indicate that the landings were faked. The footage, either. I really don't understand why anyone ever thought that in the first place.


You have confirmation bias.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Please stop sidestepping the question and post a video that you believe has anomalies in it and explain what and why you think is happening. Your last response to this type of question was to post a link to a dvd that someone would have to buy, the entire Apollo video archive is public record so you should be able to find a free link to what you feel is in question rather easily.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Well perhaps this may come as an inconvenient truth, but THERE ARE gaping holes in the so called footage, if you can be bothered too look through it, that is.

The editing of the Apollo 10 inflight footage is a good place to start.


I have looked, unfortunately for me. There isn't anything I have seen, ever, that would indicate that the landings were faked. The footage, either. I really don't understand why anyone ever thought that in the first place.


You have confirmation bias.


No, what we have is your refusal to take the time and find the same video clips that are online that all can see, and are instead using a source that requires the rest of ATS members to purchase a product.

Your unwillingness to cite an actual video that the rest of us can see easily, while making claims that something looks wrong in those videos speaks volumes to any member here on ATS.

As the old saying here on ATS goes: Pics, or it didn't happen.

Make all the claims of things not looking right that you want. Side step all the serious questions that have been put to you. That is okay.

Because each time you do this, your credibility on here drops further, and further.

If you want to be taken seriously on this subject, then do something other than spouting off a claim, and then refusing to back it up in a way that we can all see, without having to purchase a product (did I mention pushing a product on here is against the TCs?).

Until you are willing to do that, you can't be taken seriously.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Please stop sidestepping the question and post a video that you believe has anomalies in it and explain what and why you think is happening. Your last response to this type of question was to post a link to a dvd that someone would have to buy, the entire Apollo video archive is public record so you should be able to find a free link to what you feel is in question rather easily.


Source your own free links. I provided you with citation.

YOU'RE sidestepping, not I.
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typos



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

No, what we have is your refusal to take the time and find the same video clips that are online that all can see, and are instead using a source that requires the rest of ATS members to purchase a product.

Your unwillingness to cite an actual video that the rest of us can see easily, while making claims that something looks wrong in those videos speaks volumes to any member here on ATS.

As the old saying here on ATS goes: Pics, or it didn't happen.

Make all the claims of things not looking right that you want. Side step all the serious questions that have been put to you. That is okay.

Because each time you do this, your credibility on here drops further, and further.

If you want to be taken seriously on this subject, then do something other than spouting off a claim, and then refusing to back it up in a way that we can all see, without having to purchase a product (did I mention pushing a product on here is against the TCs?).

Until you are willing to do that, you can't be taken seriously.


I provided you with a citation.

I you want it for free then you can source it, I'm not your servant.

START:
SNIP
edit on 23-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: grammar


No one is asking you to be a servant.

Your citation is not something that can be viewed by members on here.

Only YOU know what parts of the video that the shadows look strange, and even though you've cited a link, you don't even give a scene selection or chapter for those DVDs that people have to pay for.

In other words: no one can check your claims without forking out money, and even then, they are going to have to work hard and make a huge GUESS as to what part or parts of the footage you are talking about.

Absolutely no one on here in this thread has made an unreasonable request of you.

Yet your post here and previous posts of refusing to take a more serious part in this discussion by help give access to what you are claiming speaking volumes.

For a 2nd time in this thread, as per your previous post, you are pushing a product.

Your credibility on this subject has now dropped to zero.
edit on 23-1-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/23/2013 by Blaine91555 because: removed link



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   
OK FOLKS! - Please stop with the childish baiting and back and forth. Keep to the topic.

Mod Edit: ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics - Please Review This Link.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Well perhaps this may come as an inconvenient truth, but THERE ARE gaping holes in the so called footage, if you can be bothered too look through it, that is.

The editing of the Apollo 10 inflight footage is a good place to start.


I have looked, unfortunately for me. There isn't anything I have seen, ever, that would indicate that the landings were faked. The footage, either. I really don't understand why anyone ever thought that in the first place.


You have confirmation bias.


I think maybe you mean reality bias? Good evidence that a moon landing happened, and we watched it on television. bad evidence, or no evidence, that the same was a fake, one way or another. Simple logic decides my point of view. I know what they could do back then, in movies and on tv, and what we saw could not have been faked. Not then. That was shown in the OP's video link. That there was no reason to do so has also been explained, more than once, in this thread.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


The O/P does not give objective proof, rather it asserts subjective opinions.



posted on Jan, 23 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


No, the OP offered a video that explains, in nice technical detail, the capabilities of those days, and why, because of those details, the video we have of the moon landing could not have been faked. I used to watch old sci-fi stuff back then, and it wasn't anything like what we saw from NASA. I have examined the so-called "proof" from those claiming it was a hoax, and it simply doesn't look valid to me. Plus, yet again, there would have been no reason for a hoax of that nature. We saw disasters in the space program. We had the rocket technology. We had the know-how to make the suits, and the capsules, and the other equipment. My dad was a computer person, and he never once questioned that they had the computer etch for what they did. Believe me, he would have, had there been any question. He was pretty open to alternative ideas.

So, we have a lack of tech for a hoax, enough tech to actually go to the moon, and no reason to say we did if we didn't. Application of logic leads to the conclusion that we were there. Several times.

If you are so certain we didn't go, instead of addressing the videos of the various moon landings, how about explaining what part of the technology used you think was faked? What part of it do you believe we didn't have? Details, please, and support, for any claims.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


No, the OP offered a video that explains, in nice technical detail, the capabilities of those days, and why, because of those details, the video we have of the moon landing could not have been faked. I used to watch old sci-fi stuff back then, and it wasn't anything like what we saw from NASA. I have examined the so-called "proof" from those claiming it was a hoax, and it simply doesn't look valid to me. Plus, yet again, there would have been no reason for a hoax of that nature. We saw disasters in the space program. We had the rocket technology. We had the know-how to make the suits, and the capsules, and the other equipment. My dad was a computer person, and he never once questioned that they had the computer etch for what they did. Believe me, he would have, had there been any question. He was pretty open to alternative ideas.

So, we have a lack of tech for a hoax, enough tech to actually go to the moon, and no reason to say we did if we didn't. Application of logic leads to the conclusion that we were there. Several times.

If you are so certain we didn't go, instead of addressing the videos of the various moon landings, how about explaining what part of the technology used you think was faked? What part of it do you believe we didn't have? Details, please, and support, for any claims.



I have said time and time again, I'm not certain about lunar moon landings, rather I raise issues with discrepancies.

I've actually said that time and time again. Please read threads properly.

Its buried within the thread, and is labelled DISCLAIMER.

Nb. You cannot prove we didn't have the technology to hoax a lunar landing, just as you cannot prove X doesn't have Y; it's logically impossible to prove a negative.

Please refrain from false assertions about the method of logic.

Your anecdotal reference to you father adds zero validity to any statement contained in this thread, its merely that-anecdotal.

It states my position.
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typos
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: grammar
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: update
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: ignorance factor
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: spelling
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: arghhhhhhh



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
*snip*

If you are so certain we didn't go, instead of addressing the videos of the various moon landings, how about explaining what part of the technology used you think was faked? What part of it do you believe we didn't have? Details, please, and support, for any claims.



I have said time and time again, I'm not certain about lunar moon landings, rather I raise issues with discrepancies.

I've actually said that time and time again. Please read threads properly.

Its buried within the thread, and is labelled DISCLAIMER.

Nb. You cannot prove we didn't have the technology to hoax a lunar landing, just as you cannot prove X doesn't have Y; it's logically impossible to prove a negative.

Please refrain from false assertions about the method of logic.

Your anecdotal reference to you father adds zero validity to any statement contained in this thread, its merely that-anecdotal.

It states my position.
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typos
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: grammar
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: update
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: ignorance factor
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: spelling
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: arghhhhhhh


Again, name those so-called discrepancies. Be detailed, please. We can't discuss them if you won't share.

It can be proven that we did have the technology. So, since we did, and a moon landing was possible, there is no reason to suspect a fake.

I notice you focus on a single statement, and ignore the rest of the very valid points I made on the issue.

Basically, you have added nothing but wasted space. No proof of anything, no details on what you claim, nothing. If you actually have nothing, admit it, and we can all move on.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 03:54 AM
link   
Well we seem to have a right old mix up on here now, the whole premiss of this thread was that the video/photographic technology of the time could not be used to fake the Moon landing as we saw it on tv.

Over the last few pages we have had people mention there religious beliefs/politics and other subjects UNRELATED to the OP.

We have also had comments about science/scientists with one individual who shall remain nameless claiming basically scientists don't know what they are talking about.

I have said this before on other threads when people have made a similar comment the IRONY of your claim makes me
because the only way they could have posted that claim for me and others possibly on the other side of the world to see is because of science.

We also get many misconceptions regarding photography and optics, often people make claims that the Hubble should be able to see the landers because it can see detail in distant objects. Again this is down to a lack of understanding, telescope are designed to gather as much light as possible NOT for max magnification at the distance of the Moon the Hubble can resolve objects about 300 ft across that is due to OPTICAL properties (for the people that don't believe science) to give people a rough idea if the Hubble could magnify 5000x (this fig has been mention on the net a few times) the Moon at it's avg distance of 238,854 miles the surface of the moon would still look 47.7 miles away the landers are 15 ft across.
The resolving power of the Hubble is 0.05 arc seconds or 0.0000138888888889 deg at the distance of the Moon that's about 305 ft.

Have a look a this image first posted on here by jra we both had the same idea when the LRO images started to come back. (jra will be sick of me posting this.)



Now the top half is a still from the film taken using the DAC(16mm Data Acquisition Camera) as Apollo 17 left the Moon the bottom half the Apollo 17 landing site photographed by the LRO. Taken almost 40 years apart the tracks left by the Astronauts match.

We have the pictures taken on the surface using the Hasselblad cameras so we can see small details around the sites and also the other areas the Astronauts took pictures.

We can use the LRO images or this site LRO Quick Map to compare very small rocks/craters/features that were photographed 40 yrs ago.

If you you are not sure how to use the LRO map above look here
www.abovetopsecret.com...

So for the people still saying we didn't sorry the USA didn't do it please post a selection of say 5 pictures you think best proves a hoax, now you can send messages to each other and post as a collective or pick 5 each lets see what happens.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 04:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace
reply to post by chrisb9
 


James McCanney is a scientist now? www.jmccanneyscience.com...


www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 23-1-2013 by wildespace because: (no reason given)


PMSL at his site claiming entrapment because he jumped to a conclusion based on what he saw on a video what an a**.

From his site.


THIS JUST IN ... IT IS TOO EARLY TO CONFIRM BUT SOME INITIAL DATA SUGGESTS THAT COMET C/2012/S1 HAS AT LEAST ONE COMPANION AND POSSIBLY UP TO SEVEN ... WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS HAPPENS ONE HAS TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS BUT AFTER EXAMINING THE DATA THAT I HAVE SEEN I WOULD SAY THAT IT APPEARS TO BE REAL ... FURTHERMORE ONE OF THE POSSIBLE COMPANIONS APPEARS TO BE AT ABOUT TWO LUNAR DISTANCES (HALF A MILLION MILES) AND HAS NOT FORMED A COMA FOR SOME ODD REASON ... IF THE OBJECT IS ORBITING THE NUCLEUS OF THE COMET AT THAT DISTANCE IT IMPLIES THAT THE NUCLEUS OF THIS COMET IS POSSIBLY AS BIG OR BIGGER THAN EARTH .


Now did someone twist an arm up his back to make him make the claim above


Comet nucleus bigger than the Earth
edit on 24-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)
edit on 24-1-2013 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
The original O/P asserts we didn't haven the technology to film 'lunar' scenes on earth. This is false.

Please refer to 2001 a space odyssey, which was filmed on earth.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
The original O/P asserts we didn't haven the technology to film 'lunar' scenes on earth. This is false.

Please refer to 2001 a space odyssey, which was filmed on earth.


OP is not much to do with visual effects or anything that 2001 was evidence for. 2001 was not shot on video, it was shot on film. For 2001 to be remotely relevant to this discussion ... it would have had to be shot on 35mm film, developed flawlessly and then turned into a make believe video format for a well known camera brand using custom methods. 2001 is actually evidence in favor of the OP.

That's what the OP is about.

VFX and special effects technology is mostly a seperate topic, except for perhaps someone saying they used VFX to hide the characteristics of film.
edit on 24-1-2013 by Pinke because: Less cranky ahaha



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
The original O/P asserts we didn't haven the technology to film 'lunar' scenes on earth. This is false.

Please refer to 2001 a space odyssey, which was filmed on earth



That is not what the video in the OP stated.





new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join