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

page: 19
43
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:24 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.


2001 Space Oddysey didn't have a TV broadcast of people in vacuum and 1/6th gravity environment.




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

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.


2001 Space Oddysey didn't have a TV broadcast of people in vacuum and 1/6th gravity environment.


The lunar surface footage does not indicate a vacuum environment, though it does at first sight indicates lower grabity than that of earth.

However, we can easily replicate the appearance of lower gravity here on earth.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we could have been presented with prerecorded footage.
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typos



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


I'd like to see a representation of 1/6th gravity on Earth (but not in a "zero-g" plane).

The speed with which the dust and other things fall in Apollo footage is indicative of vacuum. Otherwise the LRV would create clouds of dust hanging in the air, and the feather wouldn't drop like a stone.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by wildespace

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.


2001 Space Oddysey didn't have a TV broadcast of people in vacuum and 1/6th gravity environment.


The lunar surface footage does not indicate a vacuum environment, though it does at first sight indicates lower grabity than that of earth.

However, we can easily replicate the appearance of lower gravity here on earth.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we could have been presented with prerecorded footage.
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typos


Except that it was a live, video (not film) broadcast of over 140 minutes.

As stated in the video of the OP, while film footage, especially for slow motion would have been possible, video footage, especially for slow motion play back was very limited at the time using magnetic storage disks.

The amount of time that could be recorded was very limited to a few minutes, so it would have taken a massive amount of recordings, and then would have been carefully edited so that no splicing could be detected. This goes for the film too, being filmed and then the camera film being videoed.

One could say that they did do that, and did a perfect job at it so that no mistakes were made.

But then that creates a conundrum. Moon Hoaxers evidence is always based upon "mistakes" that NASA made. Considering the amount of "mistakes" that according to Moon Hoaxers that NASA made, the chances that they did perfect splicing so absolutely no one could tell, completely contradicts all the "mistakes" that NASA made.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:46 AM
link   
It's a long time since I've watched 2001,but from memory the weightless or low gravity scenes aren't very convincing?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by wildespace

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.


2001 Space Oddysey didn't have a TV broadcast of people in vacuum and 1/6th gravity environment.


The lunar surface footage does not indicate a vacuum environment, though it does at first sight indicates lower grabity than that of earth.

However, we can easily replicate the appearance of lower gravity here on earth.

It is not beyond the realms of possibility that we could have been presented with prerecorded footage.
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further typos


The problem with the idea that we can replicate the moon's gravity here on Earth is that no one has been able to recreate, even today (without CGI, which didn't exist back then), what happened during Apollo 14's mission:



There have been several threads on here about this, and every time the Moon Hoaxer is unable to debunk what happens with the pendulum.

Suggestions ranging from video fakery with techniques that didn't exist then, to having a special motor mounted to make the pendulum swing the way it does (but would not work due to the torque the motor would have placed in the pendulum).



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:10 AM
link   
Can I segue for a moment and put aside our different opinions on 'moon hoax' (only for a second).

When you have time guys I'd appreciate your guys thoughts on this Private Vs Government space exploration



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Deleted. Was not paying attention.
edit on 24-1-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

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


You've so far refused to tell anyone what parts you find to be anomalous, how can someone source a video to back up your claims when in nearly 20 pages of this thread, you have yet to make your claim regarding problems with the video/film record. Give a mission time, an activity, anything to give us an indication as to what you're talking about. People who push the moon hoax (this is a generalization not you specifically) on ATS have an MO of being as vague as possible so nobody can be bothered to go on a wild goose chase for videos when the end result for the efforts will be "that wasn't the part I was talking about, find another video". You are the one making the claim, it is therefore your responsibility to demonstrate your claims.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

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


You've so far refused to tell anyone what parts you find to be anomalous, how can someone source a video to back up your claims when in nearly 20 pages of this thread, you have yet to make your claim regarding problems with the video/film record. Give a mission time, an activity, anything to give us an indication as to what you're talking about. People who push the moon hoax (this is a generalization not you specifically) on ATS have an MO of being as vague as possible so nobody can be bothered to go on a wild goose chase for videos when the end result for the efforts will be "that wasn't the part I was talking about, find another video". You are the one making the claim, it is therefore your responsibility to demonstrate your claims.


Incorrect, I listed the anomolies earlier in the thread. Please read before properly before hastily commenting.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 

It would be most considerate of you to link to those specific posts so that we are not guessing which ones they are. Telling us to go look it up is not conducive to the flow of the thread and is basically poor manners.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 

It would be most considerate of you to link to those specific posts so that we are not guessing which ones they are. Telling us to go look it up is not conducive to the flow of the thread and is basically poor manners.


No it's lazyness on the half of others. Also, I'm being constantly asked to repeat said anomalies, it's as if I'm being made to appear silent by your blatant and repeated ignoring of my earlier posts.

I will not repeat myself again.

Please stop saying "you haven't specified XYZ", yes I have, several times.
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: spelling



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by chrisb9
 




Brilliant Post Golemina, Although I think you hit them with more information and facts than their minds can process or even fathom at one time.

One must stop and realize that there are still Plenty of Brain Washed Mass's that still Believe Everything that Nasa tells them or puts out on the Boob Tube! Yes, I know it's really sad, but there are still some people left that still believe the Apollo Moon Missions actually happened. There are also, sadly to report still a few left in the world who Actually believe the " Official Story of 9/11 " too...


Thanks ChrisB9. You're too kind.

>' Although I think you hit them with more information and facts than their minds can process or even fathom at one time.'

Looks like you called that...



Does that make me arrogant... poking fun at their apparently absolute cluelessness?



You would THINK that someone putting forth the fact that the mission was designed from the ground up on the assumption that the Moon has 1/6 the Earth's 'gravity' but actually came in at something much closer to 2/3 of the Earth's gravity...

And... You know... Would require something like a matching Saturn payload lifter starting up the return leg from the Moon...

And not the CARTOON-like 'Lunar module'.

It's BASIC physics people...

What? No one wants to play...



One of those little idiosyncrasies of 'space flight' is you have to carry the fuel payload to SLOW DOWN once you get to your destination... You know... When your synchronizing your orbit to your target.

So in calculating the fuel requirements you start counting backwards. A huge factor is the 'carrying costs' of the fuel payload itself.

The TOTAL amount of fuel required BALLONS fairly quickly.

So when you SO dramatically underestimate the 'gravity' of the Moon...

It becomes GAME, SET, MATCH...

Just like THAT.

>' Although I think you hit them with more information and facts than their minds can process or even fathom at one time.'




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


You're now claiming the laws of physics are wrong. Please site your sources for your claims regarding the gravitational pull of the moon. You'll need to come up with something that redefines properties known for centuries, happy hunting.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by golemina
 


You're now claiming the laws of physics are wrong. Please site your sources for your claims regarding the gravitational pull of the moon. You'll need to come up with something that redefines properties known for centuries, happy hunting.


By the way... the correct verb is 'cite'.





... known for centuries...


What? As in the existence of meteorites? Or the myth of gorillas? Or the 'virus' that caused 'pink disease'.



You know one of the basic tenets of Science is to be able to duplicate the results of an experiment that supposedly substantiates a theory.

Since you obviously view the 'laws of physics' as inviolable, by extension one can only presume every 'theory' the semitards put forward...

Repeat the Big Bang for me.

I will wait here while you do...



I've always claimed the so-called 'laws of physics' are wrong.

Look me up... The ATS search feature works fairly well.

If you want to talk physics, let's go to the appropriate forum. Pick an existing thread and contact me... Or just outright start a new thread... I am at your disposal.

To save you some time my armchair warrior... I'm a total heretic. Can plainly see that there is NO such force as 'gravity', the Sun is NOT nuclear, the so-called 'goldie locks zone' is an absurd myth, yada. yada. yada.

So bottom line... my views are seriously OT.

Now within 'conventional' thinking, what I believe you're trying to hold me accountable on is the supposed discrepancy between the estimated 'gravitational' attraction of 1/6 vs 2/3 of Earth's 'gravity' by the Moon, non?

Again, use your favorite search engine and garner your resources. The issues are fairly straightforward.



happy hunting.


Do you understand ANYTHING about how suppression of information and knowledge occurs?



One of our own ATSs, John Lear, makes an argument that fairly approximates the point you are disputing.

Check it out.




posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 01:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by Gibborium
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 

It would be most considerate of you to link to those specific posts so that we are not guessing which ones they are. Telling us to go look it up is not conducive to the flow of the thread and is basically poor manners.


No it's lazyness on the half of others. Also, I'm being constantly asked to repeat said anomalies, it's as if I'm being made to appear silent by your blatant and repeated ignoring of my earlier posts.

I will not repeat myself again.

Please stop saying "you haven't specified XYZ", yes I have, several times.
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: spelling


I'm afraid you have not, and I can go back and quote each of your posts to show this.

Your original post, claiming discrepancies are very general and have not one specific thing in them:

You've claimed that it was taking too long to switch cameras, but have not cited when. Not during mission flight time, or even at what point in the DVDs that you finally linked too.

You've claimed that the transcripts and videos do not match, but again, give absolutely no specifics what so ever on where in the transcripts and when in the videos.

You've claimed that the astronauts shadows seem to change when they approach a camera, but again, you do want to show where or when.

YOU are the ones making the claims. It is not anyone else's responsibility here on ATS to do work and research to find out what it is you are talking about.
This forum is the Space Exploration forum, and as such, you need to back up any claims of anything you make. This is not the Skunk Works forum where citations are not needed as that forum is for highly speculative discussions.

You can of course continue to claim that you've been specific (but your posts prove otherwise to any reader), or continue to not show what you are talking about when requested if you so desire. But it can destroy your credibility on here (unless you kept to places like Skunk Works and Grey Matter), and most members will start to ignore you after a while.

I'm afraid you've only been specific on 3 things in this thread:

1) The rocket plume of the lander, which has been addressed (but you claim that our sources can not be used or believed, which is the wikipedia)

2) That you are a revisonist when it comes to even recent history.

3) That you own a DVD set of the Apollo 10 mission.

That is all you have been specific about.

You do not have to take my word for it. Ask ANY mod on this board who is suppose to be the one providing sources for others to look at, after someone has made a claim of something.



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


It appears that a certain cadre within this thread are rebuking others for asking legitimate questions. At this point I would like to remind you that the entire scientific method is underpinned by the process of asking questions. To suggest not asking questions is unscientific.

I have listed my percieved irregularities with the evidence, several times, yet the cadre continues to ask "tell us about these 'irregularities'".

This debate could only benefit if the cadre stop insisting being spoonfed, which is demonstrably being used as a method of deferrence and obstruction.

Until the lynch like hostility ceases I'll refrain from replying.

When you actually read and respond to what I originally wrote is when I will commence further engagement.
edit on 24-1-2013 by 1nquisitive because: clarification



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 



When you actually read and respond to what I originally wrote is when I will commence further engagement.


Is this the post you are referring to?


There are too many irregularities with the supposed 'evidence' put forward by NASA.

I'm not yes/no on the "did we go to the moon" question, we simply do not know.

All we can do is scrutinise all the evidence put forward.

Would anybody like to throw a few at me?

Go easy - I'm a new user!


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Okay, please read the following post and scrutinize away:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you can see, a team of European metrologists have been able to determine the positions of objects in Apollo 17 photographs to within centimeters. This suggests that if the photographs were taken on a sound stage, the stage must have been immense. Thoughts?



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


Within centimeters?

Wow! That is some serious accuracy...



I'm curious... Exactly what do you think that 'signifies'?

Why would anyone want to go to such great lengths in a Don Quixotic attempt to document the so-called 'landing sites'?

Let's rent some of the REAL WORLD optical systems 100 inch, 200 inch, Hubble anyone?

And put the baby to bed?

Please insert babble-a-tron responses as to the 'Why' of that simply isn't possible here.
|
|
|
V

edit on 24-1-2013 by golemina because: Botched the spelling of my very own made up meme virus! Ouch.


edit on Fri Jan 25 2013 by DontTreadOnMe because: removed in error



posted on Jan, 24 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by golemina
 


We get it, the laws of physics and the confines of reality mean nothing to you. Please troll somewhere else, people are trying to have an actual, intelligent debate here.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join