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

page: 2
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by dc4lifeskater
not that i believe either way.. but I will say this. You do realize that the military and gov technology is vastly superior to the tech that we have on our daily lives.. People say anywhere from 40-60 years ahead of us in tech


In regards to film and video tech, this doesn't make sense at all.

If the government is 40 - 60 years ahead in video technology, who is developing it? The development of signal processing (one of the major things that lets us do what we do today), film, and video technology is quite well documented and easy to follow ... even if it is an incredibly dry wall topic.

The government wants you to believe they are ahead; especially the governments of the 60's and 70's. They wanted the Russians and everyone else to believe that they were so far ahead that they could shoot nukes out the sky, mind control the planet, develop a hidden technology, and still have time for tea and lunch. They were protective of their actual capabilities. In forensics for example, telling the public about techniques was considered wrong until the last decadeish. Forensics was much weaker than thought for sometime.

Governments during the cold war got taken in time and time again due to their lack of knowledge and fear ... Psychics, remote viewers, mind control - billions spent to try to get ahead. The fact of the matter is most army technology is requisitioned civillian projects from known developers. The Reaper/Predator-Bdrone for example, was in its third prototype before the army signed a contract to evaluate it.

This agreement certainly came with a non disclosure agreement, but that makes the army five to ten years ahead of private industry at best. What most people think is modern technology isn't even that difficult in this age. For example, this. Governments just take existing technology and buy it out or legislate against it. They spend huge amounts because it shuts people up.

The film making industry around this time was also at odds with the American government due to the House of Un-American Affairs. It would be an area of extremely poor visability for the American government at the time.

I love film history, and I'm fairly certain I could demonstrate large numbers of easy traceable innovations that simply weren't in place yet to make faking a moon landing a reality.




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
reply to post by ckno1
 


I stopped seeing the video since he loses half the time speaking about other things that the point he states to be making and then he says that there was no high speed cameras. I thought that as very strange since I remember the nuclear tests had used high speed cameras, so I go to Wikipedia and in the High-speed camera article I can clearly read.


Uses in Defense
In 1950, Morton Sultanoff, an engineer for the U.S. Army at Aberdeen Proving ground, invented a super high-speed camera that took frames at one-millionth of a second, and was fast enough to record the shock wave of a small explosion



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Panic2k11
 


Hiya Panic 2k11.

The video doesn't state that high speed cameras didn't exist. The video states that high speed video cameras didn't exist.

Film cameras and video cameras are two different things.


The mechanical shutter, invented by Pat Keller, et al., at China Lake in 1979 (US 4171529), helped freeze the action and eliminate ghosting. This was a mechanical shutter similar to the one used in high-speed film cameras—a disk with a wedge removed. The opening was synchronized to the frame rate, and the size of the opening was proportional to the integration or shutter time. By making the opening very small, the motion could be stopped. Despite the resulting improvements in image quality, these systems were still limited to 60 frame/s
Source

The video then discusses how much film stock you would require to attempt to use film that pretends to be shot as video whilst also being in slow motion. It then discusses the difficulties of transferring that film stock onto video to match the Apollo history.

Essentially they would have had to go to some effort to conceal the characteristics of the film stock. Switching formats was a bit different in the 60s than today ... can't just click 'save as' and have the computer do the maths for you.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 04:17 AM
link   
reply to post by ckno1
 


Kinda, sorta on topic.

I was watching Craig Ferguson the other night ( actually morning) and in his monologue he quoted a Russian new article that the Russuins were sending a manned mission to the moon soon. "Just to see what's there."

Then he does his face in the lens thing and says, "I'll tell what's there...an American Flag. BooYah!"


Then he goes on to lament the shape of todays NASA.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:27 AM
link   
stereoparallax study


"this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.

These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set"
edit on 19-1-2013 by jazzguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:36 AM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 


Not read it all the way through.

Would rather it was in a new thread .... moon threads have a tendency to just go all over the place, and this seems like a new thing?

Is concering that there doesn't appear to be much discussion on lens distortion, but perhaps the person is using different words for that.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 06:44 AM
link   
reply to post by jazzguy
 



"this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.

These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set"


This "analysis" is convincing only if you have no idea what parallax is, or how it works. The examples the (no doubt fictitious) author provides actually prove that the photographs were taken on a very large, very real landscape.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Boring video that proves nothing.

We didn't land on the moon & play golf in 1969 (we were so primitive back then that the calculator was only invented 2 years prior) and we probably don't have the technology to do it now (where technology has advanced a 100-fold).

Get over it sheeple...it DIDNT happen.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:01 AM
link   
In 1969 they'd of probably been using some IBM 360 series mainframes running fortran programs, so once the program was written all it required was the data and sit back for a bit while the numbers got crunched and a print out with the relevant results given and most of calculating trajectories etc is pretty simple maths thats been known about for 100's of years so once the goal was set it was pretty simple to work out what was needed to fill each part of the task so desktop calculators wouldn't of helped much



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Nonchalant
 


So the primitive technology in the 60s allowed us to send men into Earth orbit, and send robotic probes to the moon, but they couldn't send men the Moon? What exactly do you base that view on?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:26 AM
link   
So if moon landing from 1969 was real, way no one else (Russian) repeat that Never EVER ??

edit on 19-1-2013 by MariaLida because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:31 AM
link   
No one, with an IQ over 110, still believes the NASA fairy tale of manned lunar landings. At this point, even NASA has admitted "some" of the evidence was in fact staged.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:36 AM
link   
reply to post by sprtpilot
 



No one, with an IQ over 110, still believes the NASA fairy tale of manned lunar landings. At this point, even NASA has admitted "some" of the evidence was in fact staged.


No one with an IQ above 60 would make that statement without providing a link to a NASA source that admits that some of the evidence was staged.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by MariaLida
So if moon landing from 1969 was real, way no one else (Russian) repeat that Never EVER ??

edit on 19-1-2013 by MariaLida because: (no reason given)

Russia simply didn't have the money and techonlogy to do that. Their N-1 rocket (the counterpart to Saturn-V) never even got into Earth orbit.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.metacafe.com...



Besides Russia and America, I don't think any other country could even come close to that. The Apollo landings were the product of space-race and immense resources being thrown in.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

Russia simply didn't have the money and techonlogy to do that. Their N-1 rocket (the counterpart to Saturn-V) never even got into Earth orbit.


Bravo America, you are The only one ..

Of course, that the Russians do not have the money and knowledge even today

Long live Hollywood ..


edit on 19-1-2013 by MariaLida because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:40 AM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 



So if moon landing from 1969 was real, way no one else (Russian) repeat that Never EVER ??


The landings were repeated six times. Russia gave up when they realized it was just too expensive an investment for propaganda. Incidentally, if the US faked the Moon landings, why didn't Russia fake landings too?



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Pinke
 


That would only a a difference if they used the method that he states works more realistic (film with increased speed) but even so lets say they would do that logic dictates that at 2x speed it would simply double the size. Am I missing something ?

Note that I do not see quality as very relevant, the TVs at the time were pretty awful. (Note that the original film has gone missing only duplicates seem to exist, in what medium ?)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by MariaLida
 



So if moon landing from 1969 was real, way no one else (Russian) repeat that Never EVER ??


The landings were repeated six times. Russia gave up when they realized it was just too expensive an investment for propaganda. Incidentally, if the US faked the Moon landings, why didn't Russia fake landings too?


Do you really need answer to that question to understand way ..

edit on 19-1-2013 by MariaLida because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:06 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 


See the history books if you take what transpired the Russians at the time said they couldn't do it because of the radiation.



The complete series is very interesting, the best free work I've seen on the subject moonfaker.com...



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by MariaLida
 



Do you really need answer to that question to understand way ..


Yes. The Soviet Union had a long series of "firsts" in space. They certainly had the technology to launch a craft to the Moon to broadcast pre-recorded fake television pictures. Since the KGB would be bound to know that the US was planning to fake their own landings, the Soviets would know that the US would be unable to prove that their landings were faked. In other words, by faking a Moon landing before NASA faked a landing, they could claim another space first without fear of discovery. So why didn't they?





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join