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

page: 23
43
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:55 AM
link   
reply to post by MrN9k
 


I don't know if this guy's calculations are correct, but he does show that if you speed up the bunny-hopping videos, the movements appear unnaturally jerky. The dust also falls to the ground like lead.



Here's that bunny-hopping sped up x2


Any my favourite video, just because



Wearing that spacesuit, and in the Earth's gravity, I don't think they would be able to hop that high, that far, and for that long.




posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 06:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrN9k
reply to post by captainpudding
 


If it was "faked" they must have built a very large chamber which was close to being a vacuum. I agree this would be difficult, although not as difficult as landing on the moon... Your point regarding dust, gravity, and horizontal movement is a new one on me. Yes, that is a very interesting point. I think it's fair to say that if the landings were faked then it would not have been possible to perfectly fake 1/6th gravity. I have never seen something which actually demonstrates what you are talking about. I assume this has been done as IMO it would be rather conclusive proof that we did go to the moon. The videos above perhaps demonstrate this, but I'm guessing that someone has made a video /document explaining this, breaking it down in more detail with slow motion / speeded up footage proving that it was 1/6th gravity?

If so, could I see it? Proof of 1/6th gravity would be hard to ignore for me.
edit on 22-2-2013 by MrN9k because: changed wording to make myself more clear


Then here you go:



The pendulum motion of the strap on the SEQ bay. And trying to duplicate it's motion here on Earth.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:20 AM
link   
You Americans should be proud for such an accomplishment.
Just my 2c.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by renetto
You Americans should be proud for such an accomplishment.
Just my 2c.


Thanks.

But to tell you the truth, I'd have been happy just to have anyone that went. And I would be happier to have more people go, no matter what nationality. I think a a global effort would be great.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by wildespace
 


For some reason I've never seen those bunny-hop videos. Thanks. I've had reoccuring dreams where I've long-jumped a looooong way.

I've never doubted the humans have been to the moon, and whatever nationality it's one of the most adventerous and complicted achievements of the human race. I remember a quote by someone who said the biggest surprise isn't that we've been to the moon, it's that we've never gone back.

As MrN says, he's not a total skeptic, so he's a lucky one. Because I'm a little sorry for the total skeptics, who can't accept and thus be amazed that humans have done such a thing. Not once, but over and over again, a long long time ago (it's fun to talk or meet one of the astronauts who were on the moon or circled it - I think I've spoken to 10 of the 12, just to "count coup", and met Aldrin, David Scott, and Harrison Schmidt. I would suggest everyone at least telephone one of them just to have the experience of talking to one of the first humans on the moon, they won't be around much longer. Alan Bean is an artist now, I forget which, and actually mixes little particles of moondust into his paintings - he got to keep his suit or something and there were particles of dust on it. A link to the Alan Bean gallery www.alanbeangallery.com... )

edit on 22-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)
edit on 22-2-2013 by Aleister because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Aleister
 


Keep in mind that Moon Hoaxers are not really "skeptics".

A skeptic is a person that keeps an open mind and does not blindly believe in something without definitive proof, nor do they approach something with a pre-conceived notion or belief.

For example, a true UFO skeptic is not a person that blindly believes that all UFO sightings are truly UFOs and that UFOs must be aliens. Nor is a skeptic someone that blindly believes that there are NO such things as UFOs at all. Instead, a true skeptic looks at things on a case by case bases and follows the evidence presented.

Moon Hoaxers have a pre-conceived notion that the moon landings were a hoax. They enter this subject already believing that they were all hoaxed, and try to find evidence to support or prove what they believe in.

A skeptic on the other hand would not blindly believe either way, and would instead take a look at all the evidence and see where it leads them.

This is why arguing with a Moon Hoaxer is normally a fruitless effort. They have a very deep belief system that the moon landings HAD to be hoaxed and that they have been lied to. No matter how much evidence anyone provides contrary to that, nor how many times their evidence is debunked, they will never concede that they are wrong or mistaken....about anything. They will instead deflect or change the subject. You can see that over and over again on ANY moon hoax thread here at ATS.

A skeptic on the other hand, will actually admit if they are wrong about something if they are shown enough proof and evidence on a subject.



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Thanks, a good distinction. I'm of the belief that if someone can think of a theory then they can find real-world evidence in support of that theory. It's just how the brain and the universe co-exist to serve up what we expect to see. The John Kennedy assassination is a major example of this. In that case you can take six-seconds of time, or maybe longer, say two minutes of real-world time, and find evidence which you can take to a grand jury in America for an indictment against numerous people - including the secret service agent in the car behind Kennedy's who "accidently shot his rifle". Even Jackie herself isn't above suspicion, and if enough of us really think Jackie killed her husband, evidence will surface (at least in my experience of expectations being proven true by real-world data). So the moon hoaxers may always believe their evidence because taken alone it is compelling (as our brains love to make it), until each little bit is objectively analyzed. But then again, I'm a moon-landing believer, so the evidence I let in proves my point-of-view, and is not by that-fact totally valid (I, of course, enjoy Robert Anton Wilson's material and his "maybe" principal).



posted on Feb, 22 2013 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by ckno1
 


Aside from the reflectors placed there during the Apollo missions...(which if you really wanted to, could go to certain locations and bounce the beams back yourself)....

There's also the spy angle. The Russians had fully penetrated the US intelligence agencies at the highest levels at the time of the moon landings. If we didn't really go, the Russians would have had a field day with it in the international press. The fact that they didn't, is certainly a lot of evidence in favor of them landing on the moon just as stated.



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:13 PM
link   


Nice rebuttal to O/P
edit on 24-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo
edit on 24-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typos
edit on 24-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: more
edit on 24-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: -



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


I hate to admit that I actually made it ten minutes into this video by proven fraud and exposed liar Jarrah White. Does he at any point address why the movements look so unnatural when the video is sped up or is it just his normal empty rhetoric for simpletons like all his previous videos?



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


I hate to admit that I actually made it ten minutes into this video by proven fraud and exposed liar Jarrah White. Does he at any point address why the movements look so unnatural when the video is sped up or is it just his normal empty rhetoric for simpletons like all his previous videos?


Your last line:

Hit's the nail right on the head........



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


I hate to admit that I actually made it ten minutes into this video by proven fraud and exposed liar Jarrah White. Does he at any point address why the movements look so unnatural when the video is sped up or is it just his normal empty rhetoric for simpletons like all his previous videos?


Empty rhetoric? Sorry, refer to O/P video for empty anecdotal rhetoric-the host offers zero validation/source.

And as for things looking "unnatural"- and, I happen to believe the original footage looks "unnatural". That's what happens when people like you use subjective and unquantifiable modes (in this case 'looking natural') to express ones thought-PEOPLE DISAGREE.

Stop presenting subjective and anecdotal remarks as factualities.
edit on 24-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typo
edit on 24-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: further



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 09:57 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by ckno1
 


Aside from the reflectors placed there during the Apollo missions...(which if you really wanted to, could go to certain locations and bounce the beams back yourself)....

There's also the spy angle. The Russians had fully penetrated the US intelligence agencies at the highest levels at the time of the moon landings. If we didn't really go, the Russians would have had a field day with it in the international press. The fact that they didn't, is certainly a lot of evidence in favor of them landing on the moon just as stated.


The fact that X doesn't call BS on Y doesn't prove that there was no BS. Perhaps both X and Y were up to BS.




posted on Feb, 24 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


Stop presenting subjective and anecdotal remarks as factualities.


It's not subjective and anecdotal. Jarrah White has been proven, with irrefutable evidence to be a liar. He's also proven, with irrefutable evidence, to not even have a basic grasp on the fundamental laws of physics (or he does and he's also lying about that) you know, like when he assumed the conditions in his bedroom were similar enough to the surface of the Moon to conduct experiments to prove fakery? Speaking of subjective and anecdotal remarks, please feel free to provide your proof that the cold war didn't happen.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


Stop presenting subjective and anecdotal remarks as factualities.


It's not subjective and anecdotal. Jarrah White has been proven, with irrefutable evidence to be a liar. He's also proven, with irrefutable evidence, to not even have a basic grasp on the fundamental laws of physics (or he does and he's also lying about that) you know, like when he assumed the conditions in his bedroom were similar enough to the surface of the Moon to conduct experiments to prove fakery? Speaking of subjective and anecdotal remarks, please feel free to provide your proof that the cold war didn't happen.


Saying "the footage looks 'unnatural'" is ANECDOTAL and SUBJECTIVE.

How about YOU prove that the footage looks unnatural...



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I didn't read the whole thread, and I am sure that the guy in the op vid is an expert in his field, but his whole debunking of the hoax, his "proof", is based th assumption that, it was filmed in slo motion and that the "live" broadcast was actuallly live.

I don't know much about the subject but these seem like assumptions to me.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
I didn't read the whole thread, and I am sure that the guy in the op vid is an expert in his field, but his whole debunking of the hoax, his "proof", is based th assumption that, it was filmed in slo motion and that the "live" broadcast was actuallly live.

I don't know much about the subject but these seem like assumptions to me.


I wouldn't be so sure about the guy in the O/P video, does he validate his credentials or identify himself? I watched it, and tbh it sounded pretty much like ramblings/waffle.

He claims to have worked in the industry since 1982, and therefore he knows all about the Apollo era videography methods...a claim that is slightly diminished by the fact that the Apollo missions were a good 10 years + prior to 1982.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Maybe you missed the point of my post.

I was saying that his "debunking" was not solid at all and that it was based on assumptions.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Maybe you missed the point of my post.

I was saying that his "debunking" was not solid at all and that it was based on assumptions.



No, I agree, we concur on that.

But you further added you believe he's an expert in his field, and all I'm saying is do we know this?

Edit: perhaps you're merely being polite and I misread it.

The O/P is pure waffle, glad we agree.
edit on 25-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: edit





new topics
 
43
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join