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

page: 25
43
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:44 AM
link   
So, I have to ask the posters that agree with the guy in the vid, if they agree that his claims are based on the assumptions that if it was fake, it had to be played in slo motion, and that the broadcast was actually live.

Do you guys agree?

If so, is there any proof to back up these assumptions?

If not, then how are his claims definate proof?




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful
30 years plus experience in a field does not always negate knowledge of the field's history, and devices used prior to that.

If that were true, my almost 30 years in the field of electricity and electronics, means that anything prior to a certain year I don't know about.

Utter bunk.

In order to be an expert in a field you have to know the history of it, and how the things you work with now, came to be from what they were.

Care to point out how many vacuum tubes are used in today's electronics? Yet it's required learning.

Trying to say that someone that started out in filmography and videography in 1982 means that they can not understand anything or any equipment that was used prior to that has to be THE worst argument I have ever heard in my life.

It's like saying if I bought a fully refurbushed Model-T Ford, there is no way I could drive it, nor understand how the car works, because I didn't learn to drive and get my drivers license prior to 1983.

Bunk.


No, that wasn't my argument, but please don't let this stop your excellent story telling


Towards the opening of your video you posted, and then later you yourself in a post, claimed that because someone's experience in a field starts after a certain time, that there is no way that they can have knowledge of or still be an expert in that field during that time period.

As a mater of fact, both you and the video try to make it seem as though the person in the OP's video was trying to claim to be an expert in Apollo technology, when the person clearly stated that they are an expert in the field of filmography and videography.

That was a clear example of trying to make it look like someone claimed something that they did not.

It is also a very poor argument to try and use. That because someone learns and becomes an expert in a field of something, but after a certain time period, means that they can never be an expert or have knowledge in that field.

And yes, you did use it as an argument, in this post here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Well, he over emphasises his 3 decade 'experience' as if to say he was familiar and exposed to Apollo era tech...fact is he worked in the industry since 1982, the tech he would have been using is 10 years more advanced. The claim he has 30 years experience adds zero to his validity ( note...I don't claim it detracts from such, merely that it is actually quite a redundant and vacuous addition).


I'm posting this for other readers. As your replies right now are not contributing to the thread or the actual topic in any way right now.
edit on 25-2-2013 by eriktheawful because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Do you agree with the guy in the op vid?

What is your take on my previous post, if you will?
edit on 25-2-2013 by AtomicWedgy101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


Do you agree with the guy in the op vid?

What is your take on my previous post, if you will?
edit on 25-2-2013 by AtomicWedgy101 because: (no reason given)


I agree with the OP's video in that the technology to fake the landings was not really there, yet the technology to get us to the moon was there.

Today faking it would be easy in many ways....much, much harder in others (lots of other countries with their eyes and ears out there).

However back in 1969, faking it would have been pretty much impossible.

Moon Hoaxers tend to latch on to what they consider a piece of evidence as though it were a smoking gun, and will then refuse to acknowledge all the other supporting evidence that things were not faked.

The huge amount of evidence and data supports that men actually landed on the moon. The evidence against it is dismally small and repeatedly gets debunked time and time again, only to be recycled later on by others who have decided that they have the answer to everything and can prove it.

ATS is has many, many threads like this all over the place going back years.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





I agree with the OP's video in that the technology to fake the landings was not really there, yet the technology to get us to the moon was there.


Is there a reason why you are avoiding my question?

I asked if you agree with the guy, and if you do, if you agree that his whole premise is based on two assumptions, namely, that it would have to be in slomo to be faked, and that the "live" broadcast was actually live.

You have to agree that these are the two assumptions he is basing his whole story on.

So naturally, these assumtions have to be proven to be true in order for his premise to work.

Do you feel these assumptions are proven to be true, and if you do, could you show me the proof that they are?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





I agree with the OP's video in that the technology to fake the landings was not really there, yet the technology to get us to the moon was there.


Is there a reason why you are avoiding my question?

I asked if you agree with the guy, and if you do, if you agree that his whole premise is based on two assumptions, namely, that it would have to be in slomo to be faked, and that the "live" broadcast was actually live.

You have to agree that these are the two assumptions he is basing his whole story on.

So naturally, these assumtions have to be proven to be true in order for his premise to work.

Do you feel these assumptions are proven to be true, and if you do, could you show me the proof that they are?


I didn't avoid your question. I told you that I agree with the OP's video.

It's not just "assumptions", but actual video evidence.

Here are some links to previous pages in this thread. Please show how they "faked' things shown in these videos using slow motion:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And my personal favorite, because you can't break the laws of physics with slow motion video:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





I agree with the OP's video in that the technology to fake the landings was not really there, yet the technology to get us to the moon was there.



He says it couldn't have possibly been done in slomo and with a live broadcast with the technology at hand back then.

Who says it was done in slomo and that the broadcast was live?

The "definite proof" is based on two assumptions that I see no proof for.




I didn't avoid your question. I told you that I agree with the OP's video.


I directed you to this post with this question,




So, I have to ask the posters that agree with the guy in the vid, if they agree that his claims are based on the assumptions that if it was fake, it had to be played in slo motion, and that the broadcast was actually live. Do you guys agree? If so, is there any proof to back up these assumptions? If not, then how are his claims definate proof?


You didn't answer it. You still aren't.




Here are some links to previous pages in this thread. Please show how they "faked' things shown in these videos using slow motion:


Please show me the proof that the images had to have been faked using slomo. It is nothing but an assumption.

That is my point.

He also says they couldn't have done it live.

Who says it was live? Maybe it wasn't a live broadcast at all. Show me proof it was live.
edit on 25-2-2013 by AtomicWedgy101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AtomicWedgy101
 


I think he was more going on what the standard hoax claim of slowed down videos tries to make. I honestly can only think of two possible options for the video/film evidence. It was either filmed in 1/6 gravity (in a vacuum, they never do bother explaining how they faked the vacuum) or it was filmed in slow motion (as is the standard hoax claim). He then demonstrates that the slow motion technology didn't exist in an advanced enough form to be applied to live video. It's kind of a moot point since even with modern technology, slow motion still doesn't produce the effect. 1/6th gravity is a downward force so lateral movement isn't effected to the same magnitude that vertical movement is. So basically on the moon you move left to right at the same speed as you would on Earth but up and down differently so simply slowing down the film will not work. It's why when you speed the video up so that the vertical movements match Earth gravity, the arms of the astronauts move in odd ways.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 





It's kind of a moot point since even with modern technology, slow motion still doesn't produce the effect.


This was his main point together with it being impossible with a live broadcast.

So the two points he bases his premise on are both moot, since the live broadcast could have easily been recorded earlier.

That is the point I'm making. This vid is no definite proof of anything like the op claims. It is based on moot points.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 



Oops, double post.
edit on 25-2-2013 by AtomicWedgy101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
reply to post by captainpudding
 





It's kind of a moot point since even with modern technology, slow motion still doesn't produce the effect.


This was his main point together with it being impossible with a live broadcast.

So the two points he bases his premise on are both moot, since the live broadcast could have easily been recorded earlier.

That is the point I'm making. This vid is no definite proof of anything like the op claims. It is based on moot points.


Except you are still missing the point:

Does not mater if it was live, not live video, or film.

You still can not fake 1/6 gravity using slow motion technology at all. Period.

The only way to fake it now is through the use of CGI.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Round and round we go, assumptions abound.

The OP vid is of a rambling guy who doesn't substantiate his anecdotal and nonspecific blurbs. PERIOD!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





Except you are still missing the point: Does not mater if it was live, not live video, or film. You still can not fake 1/6 gravity using slow motion technology at all. Period. The only way to fake it now is through the use of CGI.


No you are still missing my point.

It does matter in this case since this is what the guy bases his premise on. This thread is about the vid in the op, right?

So regardless of other evidence you may present for the validity of moon landing footage, this guy's premise is flawed.

That is my point here, the one you are missing.




You still can not fake 1/6 gravity using slow motion technology at all. Period.


I may need to do more research but what points towards 1/6 gravity being faked that would have only been possible with slow motion back then?

edit on 25-2-2013 by AtomicWedgy101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
reply to post by captainpudding
 





It's kind of a moot point since even with modern technology, slow motion still doesn't produce the effect.


This was his main point together with it being impossible with a live broadcast.

So the two points he bases his premise on are both moot, since the live broadcast could have easily been recorded earlier.

That is the point I'm making. This vid is no definite proof of anything like the op claims. It is based on moot points.


Except you are still missing the point:

Does not mater if it was live, not live video, or film.

You still can not fake 1/6 gravity using slow motion technology at all. Period.

The only way to fake it now is through the use of CGI.



So you say...care to substantiate this?

"...it doesn't matter if it was live or not..." cough cough, excuse me, ahem...the footage was presented to us as LIVE FOOTAGE, thus it matters!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





Except you are still missing the point: Does not mater if it was live, not live video, or film. You still can not fake 1/6 gravity using slow motion technology at all. Period. The only way to fake it now is through the use of CGI.


No you are still missing my point.

It does matter in this case since this is what the guy bases his premise on. This thread is about the vid in the op, right?

So regardless of other evidence you may present for the validity of moon landing footage, this guy's premise is flawed.

That is my point here, the one you are missing.



Seriously, this is an exercise in futility, they'll refuse to (or simply cannot) take your points independently, they rely on distractionary straw men.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


Sure. Here you go.

Debunk it (IE the amount of energy the pendulum looses):




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 





Seriously, this is an exercise in futility, they'll refuse to (or simply cannot) take your points independently, they rely on distractionary straw men.


This sure appears to be the case.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 


I'll look into it, but for now, vid description,


nalysis of Apollo 14 SEQ Bay Pendulum scene, which confirms it took place in vacuum and low gravity of the Moon. Comparison to similar pendulum on Earth clearly reveals fundamental differences between the environments.


It confirms that it looks like it took place in a vacuum and low gravity, and maybe it did.

Nowhere does it prove that the only way to fake the footage (back then) is by using slow motion.

This is not what I asked for (again),

edit: Regarding the pendulum, it means nothing, they could have easily set it up to move like it would on the moon while filming it in the studio, you know, having it move mechanically, there is no way to verify that what we are looking at is in fact a free moving pendulum.
edit on 25-2-2013 by AtomicWedgy101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:10 PM
link   
It is not beyond the realms of possibility that gravities can be synthesised using a combination of props, frame rates/speed, editing,wires and blatant ignorance of the viewer.

This is further supported by the fact that 'mythbusters' ( amongst other 'debunkings'), in their efforts to diminish minor sceptical arguments, simply ( whilst albeit inadvertently) proved that the moon footage could be replicated on earth. And whichever way you try to cut that cake that's what happened!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Still have not shown how it would be possible to replicate it.

Once again, evidence is ignored. Not surprised really. Happens time and time again here on ATS Moon Hoax threads.

If you can't fake 1/6 gravity using slow motion.....now or then......then you can't fake the moon landings.

QED.

I'm also starting to suspect a sock puppet here. Hope the mods look into it, as that's a extreme violation of the TCs here on ATS.

But I've been wrong before about that......and right too. We'll see.





top topics
 
43
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join