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

page: 26
43
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





Still have not shown how it would be possible to replicate it.


Regarding the pendulum, I just did. That would be so freaking easy, just hook it up to a device that would make it swing further and or longer, done.

I am sure you can find examples that are harder to fake.




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


As pointed out, the vid you posted proves nothing at all. In fact it would be ridiculously easy to fake that one.




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


Baseless assumption.




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.


I'm not sure who you are refering to, but who would this sock puppet be working for? The evil secret cabal that stands to gain by making people believe in the moon hoax, as opposed to the evil secret cabal that faked them and stands to gain by making people believe it was all real?

You tell me.

Btw, it is also against the rules to accuse people of such things I think. What triggered your response, the inability to handle yourself in this discussion?

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




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101


Regarding the pendulum, I just did. That would be so freaking easy, just hook it up to a device that would make it swing further and or longer, done.

I am sure you can find examples that are harder to fake.

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


No you most certainly did not. All you did was propose a machine that would violate the laws of physics but provided no detail as to how this would work. Saying something and proving something are two very different things. You say it would be easy to do, therefore do it and show us the video of your experiment . . . you also may want to forward it to the Nobel committee, what with you redefining the laws of physics and all.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by captainpudding
 





No you most certainly did not. All you did was propose a machine that would violate the laws of physics but provided no detail as to how this would work. Saying something and proving something are two very different things. You say it would be easy to do, therefore do it and show us the video of your experiment . . . you also may want to forward it to the Nobel committee, what with you redefining the laws of physics and all.


Don't be ridiculous.

That vid and the poster Awful Eric were claiming that the pendulum footage proves beyond a doubt that it was filmed on the moon.

I am saying that it proves nothing cause we can't determine that we are actually looking at a free moving pendulum that is actually on the moon.

Simple as that. In this case it is the pendulum that is the supposed proof of that video being shot on the moon. As said, that would be childishly easy to fake in a studio.

Are you really suggesting that your intellect is not adequate enough to imagine a way to make a pendulum swing further and longer than it would without aid in earth environment?

Such a concoction would be noble prize worthy in your opinion?

What redifining of laws of physics? I never suggested such a thing, I am talking about a device that would make a pendulum swing further and harder on Earth, then an unaided pendulum would, on Earth, making it look like it was swinging on the moon.

If you really don't understand this point then I feel sorry for you. If this is some game you are playing I feel even more sorry for you.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AtomicWedgy101
 


Might I suggest that you:

A) get your eyes checked?
B) request a link for a HD version of the pendulum video?

It's clearly a strap.
It's clearly a strap swinging with a weight on it.

It is not a contraption or anything like it.

You don't even know the story behind it. It was a accident, and not even done on purpose, but was pointed out after the mission.

Many have tried to make claims about how it could be faked. Techniques ranging from "green screening" , video layering, and other film/video manipulation......ALL of which have been debunked right here on ATS if you'd even bother to do a search for.

It's been suggested that the strap was attached motor to give it extra energy even....which is utter nonsense because of what the torque from such a motor would do to the strap. Again, debunked right here on ATS, with even the person who suggesting it admitting they were wrong!

You have not debunked it, and done EXACTLY what all Moon Hoaxers, who have preconceived ideas, and have already judged, no mater what evidence is presented, because the out come has already been decided, and that is to:

Ignore or "poo-poo" the Apollo 14 SEQ Bay pendulum.....they do it every time, because they have never, ever debunked. They've tried......and lost every time.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by eriktheawful
 





A) get your eyes checked?



What exactly did I miss that would change my statement?



B) request a link for a HD version of the pendulum video?


Might I suggest you post a HD version, I just went by the evidence presented to me, by you.




You don't even know the story behind it. It was a accident, and not even done on purpose, but was pointed out after the mission.


Was this info in the vid you presented to me?




It's clearly a strap. It's clearly a strap swinging with a weight on it.


Did I suggest that it wasn't, the visible part at least?




It's been suggested that the strap was attached motor to give it extra energy even....which is utter nonsense because of what the torque from such a motor would do to the strap. Again, debunked right here on ATS, with even the person who suggesting it admitting they were wrong!


Really, you feel it would be impossible to give this strap extra momentum by mechanical means for instance, without it being obvious to the viewer?

That is a nice anecdote, any links for me to review?
edit on 25-2-2013 by AtomicWedgy101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ckno1
 


This person in this video keeps making the same mistake about the star thing. We covered this well at my astronomy group's last gathering. Stars should have been easily seen by astronauts. No one who has studied the problem really cares about the photography issue that much at this point.


jra

posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
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


He's not the one claiming it was done in slow-motion. It's a common claim by many HB's that the Apollo video was done in slow-motion. He's simply addressing that claim and pointing out how it was not possible to do that with 60's video technology.

So you're going to have to ask some HB's that believe the the slow-motion claim to back up their assumptions with evidence. Which is what we've been trying to do for years. Good luck!



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by eriktheawful
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.


Prove to me that I can't synthesise moon gravity please.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtomicWedgy101
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)


Atomicwedgie-these trolls also accuse people of being sockpuppets too, normally when corners by reason.

And they also cry "you've broken the site terms and conditions" when it is clearly not the case. It's an effort to stifle you and gang up/pressurise you into silence you when your rationality compounds them.

Please show me where we have contravened rules.
edit on 25-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typos
edit on 25-2-2013 by 1nquisitive because: typos



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive

Originally posted by eriktheawful
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.


Prove to me that I can't synthesise moon gravity please.


Sorry, that is up to you.

The person making extraordinary claims (IE that 1/6 gravity can be faked right here on Earth) is the one the burden of proof falls upon.

I'm not the one making extraordinary claims.

Just keep in mind that if you do try to do something to "fake" it, that gravity's force is a downward vector only while on the surface of a planet.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   





No, sorry, it's the O/P making claims (to the contrary of what I said), initially and from the outset. Sorry, the onus is on the O/P (and associated defenders) to back up and validate/prove their claims.

Did I author this thread? No, I did not, ergo I will prove my point when the initiator has tried to prove theirs.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by 1nquisitive
 


The OP did not make an extraordinary claim.

Moon Hoaxers are the ones making that. It's not really that hard to understand.

History teaches us, and the majority of people on the face of this planet believe that men when to the moon.

HB's are the minority making the extraordinary claim that this did not happen, that it was faked, and all lies.

The OP's video simply underlines that back in 1969 it would have been too hard to fake the moon's gravity simply by using slow motion techniques that were available at the time.

Apollo 14's SEQ Bay pendulum shows that too. That as a pendulum, it acted just like it should in a 1/6 gravity environment. Trying to repeat the same thing, in Earth's gravity, and simply changing the play back speed will not net you the end results, because the pendulum on the moon will not loose energy as fast as it will here on Earth.

Sorry, physics is on my side for this. If you want to continue to insist that it could have been faked....then you'll need to show how.

So far you've not done that.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by broncofan
reply to post by ckno1
 


This person in this video keeps making the same mistake about the star thing. We covered this well at my astronomy group's last gathering. Stars should have been easily seen by astronauts. No one who has studied the problem really cares about the photography issue that much at this point.


The only time you can see stars is when your eyes are adjusted to the darkness. Being on the sunlit surface of the Moon would make your eyes adjust for bright sunligh, just like they do on Earth in daytime. Ever noticed that the astronauts had their sun visors down most of the time?




posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildespace

Originally posted by broncofan
reply to post by ckno1
 


This person in this video keeps making the same mistake about the star thing. We covered this well at my astronomy group's last gathering. Stars should have been easily seen by astronauts. No one who has studied the problem really cares about the photography issue that much at this point.


The only time you can see stars is when your eyes are adjusted to the darkness. Being on the sunlit surface of the Moon would make your eyes adjust for bright sunligh, just like they do on Earth in daytime. Ever noticed that the astronauts had their sun visors down most of the time?



Nice photo, but the shot is backlit (as shown by astronauts shadows). If this is the case, why is astronaut's front flooded with brilliant light?



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Hardly flooded when it's clearly in shadow. Besides he is standing on a giant reflector. And the exposure is correct.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive
Nice photo, but the shot is backlit (as shown by astronauts shadows). If this is the case, why is astronaut's front flooded with brilliant light?

It's the light reflected or scattered off the lunar surface. I wouldn't call it brilliant, it's very soft and is fainter that the direct light from behind.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by broncofan
 


Why does your astronomy group think it would be easy to see stars in daylight? Starlight is very faint and is easily drowned out by the sun. If you'd like to try your own experiment, the next clear night (hopefully you live somewhere without too much light pollution) go stand under a street lamp and count how many stars you can see.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


Nice photo, but the shot is backlit (as shown by astronauts shadows). If this is the case, why is astronaut's front flooded with brilliant light?


You and I differ on our definition of "flooded with brilliant light" but the simple answer is, he's standing on a fairly reflective surface, wearing a highly reflective space suit (had to be that way for cooling purposes) with the sun at a very low angle.



posted on Feb, 25 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by captainpudding

Originally posted by 1nquisitive


Nice photo, but the shot is backlit (as shown by astronauts shadows). If this is the case, why is astronaut's front flooded with brilliant light?


You and I differ on our definition of "flooded with brilliant light" but the simple answer is, he's standing on a fairly reflective surface, wearing a highly reflective space suit (had to be that way for cooling purposes) with the sun at a very low angle.


Complete balderdash. The reflectivity of the lunar surface is approximately equal to that of asphalt.

Also, his frontage is brilliantly flooded, the fact you try and say it isn't shows you're ludicrous.





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join