Why I believe the Moon landings may have been faked

originally posted by: turbonium1

I've now confirmed my Apollo 11 clip is at 2x speed. I took the original footage, and then I sped it up by 2x, using VirtualDub...it matched up perfectly with the clip. It is at normal speed, as I said.

I've also confirmed the other clip I cited, from Apollo 15, as well. It's faster than normal, at 2x speed, as I also said.

I don't expect you to take my word for it, you can easily confirm it yourself.

great.. and what about my clip? you just going to take my word for it are you?

oh and have you checked the entirety of Apollo 11 EVA?
have you checked the entirety of Apollo 15 EVA's??

any reason why you havent? are you afraid you will find a few seconds worth of footage where 2x speed looks normal in Apollo 11/15?

We know the original footage, on all missions, must show all the astronaut movements in real-time, correct?

Sure, because we hear the astronauts speaking, in real-time, as they move about the surface. The audio matches to their movements, at all times, on all missions.

The footage has to show one speed, for all missions. The audio proves it was hoaxed.

oh heres another one of your what you say is fact therefore it is proof type statements.

so the audio matches their movements at all times (im going to hold you too this), which proves it was all hoaxed.... thats a new one... it also makes no sense.

so going by your argument, Apollo 11 recorded voice at double speed only to slow it down to 50% to exactly match Apollo 11 EVA.. likewise Apollo 12-17 recorded voice at 1.5x speed only to slow it down to 66% to exactly match their respective EVA's

so your arguing now that humans cant move faster or slower than normal speed ( whatever normal speed is its always constant at one speed) but they can alter their voice?

You cannot have different speeds.

and again..

apparently a person can no longer deliberately move slowly or faster than they do normally..

lets say that it takes 2 seconds to lift my arm up into the air under normal conditions, apparently it is impossible for me to raise my arm up in less than 2 seconds by deliberately trying to raise it up faster and absolutely impossible to raise my arm up slowly, like say in 10 seconds.

Normal speed is known to us because this is OUR speed, on Earth. We can duplicate movements at normal speed. If movements are faster than normal speed, we cannot duplicate those movements, at normal speed.

except normal earth speed can vary ALOT. if you walk slowly and speed it up 2x it will look normal, if you walk fast and speed it up 2x it wont look normal.. maybe one day you will understand.

I'm pointing out that normal speed is proven to be normal in repeating it at normal speed, as opposed to movements faster than noromal speed. Repeating it at normal speed is either done, or not done. Opinions are not a bit relevant to this issue.

normal speed on earth covers a vast range. i can deliberately move slowly or fast but it is still within "normality" you are arguing that is impossible.

and you are correct opinions are not relevant, so i dont know why you keep using your opinions about what looks normal and what doesnt.

The Apollo 11 astronaut is moving no faster than normal speed in my clip.

You will just pretend it is faster than normal, despite the reality...

there are several instances in your own clip where they move faster than normal at double speed.. my proof is the video you posted. and no i dont need to further prove it since posting that video and stating my opinion should be proof enough of anything.

you will just pretend you didnt see it and only concentrate on less than 20seconds worth, despite the reality.

originally posted by: turbonium1

The mind boggles, at times...!


My argument has always been based on specific footage, as I've explained many times.

I am citing specific footage from the Apollo missions.

no it hasnt.. what ever happened to your claim that Apollo 11 was using 50% slowdown where as all the other were using 66.66% speed??

You cry foul - you say I'm just 'nitpicking''?

You tell me that I cannot use 20 seconds of footage, unless I also can explain all of the footage, too!

Wrong.

im not just saying you are nit-picking because YOU ARE.

you stumbled upon a 1minute clip from 2.5hrs worth of footage, selected less than 20 seconds from that 1 minute clip and using that as your be all end all of proof that it was definitely at 50% slowdown.

My argument is not based on your whim, of some grandiose fantasy-land.

no its not, everyone can tell, your argument is based on your opinion.. and when it comes to proving your claims your opinion is all that matters.. why? because you are too arrogant too self-centered to see anything other than your own opinion.

if anyone else has an opinion then clearly they are wrong for not agreeing with you because god forbid should anyone have a different opinion to yours.

Again - at 2x speed, the Apollo 11 astronaut is moving at normal, Earth speed. No faster than normal, that is.

However, at the same 2x speed, the Apollo 15 astronauts are moving much faster than normal, Earth speed.

try an experiment:
film yourself walkin as slow as you can for about 10m then walk as fast as you can for about 20m.
replay that footage at double speed.

if you review it, then clearly the first 10m was recorded at a different speed to the last 20m.. and clearly you just proved that you are fake.

You cannot admit the speed is different, which is the saddest thing of all, here..

It is reality. We all know it.

but you cannot admit that you are nitpicking.. in your own clip there are instances of faster than normal.

The evidence which holds all the weight has been ignored by you from day one, not pretend 'evidence' you spew forth in desperation..

pretend evidence?? hahaha i posted a clip from the same youtuber as you.. you agreed that it was faster than normal.. if that makes mine pretend evidence then i guess yours is just a joke then?

ok - its 14:05 GMT - which means that the 18th JANURARY 2016 deadline for turboniums vid evidence has passed

conclusion - turbonium cannot evidence his claims - it would have taken 15 minuites if he has been so inclined

there you have it

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
ok - its 14:05 GMT - which means that the 18th JANURARY 2016 deadline for turboniums vid evidence has passed

conclusion - turbonium cannot evidence his claims - it would have taken 15 minuites if he has been so inclined

there you have it

You do know that you'll be shot down and told he already posted his evidence (20 seconds lol).

I find it hilarious that someone can cry hoax on the most minute, insignificant piece of "evidence" they can find.

Next you'll see someone calling it fake because the colour of the space suits are the wrong shade of white lol

you'll see someone calling it fake because the colour of the space suits are the wrong shade of white

spectrum analysis is trending towards an overwhelming consensus among sensible individuals that NASA has a propensity too conceal their true colors ...




Nasa's Hidden Colors
Revealing the True Colors of NASA
NASA color correction problem

originally posted by: Misinformation

you'll see someone calling it fake because the colour of the space suits are the wrong shade of white

spectrum analysis has shown an overwhelming consensus among sensible individuals that NASA has a propensity too conceal their true colors ...

Nasa's Hidden Colors
Revealing the True Colors of NASA
NASA color correction problem

All that is is colour correction. Nothing hidden, nothing edited out. Just done to make things look nicer. Same way as photographers use anti-red eye and other tools to make it look more appealing.

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

As we have already said soooooo many times.

20 SECONDS PROVES NOTHING.

You ignore pretty much all of the 2.5+ hours of continuos footage because it's not your evidence. It's all about 20 seconds. Rejecting ALL counter evidence because it's not that 20 second clip.

This is a discussion forum. Not a place you put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA.

THE ONLY reason you won't accept any counter evidence is because it jumps on your theory, spits in it, throws it out the window and gets run over by a truck.

I now will no longer be commenting on this bread as you have shown yourself to lack any understanding of what's been told to you multiple times and it's infuriating.

Good luck trying to convince yourself that a 20 second clip can disprove the Apollo missions.

You are telling me that video/film footage must be over 20 seconds, or it cannot be considered evidence??!?

If a man wearing a t-shirt and jeans walked up to the astronaut, and left again, within 20 seconds, it would not be considered evidence, is that right??
urs
The man is not seen anywhere else in the footage, which is 2.5 hours long, so it's not considered to be evidence!!

That's hilarious...


My argument is not about all the footage, as it's not relevant to my argument.


Do you get it?

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

As we have already said soooooo many times.

20 SECONDS PROVES NOTHING.

You ignore pretty much all of the 2.5+ hours of continuos footage because it's not your evidence. It's all about 20 seconds. Rejecting ALL counter evidence because it's not that 20 second clip.

This is a discussion forum. Not a place you put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA.

THE ONLY reason you won't accept any counter evidence is because it jumps on your theory, spits in it, throws it out the window and gets run over by a truck.

I now will no longer be commenting on this bread as you have shown yourself to lack any understanding of what's been told to you multiple times and it's infuriating.

Good luck trying to convince yourself that a 20 second clip can disprove the Apollo missions.

You are telling me that video/film footage must be over 20 seconds, or it cannot be considered evidence??!?

If a man wearing a t-shirt and jeans walked up to the astronaut, and left again, within 20 seconds, it would not be considered evidence, is that right??
urs
The man is not seen anywhere else in the footage, which is 2.5 hours long, so it's not considered to be evidence!!

That's hilarious...


My argument is not about all the footage, as it's not relevant to my argument.


Do you get it?

Way to make your argument look even more idiotic. I never said to ignore the 20 second clip. I said it proves nothing.

You're arguing something based on a tiny time frame.

If I have a film, 2.5 hours long, of birds flying and take 20 seconds of it where the birds aren't flapping their wings, it does not prove that birds don't flap their wings. It just shows they didn't for 20 seconds.

Your 20 second clip shows that it looks like they're moving at what appears to be Earth gravity. Doesn't prove they are though.

a reply to: turbonium1

oh FFS - get a grip

what everyone objects to is your special pleading over the 20 seconds

what you are doing is appliying your own bat crap insane " rules " to the 20sec clip and calling it evidence .

the problem is that the " rules " you apply to the 20secs fall apart when applied to the entire 2hours of A11 footage of the EVA missions

that is why you fail

simples

originally posted by: choos

try an experiment:
film yourself walkin as slow as you can for about 10m then walk as fast as you can for about 20m.
replay that footage at double speed.

if you review it, then clearly the first 10m was recorded at a different speed to the last 20m.. and clearly you just proved that you are fake.

Nonsense.

Your argument is that the Apollo 11 astronaut walked/moved as slow as possible, for those 20 seconds, but he moved at normal speed everywhere else??

Are you serious?

Did NASA ever claim that he was moving as slow as possible, for about 20 seconds, and that he moved at normal speed everywhere else??

Sheesh...

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: turbonium1

As we have already said soooooo many times.

20 SECONDS PROVES NOTHING.

You ignore pretty much all of the 2.5+ hours of continuos footage because it's not your evidence. It's all about 20 seconds. Rejecting ALL counter evidence because it's not that 20 second clip.

This is a discussion forum. Not a place you put your fingers in your ears and go LALALALA.

THE ONLY reason you won't accept any counter evidence is because it jumps on your theory, spits in it, throws it out the window and gets run over by a truck.

I now will no longer be commenting on this bread as you have shown yourself to lack any understanding of what's been told to you multiple times and it's infuriating.

Good luck trying to convince yourself that a 20 second clip can disprove the Apollo missions.

You are telling me that video/film footage must be over 20 seconds, or it cannot be considered evidence??!?

If a man wearing a t-shirt and jeans walked up to the astronaut, and left again, within 20 seconds, it would not be considered evidence, is that right??
urs
The man is not seen anywhere else in the footage, which is 2.5 hours long, so it's not considered to be evidence!!

That's hilarious...


My argument is not about all the footage, as it's not relevant to my argument.


Do you get it?

Way to make your argument look even more idiotic. I never said to ignore the 20 second clip. I said it proves nothing.

You're arguing something based on a tiny time frame.

If I have a film, 2.5 hours long, of birds flying and take 20 seconds of it where the birds aren't flapping their wings, it does not prove that birds don't flap their wings. It just shows they didn't for 20 seconds.

Your 20 second clip shows that it looks like they're moving at what appears to be Earth gravity. Doesn't prove they are though.

Your 'bird' analogy only supports my case, actually....

We can explain why a bird usually flaps his wings, as a normal movement, and we can explain why a bird doesn't flap his wings, for 20 seconds, as a normal movement, too.

In your argument, when a bird doesn't flap his wings for 20 seconds, it needs no explanation, because the bird flaps his wings for hours, and that's all we need to consider here!!


No, the 20 seconds has to be explained, it cannot be excused away.

For about 2 hours, we see astronauts walking/moving around the 'lunar surface'

Then, we see a man wearing t-shirt and jeans walk across the surface, and go out of view, in 20 seconds.


The Apollo-ites would not accept it as evidence, because it wouldn't meet their standards, their stated requirements of 'proof'...

It is too short to be considered as proof. '20 seconds proves nothing', they would repeatedly claim.

'We see only astronauts in their pressurized spacesuits, in hours and hours of lunar footage. So 20 seconds means nothing, proves nothing!'

'What about the dust arcing, yadda yadda?'



Proof of denial, beyond any cures.

After much denial, avoidance, and so forth, some have finally admitted that the 20 seconds of footage appears 'normal' speed. Not that they say or think it was in normal speed - just that it has 'somewhat of an appearance' of it as normal speed.

How can it actually be at normal speed, if they were actually on the moon?

If it is at normal speed, it proves they were not on the moon.


So Apollo-otes say it is not normal speed, it is only an appearance of normal speed.

20 seconds proves nothing, when they have 2.5 hours of 'proof' on their side!


Normal speed, or a man in jeans and t-shirt - if it's only 20 seconds long, it means nothing!

What really helped to convince the world that men walked on the moon?

It was an Apollo 11 astronaut walking/bouncing around the surface, as if in 'slow-motion'. Which was the very same clip I cited, as well.

It is probably the most important clip, the most recognized clip, the most seen clip.

In just 20 seconds, it now proves the hoax

Apollo footage is no different than any sci-fi movie...

In 2001, A Space Odyssey, for example, there are flaws, or glitches, which give away the use of special effects. 'Floating' objects are simple special effects trickery, using glass/mirrors. But the effect is not perfect, as it was later caught.

A glitch can be identified in a split-second, or longer - they would be equally valid, as evidence.

Claiming 20 seconds proves nothing is a totally absurd excuse.

I am certain the Constellation Project engineers realize that Apollo couldn't land men on the moon, because they were supposed to use the Apollo technology for a 'return' mission.

They will not speak about it, ever. Their livelihood depends on NASA, and the sad truth cannot be revealed

Let me give you a better theory. Theft of tax payer money. The apolo mission cost 10 billion. That's about 100 billion in current money. Well you pull off the show to the public for say 50 million. (most movie budgets where not even close to that back then. ) that leaves you with 9.95 billion cash in your pocket. It's all about ways to steal tax payer money. The latest in all that is the mars rover videos. A new way of stealing billions off the general public. YA OF COURSE ITS ALL FAKE. iT'S JUST A ROBBERY!

originally posted by: turbonium1

Nonsense.

Your argument is that the Apollo 11 astronaut walked/moved as slow as possible, for those 20 seconds, but he moved at normal speed everywhere else??

Are you serious?

Did NASA ever claim that he was moving as slow as possible, for about 20 seconds, and that he moved at normal speed everywhere else??

Sheesh...

you are saying moving slower than usual is impossible??

and they dont need to be moving as slow as possible. only slower than usual, which would be quite common if you were testing mobility. going as slow as possible for 20 seconds will make 2x sped up footage look SLOW.

but anyway you only need to know is if its possible or not, its not like you care about the reasons why, if you did then you would have found a reason why they used different slow motion speeds by now (going by your own claim).

well then have you tried my experiment yet?? have you been able to prove to yourself that humans can move at different speeds??

p.s. i cant actually believe that im trying to convince a (presumably) human being that human beings can move at different speeds

originally posted by: turbonium1
Apollo footage is no different than any sci-fi movie...

In 2001, A Space Odyssey, for example, there are flaws, or glitches, which give away the use of special effects. 'Floating' objects are simple special effects trickery, using glass/mirrors. But the effect is not perfect, as it was later caught.

A glitch can be identified in a split-second, or longer - they would be equally valid, as evidence.

Claiming 20 seconds proves nothing is a totally absurd excuse.

but your 20 seconds does prove nothing.

its like picking out an instance of an astronaut slowly rotating his body while taking a panorama and speeding it up 3x and using that 0.5 seconds to prove that it was using 33% slowdown. you are desperately trying to grasp at straws with your nitpicking.

do you guys think Kubrick know something

so much bickering does it change anything if its a lie or not?

so many folks back in the 60s was dreaming about moon bases

now we are talking about sending people to mars...

what happened to the moon ITS CLOSER!

I want a moon rock