[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[332nd]

I see you're resorting to 'IF' questions too, now!

Ok, rephrase...

What would be the "political downside WHEN" the Russians found that the moon landings were faked?

 

[Southwind17]

Ok, rephrase...

What would be the "political downside WHEN" the Russians found that the moon landings were faked?

Sorry, 'when' pre-supposes, which is why we use 'if'. Might seem pedantic, I realize, but you see my point. We can all 'if' and 'but', when it suits, but if people claim that I can't 'if' and 'but' without diluting my argument then neither, I'm afraid, can you!

But to be courteous and answer your question, the political downside would be catastrophic. A little like under-designing the Golden Gate Bridge. That's why safety margins are built in, and only 'calculated' risks taken.

 

[Southwind17]

Read what he wrote again. He didn't say that beating the Soviets was all that mattered, he said that it was all the PUBLIC cared about. To NASA, Apollo was about the science and about expanding man's influence beyond the Earth. They believed that Apollo was a stepping stone to Mars and beyond and they wanted to go further.

And what did the paymaster, the US Government, want?! You've actually answered this for us:

Unfortunately to the average man in the street Apollo was billed as a race against the Soviets so once it was done they lost interest in it.

Again you don't seem to understand what was happening in the 60's. NASA wanted to get to the moon, they started planning how to get there in 1958. In 1960 they convinced Esienhower to let them fly there, though he wasn't entirely behind the idea believing that dominance in Earth Orbit was more important. Finally they managed to convince Kennedy to let them do what they wanted to do, go to the moon. Why would people who had been planning and wanting to get people to the moon for a decade and then on out to Mars and beyond suddenly give up and fake it? It makes no sense.

I don't understand? You don't even realize who faked it, if it was faked, that is!

 

[332nd]

Sorry, 'when' pre-supposes, which is why we use 'if'. Might seem pedantic, I realize, but you see my point. We can all 'if' and 'but', when it suits, but if people claim that I can't 'if' and 'but' without diluting my argument then neither, I'm afraid, can you!

Ah but it depends on what the "if" is!

But to be courteous and answer your question, the political downside would be catastrophic. A little like under-designing the Golden Gate Bridge. That's why safety margins are built in, and only 'calculated' risks taken.

And how were the Apollo risks "calculated"?

 

[Tolls]

I don't understand? You don't even realize who faked it, if it was faked, that is!

OK...who faked it then, if not NASA?

 

[Southwind17]

SVector has a nice sped up version of the DAC footage of the Apollo 11 flag. The two things to watch are the flag itself, which never moves, and the flag's shadow which does (it appears to get shorter of the 37 minutes.) Without a very impresive lighting rig that was able to be moved in relation to how the sun would over time on the moon, there is no way to get this shadow movement other than by filming it on the moon. Filming it outdoors on earth would result in a larger shadow movement and breezes affecting the flag causing it to ripple. Having air in the area would cause the flag to move as the Astronauts passed it.

You are joking, aren't you?

OK, after planting, the flag never moves. Is that really so hard to achieve? A simply weighted hem should be all that's needed. Again, I suggest you challenge the great Randi with this one. I doubt he'd even get out of bed for it!

And as for the shadow movement, do you know how long the lunar day is PhantomWolf? Let's say 29 Earth days, for argument's sake. So we watch a video that lasts 40 minutes. That's equivalent to the Sun 'moving across the sky' on Earth for all of 83 seconds! You're telling me you can detect shadow movement on Earth over an 83-second period?!?!

IT'S AMAZING WHAT YOU CAN SEE WHEN YOU WANT TO, ISN'T IT!

So that rules out the need for the 'very impressive lighting rig'; indeed, the entire THEORY & HYPOTHESIS that it was indeed filmed on the Moon. I'm sure eveybody participating in this thread is now quietly congratulating you on your invaluable contribution to discrediting the very principle that many of them hang their hats on! IF IT LOOKS RIGHT IT MUST BE RIGHT!

I was planning on returning to your previous 'technical' responses to some of my posts, but I think I'll just skip over them now!

 

[Southwind17]

OK...who faked it then, if not NASA?

You're not suggesting that NASA and the US Govt. are one and the same with a common agenda, are you?!

 

[PixyMisa]

And as for the shadow movement, do you know how long the lunar day is PhantomWolf? Let's say 29 Earth days, for argument's sake. So we watch a video that lasts 40 minutes. That's equivalent to the Sun 'moving across the sky' on Earth for all of 83 seconds! You're telling me you can detect shadow movement on Earth over an 83-second period?!?!

What part of "sped up" did you not understand?

 

[Southwind17]

And how were the Apollo risks "calculated"?

You mean the 'technical' mission risks or the 'fake cover up' risks? Probably essentially in the same way, actually!

 

[Southwind17]

What part of "sped up" did you not understand?

What part of '29 days' and '40 minutes' don't YOU understand?!

You really are dumb, aren't you!

 

[Southwind17]

I'm beginning to conclude that many posters' avatar images in this thread really aren't avatar images at all!

 

[Tolls]

You're not suggesting that NASA and the US Govt. are one and the same with a common agenda, are you?!

OK.
We're getting somewhere here.
Are you, therefore, saying that someone other than NASA faked it?

In other words, NASA (and the various contractors) did all the work towards sending manned missions to the moon and then someone snuck in and...um...well, you tell me.

 

[Southwind17]

If you look closely you will notice that the flag was still oscillating from all the movement from inserting into the lower post. The oscillations last longer because there is not air to dampen the oscillations of the flag.

edited Sorry, the timer settings on the youtube windows threw me off. I was looking at -2:36.

It looks to me like the astronaut lightly brushed against the flag as he passed by.

You're seeing the same things that PhantomWolf is! Pair of clowns, the two of you!

Although static electricity would also be a good explination.

'A good explination (sic)'? Would this be the same 'static electricity' that prevented James Hydrick from performing his amazing psychic page-turning feat when Randi debunked him, by any chance?!

How about a scientific explanation for this 'static electricity'! Any chance uruk?!

 

[Southwind17]

OK.
We're getting somewhere here.
Are you, therefore, saying that someone other than NASA faked it?

In other words, NASA (and the various contractors) did all the work towards sending manned missions to the moon and then someone snuck in and...um...well, you tell me.

You're an amateur. Back of the queue buddy!

 

[Southwind17]

So just how many sqare miles of Arizona desert had to be totally re-landscaped to look like the surface of the moon Southwind? Was it the same patch for each mission, or did the two guys with bulldozers have to clear another swathe every time?

You have absolutely NO imagination, do you?!

I'd also like to see the single point lighting rig that could light up those square miles so evenly, as the captions in the rover clip above point out.

It's probably the same one that caused the obvious hot-spot on this famous one!

 

[Southwind17]

Anybody care to have a go at debunking this famous shot then (obvious too-low Earth image insertion aside!)? Now who do you figure are the two guys who took that photo (one on camera the other on fill-lighting?!)?!?

 

[Sporanox]

More than any other I've seen, Southwind, you just loooooooove hearing the toot of your own horn.

Add this to your apparent inability to offer more than poorly thought out sarcasm, and you're a typical CT.

 

[Tolls]

You're an amateur. Back of the queue buddy!

OK...I'll take your singular inability to answer the question or, in fact, state your case, as a sign you don't actually have a case and are simply trolling for giggles.

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, I am reasonbly patient, with reasonable people, when circumstances reasonably call for patience. Several days ago, you explained the delay for answering questions with, "I'm trying to respond in an orderly fashion. Please continue to bear with me with any future responses; you're kind of in a queueing system!"

Have you abandoned your system in favor of picking questions on whim while introducing new arguments as previous questions and points languish? I may show some patience for that where friends are concerned...but then, you and I are not friends. This is the second time you've put off my questions with little more than a handwave. Please understand, I have precious little patience for being jerked around. Is that what you're doing here?

I'm sorry PC - I apologize. It's just that I figured that if I adopted the same philosophy that most of the posters here have, namely that a preponderance of affirmative evidence is sufficient to show a few (by comparison) anomalies to be wrong, and applied it to the quality of the vast majority of arguments posted, namely a preponderance of trash, then they would balance each other out, and we'll be left to find other means at our disposal for assessing the anomalies. Do you see my line of logic here?

Any chance you can bake it a little longer? Alternatively, you could PM all the idiots in town and ask them to hang fire while the bright people out there have a proper shot! I think you know who they are!

 

[Southwind17]

More than any other I've seen, Southwind, you just loooooooove hearing the toot of your own horn.

Add this to your apparent inability to offer more than poorly thought out sarcasm, and you're a typical CT.

I do, do I? Not like your post, then, which clearly only serves to further the debate!

Go play snap with Tolls at the back!