• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged moon hoax not / debunking video

FatFreddy88 said:
The footage supposedly taken on the moon was shown to have been faked in a studio long ago. These clips on the flag are some of the clearest proof there is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU
(2:35 time mark)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00

If he acts as if this didn't exist, he's trying to mislead those who are new to the subject. Once people have seen the clip of the flag waving because of the breeze cause by the astronaut's approach, there's really nothing any of you pro-Apollo people can do to make them think the Apollo footage was really taken on the moon. It's simply too clear.
Click to expand...


Like the radiation red herring, this too is irrelevant and off-topic. I'm beginning to wonder if you watched the same video as the rest of us. Answer this: what aspect of the Apollo missions is he referring to?


He is discussing the state of the art of video-recording/film-recording technology available at the time; it's capabilities and limitations.



Lighting, radiation, flag waving, dust, etc are all irrelevant to his discussion. They are beyond the scope of his analysis.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
The footage supposedly taken on the moon was shown to have been faked in a studio long ago.
Click to expand...

People have made that argument for years, but contrary to your belief it hasn't been "proven" and it remains almost unanimously disputed by knowledgeable people. The person in the video that this the subject of this thread has given reasons why those arguments are not valid. Simply restating your original claims does not make those reasons go away. Do you have an answer for his reasons?

If he acts as if this didn't exist, he's trying to mislead those who are new to the subject.
Click to expand...

No, it is still a red herring. You chose one of the innumerable subjects this video doesn't mention and have tried to hijack the thread to discuss it according to your infamous pre-written link spams. Radiation and all the other subjects not mentioned in the video are off-topic. Get it?

It's simply too clear.
Click to expand...

No, you are not automatically correct just because you state a belief. On the basis of nothing more than your personal conviction and your habit of calling people liars for no reason other than that they disagree with you, you have embarked on a five-year-and-counting odyssey of personal defamation and hate-mongering against me personally for which you seem to think you should remain unaccountable. Why should anyone listen to you or engage you, least of all me, on this or any subject?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
... I used to think they probably really went to the moon because, to a layman like me,...
Click to expand...
You are not just a layman. You are a willfully ignorant layman with an idee fixe that Apollo was fake, and you not only refuse to learn anything about the actual science and engineering involved; to protect your cramped, paranoid worldview you refuse to acknowledge that anyone can even honestly disagree with you. You're robotic, except that robots have more imagination and honesty than you:
FatFreddy88 said:
it seems within the realm of the possible to build craft that can go to the moon. In the scenario in which six feet of lead is necessary to protect humans from space radiation once they are more than five hundred miles up, their having had to fake it is very understandable.
Click to expand...
The "six feet of lead" figure is from a book discussing multigenerational interstellar travel and has nothing to do with going to the Moon. This has been pointed out to you for years, yet you continue to lie about this.
FatFreddy88 said:
In the scenario of radiation-free space that most Americans have,
Click to expand...
Don't speak of what most people think when you yourself have no idea what you are talking about.
FatFreddy88 said:
You know I'm not in a position to prove something like that. The point is that NASA's "Studies" can't be trusted because they're the ones accused of lying. Their figures on the types and levels of space radiation can't be used as proof.
Click to expand...
Once again, you have no idea what you are talking about. The same data is used in the design of spacecraft which provide weather data and communications underlying hundreds of billions of dollars of commerce per year; the satellite manufacturing, launch, and insurance businesses alone are a multibillion dollar sector. This has been explained to you many times by actual experts, but you either ignore it or mindlessly and baselessly accuse everyone who disagrees with you of lying.

Only a willfully ignorant layman like you would make idiotic claims like there is a "secret" set of data used to hide the reality of Apollo. Let me say it again: You have no idea what you're talking about, and you refuse to learn.

Now, stop dodging and explain

your dishonesty in your Magic Sand claims, and avoiding the rebuttals thereto, and the fact that according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.
 
X said:
Idle observation: we need a red herring smiley.
Click to expand...

redherring.gif
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You know I'm not in a position to prove something like that. The point is that NASA's "Studies" can't be trusted because they're the ones accused of lying...
Click to expand...
Hey, rocky, you've said you live in Madrid. So why don't you make the short jaunt over to the Madrid tracking station and confront them directly? Come on, you fearless anonymous Internet warrior for the truth. Aren't you tired of ink-spamming and calling everyone who disagrees with you a liar? After years of accusing everyone else of cowardice because they're afraid to speak up, aren't you ready to show just a little gumption yourself and Speak Truth to Power?

Or could it be that all this is a sham and you don't actually believe what you're saying yourself, you hypocrite?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
It's only fair to show Jarrah's side of the story.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xK9TXFQLjg4

Here's the debate.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0446557/board/thread/133905495?p=1

Jarrah says in the video that he left the debate because his posts were getting deleted and he couldn't make his case. I know that happens on forums because it has happened to me.
Click to expand...
Jarrah is a liar. I watched the "debate" as it unfolded. It was clear that Jarrah had no idea what he was talking about. He then started making posts with obscenities just to get them deleted so he could make the claim above.


FatFreddy88 said:
Why don't you invite Jarrah to debate on neutral ground where the moderators don't delete anything for any reason?
Click to expand...


He has been invited. He repeatedly refuses or ignores the requests.
FatFreddy88 said:
I've found the moderators at the Spurstalk forum to be objective.
Click to expand...

No, the moderators at Spurstalk are more just not around which is why you are still there and why that forum is filled with the crap it is. They have a much more hands-off approach. That is NOT the same as being objective.
 
Cuddles said:
Baffled said:
A standard 35mm reel is 1000 feet. To fake and overcrank some continuous sequences would take 5,300 feet (47 minutes) of film on Apollo 11 and 10,600 ft on later missions, all on one reel.

Movie makers who have later attempted takes of similar lengths have had to shoot on video and later dub it to film. Video technology to do this did not exist in 1969, and film technology to do this still does not exist today.
Click to expand...



This is exactly what the video says, and while I admit I don't know that much about filming things, this still doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What technology is missing, exactly? OK, we need a length of film five times longer than normal. Is that not possible to make? We need to pull that film through a camera. Is that not possible with film longer than 1000 feet? I can certainly understand that this would likely be more expensive and maybe less reliable, and therefore has never been made commercially viable, but I just don't see any support for the claim that it would simply not be possible. Where is the part that actually prevents it from being done, rather than just making it a bit more difficult? Bear in mind that, again, we're talking about a claimed conspiracy consisting of hundreds of thousands of people and many billions in funding, so "It would be a bit more difficult and expensive" is not a good argument.
Click to expand...


I don't know much about this stuff either, but it seems like there is a physical limit to the size of a reel of film, otherwise the industry would have made larger reels. I'd be guessing what those limitations were, though. The guy in the video suggested size might make it implausible ("volkswagen?" was his term). He also mentioned breakage. How is film fed to the camera -- does it get pulled, causing tension that might break the film if the weight of the film is too great? I don't know; and anyway, that seems like something that would be easily solvable by inventing a new system of feeding the film.
 
Baffled said:
I don't know much about this stuff either, but it seems like there is a physical limit to the size of a reel of film, otherwise the industry would have made larger reels. I'd be guessing what those limitations were, though. The guy in the video suggested size might make it implausible ("volkswagen?" was his term). He also mentioned breakage. How is film fed to the camera -- does it get pulled, causing tension that might break the film if the weight of the film is too great? I don't know; and anyway, that seems like something that would be easily solvable by inventing a new system of feeding the film.
Click to expand...

As somebody who used to work with developing microfilm, by splicing 20 small customer films onto a large magazine, then feeding it through a reel fed development tank, fixer, then drier and back onto another reel at the end - I would be more than a little interested to know how you would do this faultlessly(without nicks and breakages) on a film reel 5-10 feet wide;)

More to the point, with no signs of it actually being a film, with zero splices or imperfections. Can't be done.
 
Baffled said:
I don't know much about this stuff either, but it seems like there is a physical limit to the size of a reel of film, otherwise the industry would have made larger reels.
Click to expand...

It's a convention between film suppliers and camera manufacturers. It's like the cartridge films of the 1970s and 1980s that could fit a number of cameras, or the 120 rolls still used by commercial photographers today, that can fit a number of magazines from different manufacturers. Camera makers like Arri and Panavision built their cameras and magazines around the 10,000-foot standard so that they could all buy film from Eastman.

There's a practical limit to how long a single unspliced strip of film can be, simply because in the final analysis the production process must be based on materials made and supplied in fixed-sized rolls. But I couldn't tell you what that limit is or would have been in 1969.

He also mentioned breakage. How is film fed to the camera -- does it get pulled, causing tension that might break the film if the weight of the film is too great?
Click to expand...

Yes. The body of the camera contains the film drive, which is a set of sprocket wheels, the claw-arm and pressure plate, and the registrator. At the film gate, where it's exposed, there is a slack loop on either side. The claw-arm reaches out and grabs the film by its sprocket holes and pulls it against the friction created by the pressure plates until a new frame is at the gate. The registrator then pokes through the sprocket hole and aligns the film to that last few fractions of an inch so that it doesn't jitter when played back. It stays perfectly still for the fraction of a second it takes the rotary shutter to expose it. The faster that happens, the more chance there is the film will break.

The slack loops allow the reciprocating action of the drive to coincide with the continuous feed achieved by the sprocket wheels. On the supply side, a wheel strips film off the supply reel. The supply reel spins freely, which is to say it's under slight artificial tension to avoid slack. The problem comes at the end of the reel when the feed wheel is pulling film from close to the hub. This amplifies the tension, but you could design around this by having variable tension based on counting revolutions of the supply wheel.

The take-up reel accumulates exposed film and is motorized. It applies slight tension on the film as it comes out of the last sprocket wheel, again in order to keep slack from occurring where it's not wanted. Slack that builds up on the supply or take-up side results in jolts and jerks that tend to tear the sprocket holes. The take-up motor is sized for a full reel, meaning it applies enough torque to the reel to keep the tension appropriate when the reel is full and tangential tension is at its least. This means it's overtorqued when the reel is nearly empty (i.e., at the beginning of filming).

But this too can be solved by mechanical engineering and a more sophisticated camera. In fact many of these problems were solved commercially in the high-speed cameras for scientific data collection that can run at thousands of frames per second. They'll literally strip off a 10,000 foot film reel in the time it takes you to read this sentence.

Now quantity is still the issue. But the filmmaker is thinking only in terms of off-the-shelf ordinary cameras, which makes it something of a straw man. If the proposal is that you'd need a bigger magazine -- perhaps even a vastly bigger magazine with an innovative feed path, then why not simply build it? Even outside the shadowy government applications. studios modified and rebuilt cameras all the time. Mary Poppins sodium-screen shots were filmed with Technicolor cameras modified for the two-strip process, and dating back decades to the first age of color.
 
So it isn't a great argument. But it backs into a core argument -- or, rather, a core problem with the Apollo Denier position. Almost inevitably, the same people that argue that NASA could invent or access film technology more specialized -- if not more advanced -- than anything the movie industry had at the time, also depict an operation with ludicrously low production values.

So they got their specialized cameras, and/or found a way to seamlessly convert video to a different frame rate in order to achieve a slow-motion effect.....and did this in front of a cardboard and tinfoil prop LM.
 
Well after they'd made that gigantic hard drive and all those massive rockets there wasn't much money left in the budget for the LM :D
 
BazBear said:
I agree. Just reading the comments for that video is almost enough to make your head explode.:jaw-dropp
Click to expand...

All of the related videos are just as mind-boggling. Everything is a hologram, and They are out to get them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom