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

[Shrinker]

They didn't have to build a soundstage on the moon, Wind.

I hear transport to and from the set was quite involved though.

 

[PetersCreek]

When CT's talk about slowing the video down to simulate 1/6g, they uniformly fail to consider how the nonballistic motions would look unnatural...or just handwave them away.

For instance, record yourself bunny hopping over to a board, to hammer a nail. Now view it in slow motion. You may argue that your hopping looks somewhat Moon-like but could you also successfully argue that hitting the nail in slow motion would drive it into the board? If you did, I'd ask you to demonstrate it live.

So, to make that video look more convincing you'd have to speed up the nonballistic motion to compensate for the reduction in the video playback rate. But how does one speed up a hammer swing already delivered at full tempo? How does one maintain that tempo with hundreds of other movements performed over a long period?

Seems to me the slo-mo theory is no-mo.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Seems to me the slo-mo theory is no-mo.

It's more than that...it's re-goddamd-dicklous.

 

[Shrinker]

When CT's talk about slowing the video down to simulate 1/6g, they uniformly fail to consider how the nonballistic motions would look unnatural...or just handwave them away.

For instance, record yourself bunny hopping over to a board, to hammer a nail. Now view it in slow motion. You may argue that your hopping looks somewhat Moon-like but could you also successfully argue that hitting the nail in slow motion would drive it into the board? If you did, I'd ask you to demonstrate it live.

So, to make that video look more convincing you'd have to speed up the nonballistic motion to compensate for the reduction in the video playback rate. But how does one speed up a hammer swing already delivered at full tempo? How does one maintain that tempo with hundreds of other movements performed over a long period?

Seems to me the slo-mo theory is no-mo.

Or to put it another way, how come the CTist never speed up video like this?

 

[Corsair 115]

Southwind is aptly named, because the amount of hot air eminating from his posts is staggering.

Such maddening obfuscation, inability to grasp basic statements, avoidance of a simple trip to the library or bookstore to read relevant material, wilfully ignoring mountains of evidence, concentration on the minutiae of irrelevant points, etcetera and so on.

My tolerance limit for such jackass conduct has been reached. I'll leave it to others to continue the fight against such stupidity, I'm done with this thread.

 

[alexg]

Well, I was being facetious. I didn't seem to be getting any response from Southwind17; it's been a couple of days and dozens of posts from him since the last time he replied to any of my ALSEP remarks in posts 85, 192, 285, and 291.. Since he has engaged repeatedly with Corsair 115 and Von Neumann regarding ALSEP, I thought he would like to discuss it in more detail and back up his apparent opinion that ALSEP was (or may have been) faked.

I dunno; maybe he's busy reading some of the references I gave him, or looking at ALSEP data online, or hasn't noticed my posts, or maybe I've offended him?

I saw them. And good posts they were! Too good. He he. Sothwind just ignored them. I thought about pointing this out.

 

[332nd]

Me insane?! Think about what you just wrote:

Putting aside 'set design/construction' for a moment (i.e. a baron landscape resembling the lunar surface illuminated 'at night' with a single, intensive raw light source!), how many hundreds of gaffers, grips, post-production assistants, camera men, sound designers, sound recordists, lighting technicians, editors, roboteers, special effects designers etc. recorded, edited and produced the actual footage that you claim was broadcast from the lunar surface?

I don't think any credits rolled when the broadcast of the first Apollo lunar landings ended, but if they had, the totality of the 'team' that you list out above would have been, I guess(!), somewhere in the order of, er, two?!

So only two people (off the top of my head) helped the astronauts simulate 1/6th gravity, handled the com chatter, set up the LEM, operated the light source, filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder, and reset the "stage" whenever they had to do a new take?

However you are close. To film the actual landing it took three. Armstrong, Aldrin, and the guy who operated the remote cam for the first step.

 

[jhunter1163]

Southwind needs to ask Buzz Aldrin about these things. I think he'd get a pretty definitive answer.

 

[Brainache]

I want to know what happened to all the bloopers. You know, when the camera accidentally gets a light stand in shot or a bit of the backdrop slips and everyone starts laughing...

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

Armstrong

I want to know what happened to all the bloopers. You know, when the camera accidentally gets a light stand in shot or a bit of the backdrop slips and everyone starts laughing...

On YouTube. Where else.

Can't post linkie. It is titled Proof of moon hoax!

It's the ultimate proof...

... that HBs have no sense of humour.

 

[uruk]

Landing a probe 'safely' on the Moon compared to putting men on the Moon, walking around on the lunar surface and returning 'safely' to Earth are completely different ball games! Surely you can see that there really is no 'big contradictory pill' offered for the swallowing.

Certainly there is more complication. But the physics is the same. If you can send,land and return a probe you can do the same with a man. The only difference are the life support systems. So your statement is a contradiction. Or at least a double standard.

The Russians soft landed a probe on the moon that took pictures and a small sample of lunar soil and returned it to earth.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=1972-007A

Apollo 8 sent men around the moon and back. Apollo 11 had the lander with a crew dto within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface.

Everything was done step by step in increments testing the hardware and techniques.

 

[Brainache]

On YouTube. Where else.

Can't post linkie. It is titled Proof of moon hoax!

It's the ultimate proof...

... that HBs have no sense of humour.

This one?

 

[uruk]

I'm referring to the extreme difference in temperature of an object exposed to and heated by direct sunlight and an object, or the same object, shaded from direct sunlight.

Yea, so what? Don't you think that the engineers had that figured out?
The space suits had several layers of insulation and was air tight.
And the astronauts had a undergarment that had tubes of temperature regulated fluid that kept the astronauts within a safe temerature range.

 

[twinstead]

Yea, so what? Don't you think that the engineers had that figured out?
The space suits had several layers of insulation and was air tight.
And the astronauts had a undergarment that had tubes of temperature regulated fluid that kept the astronauts within a safe temerature range.

This is an important point. Even if this whole thing was a hoax, in order to keep the people who were aware of it to a minimum, WORKING versions of equipment would have to be delivered.

Why would anybody think that those who designed, manufactured, and inspected the space suits weren't aware of the fluctuations of temperatures on the surface of the moon? Can you imagine if a prop suit was delivered to the engineers from the suppliers? One would think that they would have noticed that this suit they requested was obviously inadequate.

This goes for pretty much every single piece of equipment manufactured to work on the surface of the moon. Every single one would have had to actually work even if it wasn't to be used on the moon, otherwise the number of people 'in on it' goes up to ridiculous levels.

 

[uruk]

By the way, does anyone see my posts? At all? I'm wondering if I "cloaked" without realizing it...

It's not that your posts are cloaked. Southwind is ignoring questions. He still hasn't answered my questions concerning the "famous" picture

 

[uruk]

What's 'vague' about what I've just written? Would you like for me to clarify any of it?

Avoidance noted.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

So only two people (off the top of my head) helped the astronauts simulate 1/6th gravity, handled the com chatter, set up the LEM, operated the light source, filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder, and reset the "stage" whenever they had to do a new take?

However you are close. To film the actual landing it took three. Armstrong, Aldrin, and the guy who operated the remote cam for the first step.

wow, CTs really are all the same

this is the EXACT same argument 9/11 CTers use "why would it take so many government agents to do what you think 19 terrorists did"

it seriously boggles me to try to think of the skull density that could lead to such arguments

 

[Halcyon Dayz]

This one?

Yep.

HBs who see it either get angry, or actually believe it's for real.
They are hopeless.

 

[twinstead]

wow, CTs really are all the same

The longer I deal with CTs, the more I have to agree. No matter what the conspiracy, the tactics, arguments, and personalities are EXACTLY the same.

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind is aptly named, because the amount of hot air eminating from his posts is staggering.

Such maddening obfuscation, inability to grasp basic statements, avoidance of a simple trip to the library or bookstore to read relevant material, wilfully ignoring mountains of evidence, concentration on the minutiae of irrelevant points, etcetera and so on.

My tolerance limit for such jackass conduct has been reached. I'll leave it to others to continue the fight against such stupidity, I'm done with this thread.

A VERY telling response. I figured my last 'challenge' would draw out the truth and bring this to a head in my favour, which now leaves me to focus on the more considered responses that derive from sensibility and logic, which, I seem to detect are diminishing fast, but I could be wrong.