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

[Southwind17]

I don't see how Southwind17 can say that it is possible for a probe to land on the moon safely and yet it is not possible for a manned craft to land safely on the moon. Sounds like like a big contradictory pill to swallow. Unless he also believes that the lunar probes were also faked.

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.

 

[Southwind17]

I don't get it. Corsair answered your question with a definite "YES". He/she then went on to a new paragraph listing some of the other rock solid evidence. What's your problem? Too much evidence proves it's fake? What?

So you'd have no problem with Corsair repeating the 'YES' answer, and leaving off the 'new paragraph', yes?

OK, let's see what Corsair actually does shall we! It's not such a big ask is it?

 

[Southwind17]

Umm I would guess the special effects needed to fake pictures of people on the moon in 1969.

Which effects, exactly, are you alluding to? Could you list them, or at least offer some examples?

Well see they hop on the rover with the camera rolling and drive for a mile or so. They don't crash into the cyclorama screen and they aren't driving in a circle. That's a big studio...

Sure is. We can land men on the moon and get them back to Earth (and it took how long to do it?), but over the same period we're incapable of faking a lunar surface on Earth. Yup, that sure reconciles!

Of course a sound stage isn't necessary if you are shooting on location, ON THE MOON!

... or 'on location' elsewhere!

 

[Southwind17]

This, and the Lunar Gravity, are the ones you can't fake on a sound stage. There is dust on the moon, and it's behavior in a vaccuum is different from in an atmosphere. Air Currents disturb the dust, bouying it and moving it when it's disturbed. In a vaccuum, dust would move in a ballistic arc, assuming normal gravity.

Is there some footage available on the internet that we can view that demonstrates your description? Sincere question; I'd like to see it.

Also, slowing down the film does not accuratly reflect the difference in gravity ...

Ditto.

And it would also mean there is post-production going on, since the Sound of "...one giant leap for mankind" is not distorted by slowing the film.

I really don't think this poses an insurmountable technical challenge, do you?

 

[Southwind17]

I think you misunderstand what constitutes 'evidence'. There is NO evidence that suggests the US might not have walked on the Moon. There are people who think they see 'anomalies' is some of the photographic evidence.

That is NOT evidence that affirms a position either way. It only negatively questions a portion of the affirmative evidence.

No, I think you misunderstand. Evidence is something that is used as a basis for asserting proof of something, or establishing truth or falsehood. That, my friend, is why evidence is usually presented by both the prosecution and defence in trials, and the jury has to decide, often on the balance of probability, what can be logically deduced from such evidence. If evidence, by definition, has to affirm a position either way, then why have trials? Why not simply ask the prosecution and defence which party has 'the evidence' and have them present it. Only one party could have 'the evidence', not both!

Consequently, it does not 'only negatively question a portion of the affirmative evidence', as you erroneously believe, it offers an alternative explanation.

 

[Southwind17]

That sounds more correct.

Until you apply your mind to it for a moment!

 

[Southwind17]

Why would you want to do that ?

Er ...?

... your movements don't slow down ... when gravity is reduced ...

Would this include bunny hopping, and the like, by any chance?!

 

[Southwind17]

OK, so where are we? Is there anything Southwind still considers to be contradictory evidence? I think from what I've seen that it's all been shown not to be contradictory, so Southwind, have all your questions about it been resolved now?

Well, let's see shall we. Let's start with, oh ... I don't know ... the famous Aldrin photo. Let's review the degree to which the evidence (or is that just theories and hypotheses?) posted on this thread so far satisfactorily debunk the accusations arising from the anomalies: that would be hot-spot/fall off, camera height and fill-in light. Would you care to summarise for us?

 

[Shrinker]

Well, let's see shall we. Let's start with, oh ... I don't know ... the famous Aldrin photo. Let's review the degree to which the evidence (or is that just theories and hypotheses?) posted on this thread so far satisfactorily debunk the accusations arising from the anomalies: that would be hot-spot/fall off, camera height and fill-in light. Would you care to summarise for us?

Wow, I can't believe anybody is still stuck on the fill light question. Did you really come here to boast about your inability to figure out this most basic of conundrums? What could possibly be reflecting light up at the astronaut? What could it be that lights him up but isn't able to bounce light into the shadows on the ground? Where would you find a large reflector all the way out in space? Aargh, it's so difficult isn't it?

 

[sts60]

Southwind17, I really would like to know if you have any comments regarding my ALSEP remarks in posts 85, 192, 285, and 291. I admit these remarks are rather superficial, but until you discuss your suggestion that the ALSEP program was faked I can't get into details.

 

[volatile]

Sure is. We can land men on the moon and get them back to Earth (and it took how long to do it?), but over the same period we're incapable of faking a lunar surface on Earth. Yup, that sure reconciles!

So what happened to the doubtless hundreds of set-designers, construction workers, gaffers, grips, post-production assistants, camera men, sound designers, sound recordists, lighting technicians, editors, roboteers, special effects designers etc. that built this set and recorded, edited and produced the footage? Read the credits of any movie you care to mention to see just how many people it takes to make a film.

For your conspiracy to be true, it would require that not one single person even peripherally involved, even those who, say, sold the ballast for the fake landscape, or the tea lady that brought the cakes round, nor a single one of their relatives or associates, has spoken out about this for forty years.

Are you INSANE?

 

[Southwind17]

Regarding the parts I've bolded above. Can you tell me what in your education and/or work experience you are drawing on to reach those conclusions.

I am drawing on the knowledge and experience accumulated over my lifetime so far from innumerable sources. I'm afraid I cannot be more specific than that.

 

[Southwind17]

... and certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe.

For instance ?

Temperature gradients.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Temperature gradients.

Erm, do you even understand what the term "temperature gradient" means? If so, please explain how you feel this relates to the moon landings' possibly having been a hoax.

 

[DavidJames]

I am drawing on the knowledge and experience accumulated over my lifetime so far from innumerable sources. I'm afraid I cannot be more specific than that.

Thank you for your honest answer. It was exactly what I suspected. You have no education, or experience in the related fields yet have no qualms about rejected the arguments of those that have significant education and experience.

Arrogance and Ignorance, CTists can not exist without those two attributes.

 

[Southwind17]

So what happened to the doubtless hundreds of set-designers, construction workers, gaffers, grips, post-production assistants, camera men, sound designers, sound recordists, lighting technicians, editors, roboteers, special effects designers etc. that built this set and recorded, edited and produced the footage? Read the credits of any movie you care to mention to see just how many people it takes to make a film.

For your conspiracy to be true, it would require that not one single person even peripherally involved, even those who, say, sold the ballast for the fake landscape, or the tea lady that brought the cakes round, nor a single one of their relatives or associates, has spoken out about this for forty years.

Are you INSANE?

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?!

 

[Southwind17]

Erm, do you even understand what the term "temperature gradient" means? If so, please explain how you feel this relates to the moon landings' possibly having been a hoax.

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.

 

[Southwind17]

Thank you for your honest answer. It was exactly what I suspected. You have no education, or experience in the related fields yet have no qualms about rejected the arguments of those that have significant education and experience.

Arrogance and Ignorance, CTists can not exist without those two attributes.

No thanks for your biased opinion:

You have no education, or experience in the related fields ...

On what basis, exactly, do you draw this conclusion?

 

[SpitfireIX]

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.

Your vague explanation of "temperature gradient" aside, you didn't answer the second part of my question: how does this relate to a potential moon hoax?

 

[volatile]

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?!

You are certifiable, man.

Filming raw footage from the moon requires astronauts with cameras. Compare outside broadcast news filming - presenter, camera man, sound man, crew, with the people needed to make a film of a staged event.

To recreate the Appollo footage, you would need people to construct an enormous, expansive a lunar landscape (which, I assure you, is not "easy"), artificially light it, edit the footage, add the special effects or otherwise doctor the film to reproduce lunar gravity. That's dozens if not hundreds of people. You'd need location filming crews, set designers, construction workers, tea ladies, editors, sound designers, script writers.

Who built this set? Where did they build it? Who filmed it? Who recorded the sound? Who cut and edited the footage? Who made those people their lunch? Why have none of those people, or their relatives or acquaintances, said anything for 4 decades?