• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

'Fake' Apollo Moon Landing

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
It is surreal, to me because the era it's from is so vastly different than this era.



the engineered attention span of a dozen minutes. My. How Ordinary!

Arrogant? You have no idea! Most people call me insufferable, so, I'll take that as a compliment!
 

abeland1

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
193
Likes
285
It is surreal, to me because the era it's from is so vastly different than this era.



the engineered attention span of a dozen minutes. My. How Ordinary!

Arrogant? You have no idea! Most people call me insufferable, so, I'll take that as a compliment!
Welcome to the club!!
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
The point is that NASA had higher sights in mind than low Earth orbit. The Venus mission also shows they were trying to find more things to do with existing hardware. Ie: they were being cost conscious while still trying to push boundaries.
Perhaps. It's also possible they were lying, or at least exaggerating, about the whole thing. I mean Mars has been the target for years and that seemingly got scrapped without much fanfare. Now it's back to the moon, but we supposedly don't even have any rockets that can get us there at this time. Maybe by the time we get a rocket that can get guys to the moon, Trump will be out of office and a manned slingshot run at Jupiter will be the next administration's "goal".

From a survival standpoint, getting some semblance of a self sufficient colony somewhere that's not tied directly to this rock we're on now seems a worthy goal. I mean, if the NASA eggheads are to be believed then it's only a matter of time before an extinction level event occurs(again) here on the 3rd rock. Having a colony somewhere may give the human race some measure of insurance against instant extinction, but that obviously hasn't been a priority for the last 50 years.

Can you guys even imagine how dead simple it would be to shut up those tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist nutbars with the original footage of the moon landing? I mean for fuks sake that has got to be the single most valuable piece of footage in the history of humanity and these incompetent fukkheads that supposedly work for you and I...accidentally erased it. That really doesn't bother you guys?

You'd think they'd have made multiple copies despite the degradation that analog video suffers through duplication AND protected the original as though it was a matter of national security. ...but no, they deleted it to make room for pr0n. Yes, the original footage of Star Wars...A New Hope is still around for re-mastering, but the first time a human set foot on another world? ...meh who cares...record keeping is teh hard.
 
Last edited:

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
Welcome to the club!!
Right now everything is a question of speed. We haven't tried "going fast" in space yet.

1st problem is that "speed in space" is relative to.......what? It depends on what body you are comparing it to. In Examplski

http://www.astronomy.com/news/2016/07/juno-may-not-have-been-the-fastest-spacecraft-ever

For things inside Earth's gravitational influence, it makes sense to use our home planet as reference by treating it as a fixed point in space. But for anything that breaks free and travels beyond the Lagrange points -- points of gravitational equilibrium between the Earth and Sun -- it stops making sense to reference an object that is itself whirling around the Sun at 30,000 meters per second (67,100 mph).
In the engineering world given the vast distances of space, why start for deep space now when our best stuff now will be superseded and passed inflight by greater technologies discovered later.

Why not go back to the moon? Why not try for Mars? there is no point in trying manned stuff on gas giants but Jupiter has moons to hit golf balls on. Saturn, etc.

I love these guys!

 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Now it's back to the moon, but we supposedly don't even have any rockets that can get us there at this time. Maybe by the time we get a rocket that can get guys to the moon,
Not supposedly, we don't have rockets that can get us there. No suppose about it.
...but that situation is currently being rectified.




Perhaps. It's also possible they were lying, or at least exaggerating, about the whole thing.
I think they were doing what every other gov agency does. Come up with reasons to either maintain or increase the budget. I have no doubt that if given the money, NASA would've tried it. Back then they were more ok with taking risks than they are today.


From a survival standpoint, getting some semblance of a self sufficient colony somewhere that's not tied directly to this rock we're on now seems a worthy goal.
Agreed.
...but where? Everywhere we can see that we could possibly go, is extremely in-hospitable to life as we know it. Any colony on the Moon/Mars/Venus/etc would be dependent on Earth sending supplies for a very very long time. Possibly forever.


I mean, if the NASA eggheads are to be believed then it's only a matter of time before an extinction level event occurs(again) here on the 3rd rock.
They're probably right. We see the effects of it on other Planets and on the Moon. Then we also have pics of newly formed craters like I already posted.


Having a colony somewhere may give the human race some measure of insurance against instant extinction, but that obviously hasn't been a priority for the last 50 years.
It's a money thing. You're never gonna get widespread support for lots of money being spent to colonize another Planet with no obvious goal relative to the lives of those being asked to pay for it.
Remember, we have a very short-sighted mentality as a society. We can't get agreement on stuff for the next two years, let alone stuff that will span decades. We're lucky we got the ISS. lol


In the engineering world given the vast distances of space, why start for deep space now when our best stuff now will be superseded and passed inflight by greater technologies discovered later.
That is a real issue.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
Not supposedly, we don't have rockets that can get us there. No suppose about it.
...but that situation is currently being rectified.
I don't know how you can be so certain. I mean these aholes can claim they lost trillions, how can either of us really know what their capabilities are at this point? I mean, once you accept that you're dealing with professional liars, how can you take anything they say at face value?

While I realize it's another goofy conspiracy theorist whacko thing to talk about Gary McKinnon DID hack NASA...according to NASA and he DID say they have some kind of non-terrestrial fleet. Now, some Brit dood claiming something is one thing, but the government, our government did attack him for his actions. There definitely seemed to be some fire in the general vicinity of that smoke.
It's a money thing. You're never gonna get widespread support for lots of money being spent to colonize another Planet with no obvious goal relative to the lives of those being asked to pay for it.
Remember, we have a very short-sighted mentality as a society. We can't get agreement on stuff for the next two years, let alone stuff that will span decades. We're lucky we got the ISS. lol
Weird isn't it how there never seems to be resources for anything other than finding new and creative ways to murder our fellow humans? The US can conduct war on multiple fronts and spend more on its military than the next 10 richest nations combined, but a moonbase?!? ZOMG that's too expensive!
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I don't know how you can be so certain. I mean these aholes can claim they lost trillions, how can either of us really know what their capabilities are at this point? I mean, once you accept that you're dealing with professional liars, how can you take anything they say at face value?
If they were launching big rockets, we'd see it. Someone would. We know when there are launches and lots of people live around all our launch sites. Also, why would they pay Russia to launch stuff for us? Just use our rockets. They don't have to have secret launch systems to have secret/military missions. Just classify certain launches.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
People see launches all the time, but many get dismissed as UFOs and therefore they're irrelevant. The military denies any knowledge and that's the end of it. Just pretend like you didn't see the video...it didn't happen.
Yea, I remember that controversy. Which is why I said what I did. That was a one time deal, whatever it was and look at the response from people. If that were happening from the Cape or Vandenberg all the time when there was supposedly no way to do so, it'd get noticed big time. It be all over the news.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
While I realize it's another goofy conspiracy theorist whacko thing to talk about Gary McKinnon DID hack NASA...according to NASA and he DID say they have some kind of non-terrestrial fleet. Now, some Brit dood claiming something is one thing, but the government, our government did attack him for his actions. There definitely seemed to be some fire in the general vicinity of that smoke.
Well now we're getting on to even more theories to support the other theory.
...and if these "fleets" exist, doesn't that disprove the theory about not being able to go beyond LEO? Can't be both. We either have the tech, or we don't.


Weird isn't it how there never seems to be resources for anything other than finding new and creative ways to murder our fellow humans? The US can conduct war on multiple fronts and spend more on its military than the next 10 richest nations combined, but a moonbase?!? ZOMG that's too expensive!
Sad but true. That's why the Soviets weren't interested in sending men to the Moon until we were. They saw no strategic use for it.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
Well now we're getting on to even more theories to support the other theory.
...and if these "fleets" exist, doesn't that disprove the theory about not being able to go beyond LEO? Can't be both. We either have the tech, or we don't.
...are we still talking about 1969 then? The accusations against McKinnon and the preliminary attempts at extradition occurred in 2002. Plainly technology has made quantum leaps in that interim. Not that NASA has a whole bunch to publicly show for it of course.
Sad but true. That's why the Soviets weren't interested in sending men to the Moon until we were. They saw no strategic use for it.
...but now they do apparently. Unfortunately, just like US.gov they too lack the gear to do so. While it's not as though I think planting some guy's boots on the moon would ever be "easy", you'd think it wouldn't take these nations a dozen+ years to get the ball rolling after they announce their grand schemes. I mean after all the US did it 48 years ago.

Here's one of those "theories". 35 seconds btw.
"The Navy says, it was not a Navy missile." One would think it kind of important if it wasn't launched by US military forces, but apparently not many cared at the time.

This guy at the registered "foreign agent" news service(RT) suggests it was an accidental ICBM launch from a submarine. Hey, no worries, it only flew over the 2nd most populous city in America.
 
Last edited:

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
...are we still talking about 1969 then?
Anytime. Its been stated that we do not, nor have ever had the ability to go beyond LEO. That's part of the whole didn't go/can't go theory, ain't it?

The accusations against McKinnon and the preliminary attempts at extradition occurred in 2002. Plainly technology has made quantum leaps in that interim. Not that NASA has a whole bunch to publicly show for it of course.
Point was that if the fleet exists, secret or not, then we do in fact have the tech to go to the Moon.


...but now they do apparently. Unfortunately, just like US.gov they too lack the gear to do so. While it's not as though I think planting some guy's boots on the moon would ever be "easy", you'd think it wouldn't take these nations a dozen+ years to get the ball rolling after they announce their grand schemes. I mean after all the US did it 48 years ago.
Well, we all know how politicians can be.
...and like you pointed out, a big problem is every admin cancelling the plans of the previous admin. IMHO, they do it because they don't like their predecessors dictating how they spend money.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
Anytime. Its been stated that we do not, nor have ever had the ability to go beyond LEO. That's part of the whole didn't go/can't go theory, ain't it?
Not by me it hasn't. To accept the notion that it's impossible to leave LEO, one must accept the notion that NASA has lied too many thousands of times to even attempt to count...I mean Voyager supposedly left our solar system some while back now. I dunno if I subscribe to all that, but I remain skeptical about the notion that the fools at NASA sent some guys to the moon 48 years ago.
Point was that if the fleet exists, secret or not, then we do in fact have the tech to go to the Moon.
Actually the entire theory goes that the fleet belongs to aliens that the US government has allied itself with. So while your line of thought is reasonable, it's not necessarily "our" fleet that was being referenced. Of course now that Gary McKinnon has been silenced "in the interests of national security" we may never know.
...and like you pointed out, a big problem is every admin cancelling the plans of the previous admin. IMHO, they do it because they don't like their predecessors dictating how they spend money.
Good thing then that every administration seems to agree we need to kill lots of people abroad then...otherwise our troops would perpetually be on boats going back and forth. The rest of the military plans seem to be set in stone...kill kill kill, but NASA plans seem to flip flop regularly.
 
Last edited:

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
I see a fool, and it isn't NASA! Just another dumbass
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
I see a fool, and it isn't NASA! Just another dumbass
Another example of your unjustifiable arrogance? Do you think such a petty retort worthy of one with your self proclaimed intellectual superiority Davey?

...could you, at the very least, use some alternative verbiage so that we may all share in your alleged brilliance? At least tell us why you seemingly take it so personally when someone insults NASA and/or former NAZI scientist Wernher von Braun.

If by fool, you mean that I ask questions...questions by the way that you generally ignore in favor of playground worthy insults, then yes I'm a fool.

Have you spent any time applying your allegedly huge brain to deducing who fired the ballistic missile off the coast of Commiefornia in 2010? ...or was that too a pursuit unworthy of one so well endowed intellectually?
 

RealJack

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
1,443
Likes
1,192
A PDF file with info on the electrical systems and batteries used on the Apollo missions. I think someone asked about that earlier?

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090016295.pdf

Pic shows info on batteries used. Whether they were big enough would depend upon the draw of all their electrical devices.

View attachment 95782
Nothing like a cold hard pdf straight from the official nasa.gov bible to convince a heathen that NASA ascended to the moon.
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
3,760
Likes
6,176
Location
Seattle
Wooo-eee, this thread is getting luditer and luditer.
How 'bout we construct a poll to see where we are?

BF
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
Wooo-eee, this thread is getting luditer and luditer.
How 'bout we construct a poll to see where we are?

BF
Sounds great! Can we also include the raw unedited footage of this historic event in human history? I was only a 1 year old sapling at the time and didn't get to watch it "live" on teevee.

Oops, I forgot it was supposedly...accidentally erased by some federal regime twinkie that was likely not only NOT fired for incompetence, but is likely collecting a healthy pension right this minute. yay!
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Nothing like a cold hard pdf straight from the official nasa.gov bible to convince a heathen that NASA ascended to the moon.
Yes, I realize that, but who else can tell us what was taken on the mission other than those whose mission it was?

The thing to do IMHO would be to find out what the combined electrical usage would have been and then compare that to the amp hours of batteries they say were taken along. Keep in mind that they didn't have a zillion things all constantly drawing lots of amps.
Also, the time spent walking on the Moon was measured in minutes. About 150 minutes and barely 20 hours in side the lander. They took 400 amp hours with them for that short stay. Do the math. They would have had plenty of power for the systems they had.


it was supposedly...accidentally erased by some federal regime twinkie that was likely not only NOT fired for incompetence, but is likely collecting a healthy pension right this minute. yay!
As I said, we talk all the time in other threads about gov incompetence. Is it really so hard to find plausible that NASA has some of 'em working for them too?
...and just because it did get destroyed is not on its own sufficient proof to say the Moon landings could not have happened. Because there is in fact much evidence that says they did happen. It's not just NASA saying so.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Wooo-eee, this thread is getting luditer and luditer.
How 'bout we construct a poll to see where we are?

BF
Or at least have a review.

I believe we have thoroughly covered the topics of....
VAB's are impenetrable by people.
Hubble can't see the landers.
No blast crater.
No stars in pics.
Would need 4 feet of lead shielding.
Didn't have time to take all those photos themselves.
Didn't take enough rocket fuel for 500,000 mile trip.
"Holland" got a fake Moon rock.
The Moon rocks are missing. btw, did anyone even notice post #93?
We never went back.
Why only LEO now?
Soviets should have beat us to the Moon.

All the above have very plausible if not outright provable explanations that have been posted.


I don't think we've covered lighting issues yet, have we?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
As I said, we talk all the time in other threads about gov incompetence. Is it really so hard to find plausible that NASA has some of 'em working for them too?
...and just because it did get destroyed is not on its own sufficient proof to say the Moon landings could not have happened. Because there is in fact much evidence that says they did happen. It's not just NASA saying so.
I would peg the possibility of that erasure being "incompetence" at roughly zero. It is was quite literally among, if not the single most valuable piece of footage in US history. Think about it...what could compare? Perhaps something privately filmed by Zapruder? ...and nobody is going to even attempt to make the case that NASA didn't recognize the import, I mean the landing was televised right? To me this is as egregious as the national archives "losing" Kennedy's brain.

No, that isn't itself evidence of fraud, but it surely doesn't help their case when the single best piece of physical evidence is unceremoniously deleted and they don't admit it until 2006.

What is it that makes others so adamant that it did happen? Surely it's not because .gov is so very credible. None of us were there...so where does all the certainty come from?
 

Oldmansmith

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,862
Likes
4,967
Location
Taxachusetts
Or at least have a review.

I believe we have thoroughly covered the topics of....
VAB's are impenetrable by people.
Hubble can't see the landers.
No blast crater.
No stars in pics.
Would need 4 feet of lead shielding.
Didn't have time to take all those photos themselves.
Didn't take enough rocket fuel for 500,000 mile trip.
"Holland" got a fake Moon rock.
The Moon rocks are missing. btw, did anyone even notice post #93?
We never went back.
Why only LEO now?
Soviets should have beat us to the Moon.

All the above have very plausible if not outright provable explanations that have been posted.


I don't think we've covered lighting issues yet, have we?

You could add that, despite being the Earth equivalency of 65 pounds, the Apollo 11 astronaut’s stride was no higher than if they had been normal weight here on Earth.

How bout those magic spacesuits that protected them from blasting solar heat and minus 200 degree cold when they were on the ladder in the shade of the LM? And the 1969 battery technology that did it...for HOURS?
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
No, that isn't itself evidence of fraud, but it surely doesn't help their case when the single best piece of physical evidence is unceremoniously deleted and they don't admit it until 2006.
However it happened, I agree it was an incredibly stupid the way it was handled.


What is it that makes others so adamant that it did happen? Surely it's not because .gov is so very credible. None of us were there...so where does all the certainty come from?
Because there is evidence that says they did go to the Moon.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
Because there is evidence that says they did go to the Moon.
Right...NASA says so. The ONE piece of evidence that could easily have been independently verified...they accidentally destroyed.

Not gonna lie. I watch footage of alleged moonwalks and they look fake as hell to me and the doctored up stills aren't any better. When I add that to the "accidental" erasure and the fact that not one human has left LEO since 1972...yeah I find it all kind of hard to take.

Maybe it happened just like fedgov says, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence and my default position is to not believe known liars. NASA/the department of war definitely falls into that category.
 
Last edited:

Ebie

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
7,246
Likes
1,644
Went to the moon, or, not, there was a large team of mathematicians on earth helping. The astronauts had a sextant. They gave measurements to the team on earth.
There were also other data available to the ground team. The astronauts were then told what direction to orient the craft, and, how long to burn the engines for.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
You could add that, despite being the Earth equivalency of 65 pounds, the Apollo 11 astronaut’s stride was no higher than if they had been normal weight here on Earth.
I would think that they would been trying not to have too high of a stride in an attempt to prevent falling. It would suck to get hurt or rip open ones space suit trying to run and jump. What I saw was a whole lot of small hopping motions to get around.


How bout those magic spacesuits that protected them from blasting solar heat and minus 200 degree cold when they were on the ladder in the shade of the LM? And the 1969 battery technology that did it?
There's no air to conduct heat to or away from objects, so that cooling in a shadow isn't instant.
...and if you'll notice, everything they had was white and/or shiny. That's to cause most of the Sun's energy to be reflected. Anything reflected doesn't have to be dealt with internally. When we walk into a shadow here on Earth, there's wind/air to conduct heat off of us. Not so on the Moon. You would maintain your heat. Especially inside an insulated suit and vehicle.


As for batteries, I posted that they took 400 amp hours of batteries with them to the Moons surface for a 22 hour stay. Have you looked into what the electrical draw was on their systems in order to know if that was enough or not? The batteries were 29volts
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Right...NASA says so. The ONE piece of evidence that could easily have been independently verified...they accidentally destroyed.
Retro reflectors? Lighting on the Moon also proves it couldn't have been done in a sound stage. The Soviets and many independent observers tracked the craft all the way to the Moon.
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
The Soviets and many independent observers tracked the craft all the way to the Moon.
Kewl, maybe I'll look through Russian government dox for verification at some point. The US government damn sure hasn't done much to provide proof.
Yeah, I'm trying to find my gigawatt laser now...think I left it in my other suit. BTW is there any way at all, that you know of, to confirm WHEN a reflector was placed? I mean it'd be kewl if we had some footage of buzz lightyear and Armstrong placing the thing themselves, but obviously record keeping isn't a NASA strong point. Doubtless that footage would long since have fallen to make room for re-runs of the bachelor.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Yeah, I'm trying to find my gigawatt laser now...think I left it in my other suit. BTW is there any way at all, that you know of, to confirm WHEN a reflector was placed? I mean it'd be kewl if we had some footage of buzz lightyear and Armstrong placing the thing themselves, but obviously record keeping isn't a NASA strong point. Doubtless that footage would long since have fallen to make room for re-runs of the bachelor.
They've been using them since the time of the Apollo missions and they aren't something that can just be plopped down any old way.
Also, if artificial lighting were used on a set, shadows would give it away. Light radiates out from a source in all directions. we don't see that in pics from the Moon.


 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
I'm not particularly interested in seeing how good NASA guys are at doctoring up photos. I'm sure they're good at it...particularly after decades to work on them.

Kinda why the original unedited stuff was so vital. I'm kind of an experienced amateur at photo editing and I could produce a picture of Neil Young in concert on the moon within an hour. Probably wouldn't be up to NASA standards, but gimme a couple decades to get it right.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
I'm not particularly interested in seeing how good NASA guys are at doctoring up photos. I'm sure they're good at it...particularly after decades to work on them.

Kinda why the original unedited stuff was so vital. I'm kind of an experienced amateur at photo editing and I could produce a picture of Neil Young in concert on the moon within an hour. Probably wouldn't be up to NASA standards, but gimme a couple decades to get it right.
Keep in mind it's only Apollo 11 film that came up missing. Original film from all the others still exists. If they were going to throw away the faulty evidence that could expose their plot, why wouldn't they get rid of all of it? Seems to me if one can justify throwing out Apollo 11 film, they'd have even less hesitation to conveniently "accidently" do the same to all of the tapes.

Did you watch the Adam vid I posted? What he says makes sense to me. If you had a set with artificial lighting, shadows would diverge from each other. How do you account for the parallel shadows with sharp defined edges? If multiple lighting were used, edges wouldn't be as sharp.
 

Oldmansmith

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
4,862
Likes
4,967
Location
Taxachusetts
I would think that they would been trying not to have too high of a stride in an attempt to prevent falling. It would suck to get hurt or rip open ones space suit trying to run and jump. What I saw was a whole lot of small hopping motions to get around.


There's no air to conduct heat to or away from objects, so that cooling in a shadow isn't instant.
No, just the vacuum of space, and their tin foil suits would have held heat for at least a second or two in farkimg minus 250:degrees. Show me the suits that can go from 250 to minus 250 and run on batteries right now, and be thin and weigh only 180 pounds please. Those guys in those suits would have been dead instantly.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
No, just the vacuum of space, and their tin foil suits would have held heat for at least a second or two in farkimg minus 250:degrees.
In an environment with a medium to conduct heat, sure. In space though, what is there to pull heat away? How they didn't freeze is the same reason your soup stays warm outside on a cold day if it's inside a vacuum thermos. Ie: because in a vacuum, there's nothing there to conduct heat and outer space vacuum is far more vacuumy than that inside a thermos.
...and it's not just tinfoil, but insulated too.

Show me the suits that can go from 250 to minus 250 and run on batteries right now, and be thin and weigh only 180 pounds please. Those guys in those suits would have been dead instantly.
I'm pretty sure the space suits they wear when going outside the ISS work. Don't they?
...and those suits from Apollo are in the Smithsonian, aren't they?
 

solarion

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Nov 25, 2013
Messages
5,050
Likes
7,614
Did you watch the Adam vid I posted? What he says makes sense to me. If you had a set with artificial lighting, shadows would diverge from each other. How do you account for the parallel shadows with sharp defined edges? If multiple lighting were used, edges wouldn't be as sharp.
Not yet. I'll have a look. I've watched dozens of videos both pro and con and while I've found some of them interesting I haven't found any of them to be particularly compelling.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,017
Likes
6,051
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Not yet. I'll have a look.
Ok. I try to find short vids when trying to make a point, if I can.

I've watched dozens of videos both pro and con
Me too.

and while I've found some of them interesting I haven't found any of them to be particularly compelling.
In the vids I've posted, none of the explanations hold any water for you, at all? I think the ones explaining how the various systems worked make logical sense.
...and in my book, the list of individual reasons that are said to prove the hoax can each be explained away.
...and I also just cannot believe that the Soviets were in on it, as well as the current Russian gov. Then there's the Chinese too that would have to be in on it.
 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
7,347
Likes
6,470
I prefer long videos that tell the whole story in extremely boring technical details