Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 1,401 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 202,089
Pageviews Today: 272,435Threads Today: 59Posts Today: 1,370
02:13 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax

 
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1472892
Israel
01/21/2013 06:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
SR-71 (blackbird) 1966-1998 image [this bird really fly fast]
(2,193.2 mph; 3,529.6 km/h)
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
More info on the SR-71
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
--------------
Apollo 16 LEM image [Insert data here]
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
LEM info:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
01/21/2013 08:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
I'm not really a moon-truther, but has anyone satisfactorily cleared up as to why the cross-hairs of the camera lens seem to appear behind certain objects in some photos?

I must admit, that one made me think twice.

Thanks.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1663367


They only appear to be behind things that are white in color and brightly lit and then only really on the low res photos. On the high res you can see they are thinner and less visible because they are washed out by the bright object. My favorite image that illustrates this is one where the cross hair is on the flag. It only disappears on the white stripes and not on the red. Unless you think the white stripes were pasted in later it is easily explainable by basic photography.
[link to www.clavius.org]
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
01/21/2013 08:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax

 Quoting: Copperhead


i wonder how they managed to build that set for the popular video where you see the lighting rig fall down..

considering according to OP's video it wasnt possible to fake the set..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32737441


You mean the one admitted to be a hoax by the guys that did it that you can see very obvious differences in the LM and the suit? And the video didn't say it wasn't possible to fake the set, it said it wasn't possible to fake the effects with the technology of the day.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
01/21/2013 08:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
If I remember correctly the video images were beamed to and taped in Australia and broadcast to mission control, and the networks did not get a live feed but had to take the images off of a monitor in mission control. The original tapes have since been lost. One of the proudest and most historical achievements in the history of the world, and the original tapes were lost.
 Quoting: Copperhead


Only for Apollo 11 and we have plenty of backups.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
01/21/2013 08:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
No dust on the lander gear
NASA HQ Photo
[link to www.nasa.gov]
---
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1472892


Nice photo, but I always wonder why the horizon disapears about 50 yards from the camera. Check out the shadow from the LEM, it ends right at the point where the horizon turns black. Look at how bright the LEM is and explain to me why everything vanishes at the point where the LEMS shadow ends? I can take a picture of my truck in the driveway on a bright day and I will have the town 8 miles away in the background, not in focus but the photo will also not end 100 yards away and go completely black. The moons surface is a light gray and I'm sure the sun is reflecting off the whole surface and there should be more in the background and not have such an abrupt change from bright to total darkness.
 Quoting: Copperhead


Probably studio limits, lol
At the time (1969) no one had home VCR, so they had full control on re-runs etc, and once it was broadcasted most of the people 'bought' it.
The other point is when you look at the entire construct of the LEM it looks very fragile and like a model, compared with the SR-71 that flew in 1966
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1472892


The SR-71 flew at three times the speed of sound through AIR. It had a lot of resistance to its travel. The LM operated exclusively in a vacuum with no resistance at any time. Plus the part you think looks fragile is only the insulative covering. The structure is underneath that.
here is what it looked like without the insulative covering
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Copperhead

User ID: 24964643
United States
01/21/2013 09:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Nasa Mooned America part 1, Bill Cooper. Starts at 14 minutes in.

[link to www.hourofthetime.com]

More of the series found here

[link to www.hourofthetime.com]

Starts at show # 736
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18237036
United States
01/21/2013 09:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Dudes a freak.

We all know the gubermint has technology 20 to 30 years ahead of consumer release. So, quit pulling our knobs.

Anyway, the shit was produced by that ghoulish looking stanely kubrick after they got done frying his brain and putting him to work at the laurel canyon cia video production lab where this was produced and distributed from.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32017112
United States
01/21/2013 10:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Great video! He made some great points and it was entertaining to watch. Why do I believe it wasn't a hoax? Simple, My aunt was Wernher von Braun's secretary. She wass privy to all the inside info. Not once was there any talk about a hoax, or what not. We went there.
The guy in the video is right alot of the people the do not believe it were not around when it happened, of course neither was I, But I guess it you didn't live and only hear about it after the fact,its easier to say that is just never happened. Some times I think people to to look in to history and learn. Not just what you are told in a history book, but find out who and what NASA was at the time.
But in the end you can believe what you like. No one is going to stop you.But if you really think about what it would take to fake the moon landing and cover it up for all these years, like the gay said, its easier just to go to the moon
 Quoting: ModelerX


Well since the character of Wernher von Braun was a hoax, that makes your Aunt a hoax and you a hoaxer. Buh Bye
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30688956
United States
01/21/2013 10:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
The laser reflectors are on the moon, an indisputable fact. How did they get there? I suppose the International Space Station is fake too? I've seen it in great detail with my own eyes through my scope. I've even seen the Space Shuttle docked on it.

Getting out of earth's gravitational pull is the hard part. Getting to the moon once you have is easy. There's no resistance to motion in space.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1663367
United Kingdom
01/22/2013 05:12 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
I'm not really a moon-truther, but has anyone satisfactorily cleared up as to why the cross-hairs of the camera lens seem to appear behind certain objects in some photos?

I must admit, that one made me think twice.

Thanks.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1663367


They only appear to be behind things that are white in color and brightly lit and then only really on the low res photos. On the high res you can see they are thinner and less visible because they are washed out by the bright object. My favorite image that illustrates this is one where the cross hair is on the flag. It only disappears on the white stripes and not on the red. Unless you think the white stripes were pasted in later it is easily explainable by basic photography.
[link to www.clavius.org]
 Quoting: Weasel_Turbine


Thanks for taking the time. That seems a reasonable explanation.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27937884
United States
01/22/2013 08:58 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Thanks for posting that!
zvezda 1

User ID: 32799832
Bulgaria
01/22/2013 09:49 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Enjoy... popcorn


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32727811


damn good video

i have been a long time on the fence regarding the moon visit, did usa go or did it not.. well considering the technical aspects alone as this guy points out it becomes more and more obvious it was easier to go than to fake.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32737441


Have you ever seen 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)?
[link to www.imdb.com]

You should do it. It's a great movie. ;)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 9222520
United States
01/22/2013 10:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
We all know the gubermint has technology 20 to 30 years ahead of consumer release. So, quit pulling our knobs.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18237036


I see this arguement come up frequently, and I agree.

However, the anti-moon landing crowd tends to do the following a lot:

"We all know the gubermint has technology 20 to 30 years ahead of consumer release."

Then turn around and argue:

"The computer's were not fast enough to have navigation systems capable of going to the moon"

Redundant, isn't it?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32623728
Argentina
01/22/2013 06:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Without taking side on hoax or not, he claims they (NASA)can fly to space (we all agree on that, i assume) but not slow down a reel to reel VTR, that's makes sense
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1472892



Agreed!

I am taking sides... and no one will ever convince me those fucks went to the moon, landed and then came back.

My main reason why?
Because my father was an employee of a well respected Aerospace engineering company before, during and after this bullshit hoax took place.
From the minute they claimed the rocket blasted off, until the time they claim the patsies came back and dropped into the ocean he never believed any of it.
He used the technical language gibberish i didnt understand but when asked he would explain it in a way we could understand.
My mother watched it as well... and in her own opinion (excluding my fathers points) she never believed it either.
The guy in this video uses all these big fucking technical words that make the average person assume he is very intelligent and knows way more about it then the normal human, so they believe his bullshit.
For me, all it takes is COMMON FUCKING SENSE.

As for my response to this video.... Yeah, sure dude.

This fucker is actually trying to make us believe that the government didnt have the technology to "fake" a video, yet they could fly to the moon and back.

Well to him i ask.... WTF did the "astronauts" have strapped to their chests?
CAMERAS ... what else did they take with them? VIDEO CAMERAS. Ummm... how "advanced" did those cameras and FILM have to be in order to withstand the temperatures on the moon?
Pretty advanced hu?

So this highly advanced video camera along with the highly advanced film inside it could withstand the extreme radiation, heat and cold ... but.... (drum roll) they just didnt know how to add a SLOW MOTION button?

fuck off NASA dude...

Btw... Do these mother fuckers actually think we would believe that they "lost" the most important video in the history of the world?

Oh... yeah, sure.
Sure they lost it alright... the same way they "lost" all that gold that is suppose to be in Ft.Knox
 Quoting: Yuri Gervasii


Epic fucking post. Let me just add the link I always do when the question of the "moon landings" comes up, for people who want to read a kick ass article on the subject:

[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
01/22/2013 07:26 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Without taking side on hoax or not, he claims they (NASA)can fly to space (we all agree on that, i assume) but not slow down a reel to reel VTR, that's makes sense
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1472892



Agreed!

I am taking sides... and no one will ever convince me those fucks went to the moon, landed and then came back.

My main reason why?
Because my father was an employee of a well respected Aerospace engineering company before, during and after this bullshit hoax took place.
From the minute they claimed the rocket blasted off, until the time they claim the patsies came back and dropped into the ocean he never believed any of it.
He used the technical language gibberish i didnt understand but when asked he would explain it in a way we could understand.
My mother watched it as well... and in her own opinion (excluding my fathers points) she never believed it either.
The guy in this video uses all these big fucking technical words that make the average person assume he is very intelligent and knows way more about it then the normal human, so they believe his bullshit.
For me, all it takes is COMMON FUCKING SENSE.

As for my response to this video.... Yeah, sure dude.

This fucker is actually trying to make us believe that the government didnt have the technology to "fake" a video, yet they could fly to the moon and back.

Well to him i ask.... WTF did the "astronauts" have strapped to their chests?
CAMERAS ... what else did they take with them? VIDEO CAMERAS. Ummm... how "advanced" did those cameras and FILM have to be in order to withstand the temperatures on the moon?
Pretty advanced hu?


So this highly advanced video camera along with the highly advanced film inside it could withstand the extreme radiation, heat and cold ... but.... (drum roll) they just didnt know how to add a SLOW MOTION button?

fuck off NASA dude...

Btw... Do these mother fuckers actually think we would believe that they "lost" the most important video in the history of the world?

Oh... yeah, sure.
Sure they lost it alright... the same way they "lost" all that gold that is suppose to be in Ft.Knox
 Quoting: Yuri Gervasii


The heat environment on the Moon is the same as in orbit. The surface can get very hot but only after being exposed to sunlight for 2 weeks (lunar day). They landed in lunar morning so the soil hadn't heated that much yet. As for the cameras, they were made of a reflective material which also prevented them from heating up as quickly.
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
Weasel_Turbine

User ID: 31859349
United States
01/22/2013 07:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Without taking side on hoax or not, he claims they (NASA)can fly to space (we all agree on that, i assume) but not slow down a reel to reel VTR, that's makes sense
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1472892



Agreed!

I am taking sides... and no one will ever convince me those fucks went to the moon, landed and then came back.

My main reason why?
Because my father was an employee of a well respected Aerospace engineering company before, during and after this bullshit hoax took place.
From the minute they claimed the rocket blasted off, until the time they claim the patsies came back and dropped into the ocean he never believed any of it.
He used the technical language gibberish i didnt understand but when asked he would explain it in a way we could understand.
My mother watched it as well... and in her own opinion (excluding my fathers points) she never believed it either.
The guy in this video uses all these big fucking technical words that make the average person assume he is very intelligent and knows way more about it then the normal human, so they believe his bullshit.
For me, all it takes is COMMON FUCKING SENSE.

As for my response to this video.... Yeah, sure dude.

This fucker is actually trying to make us believe that the government didnt have the technology to "fake" a video, yet they could fly to the moon and back.

Well to him i ask.... WTF did the "astronauts" have strapped to their chests?
CAMERAS ... what else did they take with them? VIDEO CAMERAS. Ummm... how "advanced" did those cameras and FILM have to be in order to withstand the temperatures on the moon?
Pretty advanced hu?

So this highly advanced video camera along with the highly advanced film inside it could withstand the extreme radiation, heat and cold ... but.... (drum roll) they just didnt know how to add a SLOW MOTION button?

fuck off NASA dude...

Btw... Do these mother fuckers actually think we would believe that they "lost" the most important video in the history of the world?

Oh... yeah, sure.
Sure they lost it alright... the same way they "lost" all that gold that is suppose to be in Ft.Knox
 Quoting: Yuri Gervasii


Epic fucking post. Let me just add the link I always do when the question of the "moon landings" comes up, for people who want to read a kick ass article on the subject:

[link to davesweb.cnchost.com]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32623728


Does kick ass in this sense mean hilarious because he proves on every page how ignorant he is of spaceflight, physics, astronomy, etc?
If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law
ModelerX

User ID: 31569020
United States
01/22/2013 07:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Great video! He made some great points and it was entertaining to watch. Why do I believe it wasn't a hoax? Simple, My aunt was Wernher von Braun's secretary. She wass privy to all the inside info. Not once was there any talk about a hoax, or what not. We went there.
The guy in the video is right alot of the people the do not believe it were not around when it happened, of course neither was I, But I guess it you didn't live and only hear about it after the fact,its easier to say that is just never happened. Some times I think people to to look in to history and learn. Not just what you are told in a history book, but find out who and what NASA was at the time.
But in the end you can believe what you like. No one is going to stop you.But if you really think about what it would take to fake the moon landing and cover it up for all these years, like the gay said, its easier just to go to the moon
 Quoting: ModelerX


Well since the character of Wernher von Braun was a hoax, that makes your Aunt a hoax and you a hoaxer. Buh Bye
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32017112


Um sure, What makes you think Von Bram was a hoax, its easy to read his history and what he has done for rocketry long before the U.S. Space program. Does the V2 ring a bell?
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 31033756
Netherlands
01/22/2013 07:53 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Next time NASA should take the Video technology from the Germans too, not just the rocket tech, amazing 1969 color footage VTR

 Quoting: Israeli Coward 1472892

How big was that camera, and how much bandwidth would have been required to transmit such a video to the Earth?

If it was pre-recorded in a studio (i'm not saying it was) they could have done all the conversions i.e speed/frame rates etc, and then broadcast it later,
 Quoting: Israeli Coward 1472892

Slowing down the footage might make jumps look like they happen in lunar gravity, but it would make every other movement look like the astronauts were on speed.

You are also ignoring the evidence that the broadcast was live.
People in Houston (in front of a bunch of civilians) are talking to the astronauts who respond in words and action.

however the clean (no dust) on the LM arms/pods is very suspicious imo
 Quoting: Israeli Coward 1472892

So there air on the Moon that makes the dust billow?

SR-71 (blackbird) 1966-1998 image [this bird really fly fast]
(2,193.2 mph; 3,529.6 km/h)
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
More info on the SR-71
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
--------------
Apollo 16 LEM image [Insert data here]
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
LEM info:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: Israeli Coward 1472892

So you are comparing a cherry-picked fragment from an hour-long press conference with another one given by people who haven't done something unique?
Why?

So you can psychobabble, and ignore the factual evidence?

And why, oh why, are you comparing an aircraft with a pure spacecraft?
Do you really expect spacecraft to be aerodynamic?
You really do think there's air in space, don't you?
book

I'm not really a moon-truther, but has anyone satisfactorily cleared up as to why the cross-hairs of the camera lens seem to appear behind certain objects in some photos?
 Quoting: UK Coward 1663367

"[T]he cross-hairs of the camera lens" are called fiducials, they are etched on the resseau plate which lies on top of the film.
Considering that photographs are 2D you do not see the cross-hairs behind anything, you do not see the cross-hairs.
This happens when there is a bright object, to much light on the film leads to emulsion bleed. (Google that term.)
book

No dust on the lander gear
NASA HQ Photo
[link to www.nasa.gov]
---
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1472892


Nice photo, but I always wonder why the horizon disapears about 50 yards from the camera.
 Quoting: Copperhead

That's a hill side.

If I remember correctly the video images were beamed to and taped in Australia and broadcast to mission control, and the networks did not get a live feed but had to take the images off of a monitor in mission control.
 Quoting: Copperhead

This blog post explains the technical details.
[link to depletedcranium.com]

BTW, are you implying that only Apollo 11 was hoaxed?
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
DUCM900

User ID: 32858154
Italy
01/23/2013 08:38 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
As for the cameras, they were made of a reflective material which also prevented them from heating up as quickly.
 Quoting: Weasel_Turbine



Are you able to link a source of that?


.
jazzguy

User ID: 32556250
Australia
01/23/2013 08:44 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
dumb video--0
nasa hoax --1
DUCM900

User ID: 32866481
Italy
01/23/2013 09:07 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax

 Quoting: Copperhead


i wonder how they managed to build that set for the popular video where you see the lighting rig fall down..

considering according to OP's video it wasnt possible to fake the set..
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32737441





.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32857439
United Kingdom
01/23/2013 09:13 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Enjoy... popcorn


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32727811


lol

I watched that the other day.
It's very good indeed.

It still won't convince the deniers though.

I did like the little bit at the end too....
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32866736
United Kingdom
01/23/2013 09:22 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Enjoy... popcorn


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32727811


What a dumb ass,

Never heard of Telecine machines. These have been around since the dawn of TV. They WERE the original video players for studios.

As for slow motion, it was invented by the inventor of film cameras in the USA, William Lincoln.

The Lumiere brothers used slow motion in commercial films as far back as 1891.

s226
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 31688241
01/23/2013 09:28 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
TBTB did a better job with the 911 hoax than the moon landing, and we all know about BUILDING 7.


Way too many inconsistenices to even bother mentioning, unless I can book off work for a week or 2.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 32098909
Germany
01/23/2013 09:32 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
I myself is in filmbiz - so the guy ist totaly wrong when it comes to part of overcranking. Sorry but that is b.s.
DUCM900

User ID: 32866481
Italy
01/23/2013 09:36 AM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
TBTB did a better job with the 911 hoax than the moon landing, and we all know about BUILDING 7.


Way too many inconsistenices to even bother mentioning, unless I can book off work for a week or 2.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 31688241


(red txt) sure?




.
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
01/23/2013 02:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
As for the cameras, they were made of a reflective material which also prevented them from heating up as quickly.
 Quoting: Weasel_Turbine



Are you able to link a source of that?


.
 Quoting: DUCM900


That's such a stupid fricken non-starter.

I mean, just THINK about it for a moment. Here's this camera, bursting into flames, glowing from radiation, getting shot full of holes from micro-meteorites or whatever retarded thing the Hoaxies believe.

So what about the far more fragile human being holding it?

I honestly can not think of a single one of the stupid camera objections that wouldn't be more sensibly asked of the ASTRONAUTS behind it!

It just underlines how much the hoaxies are merely flailing around to add any straw they can to their argument, no matter how minor or far-fetched. Because they are unable to make any of the big, solid arguments; piddling shit is all they have.

(Piddling shit that, again, assumes that the same people who could send human beings fifty million miles away, on top of a highly complex piece of machinery containing enough explosive chemicals to make a small nuke's worth, into an environment that does not support human life....oh, but making a camera that will work on a hot day is beyond them!)
nomuse (not logged in)
User ID: 2380183
United States
01/23/2013 02:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Enjoy... popcorn


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32727811


What a dumb ass,

Never heard of Telecine machines. These have been around since the dawn of TV. They WERE the original video players for studios.

As for slow motion, it was invented by the inventor of film cameras in the USA, William Lincoln.

The Lumiere brothers used slow motion in commercial films as far back as 1891.


 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 32866736


Which leaves clues.

I mean, come on. If you know telecine, you know what it LOOKS like. Video to video looks damn-all like telecine. You are adding two layers...phosphor persistence, and all the color rendition and bleed of emulsion.

And you STILL have to synch the damned things (which to the jobby who claims to work in the industry, ask some time about filming monitors in the bad old days!)

Go through any telecine stage and it would be more obvious than the razor cuts in the Watergate tapes.
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
Contrarian's Contrarian

User ID: 31033756
Netherlands
01/23/2013 03:08 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
As for the cameras, they were made of a reflective material which also prevented them from heating up as quickly.
 Quoting: Weasel_Turbine

Are you able to link a source of that?

.
 Quoting: DUCM900

You need a link to explain the reflective nature of polished metal?

The film would get so hot it'd melt (or so cold it'd break, hoaxies can never keep their stories straight) is a bare assertion claim made by the hoaxies.
It is those that make the claim that need to proof it.

Here are some questions hoaxies need to answer:
- What is the difference in the thermal environment on the Moon and in LEO (where such cameras have also been used)?
- How does the heat (or cold) get to the film?
- Are hoaxies aware that vacuum does not conduct heat?
- Do hoaxies actually know what heat is?
- What was the film made of? What are the properties of said material?
&c. &c.
book
Hatred is a cancer upon the world.
It rots the mind and blackens the heart.


Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1472892
Israel
01/23/2013 03:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Why the moon landing was NOT a hoax
Next time NASA should take the Video technology from the Germans too, not just the rocket tech, amazing 1969 color footage VTR

 Quoting: Israeli Coward 1472892

How big was that camera, and how much bandwidth would have been required to transmit such a video to the Earth?

If it was pre-recorded in a studio (i'm not saying it was) they could have done all the conversions i.e speed/frame rates etc, and then broadcast it later,
 Quoting: Israeli Coward 1472892

Slowing down the footage might make jumps look like they happen in lunar gravity, but it would make every other movement look like the astronauts were on speed.

You are also ignoring the evidence that the broadcast was live.
People in Houston (in front of a bunch of civilians) are talking to the astronauts who respond in words and action.

however the clean (no dust) on the LM arms/pods is very suspicious imo
 Quoting: Israeli Coward 1472892

So there air on the Moon that makes the dust billow?

SR-71 (blackbird) 1966-1998 image [this bird really fly fast]
(2,193.2 mph; 3,529.6 km/h)
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
More info on the SR-71
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
--------------
Apollo 16 LEM image [Insert data here]
[link to upload.wikimedia.org]
LEM info:
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
 Quoting: Israeli Coward 1472892

So you are comparing a cherry-picked fragment from an hour-long press conference with another one given by people who haven't done something unique?
Why?

So you can psychobabble, and ignore the factual evidence?

And why, oh why, are you comparing an aircraft with a pure spacecraft?
Do you really expect spacecraft to be aerodynamic?
You really do think there's air in space, don't you?
book

I'm not really a moon-truther, but has anyone satisfactorily cleared up as to why the cross-hairs of the camera lens seem to appear behind certain objects in some photos?
 Quoting: UK Coward 1663367

"[T]he cross-hairs of the camera lens" are called fiducials, they are etched on the resseau plate which lies on top of the film.
Considering that photographs are 2D you do not see the cross-hairs behind anything, you do not see the cross-hairs.
This happens when there is a bright object, to much light on the film leads to emulsion bleed. (Google that term.)
book

No dust on the lander gear
NASA HQ Photo
[link to www.nasa.gov]
---
[link to www.hq.nasa.gov]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1472892


Nice photo, but I always wonder why the horizon disapears about 50 yards from the camera.
 Quoting: Copperhead

That's a hill side.

If I remember correctly the video images were beamed to and taped in Australia and broadcast to mission control, and the networks did not get a live feed but had to take the images off of a monitor in mission control.
 Quoting: Copperhead

This blog post explains the technical details.
[link to depletedcranium.com]

BTW, are you implying that only Apollo 11 was hoaxed?
book
 Quoting: Halcyon Dayz, FCD


Again,, not sure hoax or not...
About the 'real time' audio did you saw the lips movement? no!
So it's just a real time audio chat with some LQ video track.
About the dust, yes i do expect the dust to be blown by the landing space craft, and there is dust in the area, as you can see in the 'foot print' area.
About the construct, although no air, i expect a robust '1 piece' unit and not a 'toy like model'

News