Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,412 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,498,226
Pageviews Today: 1,902,644Threads Today: 363Posts Today: 6,290
11:38 AM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!

 
Menow
User ID: 441617
United States
05/30/2010 09:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Here is the full drama:

[link to poleshift.ning.com]

Alone the comments there show that not a single one of the Planet X believers has a brain.

Last comment was on the 17th. I wonder if any of them have
seen the recent change to the page?
 Quoting: DrPostman


Hilarious!

I especially liked this part: "...wormy a-holes like the Commentator and menow..."
Menow
User ID: 441617
United States
05/30/2010 09:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I called attention to the fact that "Zetas" say the effects of PX are a natural event and not to be interfered with, but 'they' are are interfereing like crazy. Just one more of the many, many contradictions.


"They" mean they will not interfere with it to STOP IT, as people keep asking -- whereas they are interfering to keep things calm as long as possible and give us a chance to prepare, supposedly.


 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Nonsense. 'They' are interfering with the NATURAL effects of PX on Earth (allegedly). the whole tilting, wobbling, orbit-stopping (allegedly) is PART of the whole 'pole shift' scenario.
Menow
User ID: 441617
United States
05/30/2010 09:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Or, they use your method... being so verbose and inserting so many false premises that no one can possibly keep up with all the corrections needed. Then, JUST WHEN it seems the troll might finally 'see the light', he starts all over again with repeats of 'mistakes' which drive people mad. Gee, Clare, that's EXACTLY what you did with your last 'explanation' about how the Moon behaves!


Or, Menow, they never answer the key question asked: I asked one of YOU:

The Moon is rotating, which I acknowledged on day 2, as if you count the revolution around the Sun and the perspective of points other than the Earth, then yes. For sure. And in fact this is the case so the Moon has angular momentum from that bunch of factors.

But what YOU never understood or acknowledged -- and thus thought I was saying it isn't rotating (at all) -- is that the Moon is not rotating from the Earth's perspective, and if all motions are eliminated (forward around Sun, in a Planet X cup with earth, per Nancy, plus the Moon's orbit of the Earth), then WOULD IT START TO ROTATE RELATIVE TO EARTH -- or would it just be still, facing the Earth?

The Earth would still be rotating until a Pole Shift. The Moon, whose rotation is at the superposition level of solar orbit, not Earth orbit, would be merely stopped in the cup once its forward motion was stopped, n'est-ce pas?

You answer what you think. Love to hear it.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233



Answered several times, by several people. The Moon's orbit is not at any special "level", so stop repeating that nonsense. The Moon possesses angular momentum which would certainly not dissappear if its Earth-orbit was halted.
Menow
User ID: 441617
United States
05/30/2010 09:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
BTW, some of the videos show the crap being turned ON AND OFF.


 Quoting: mclarek 986233


It's blythe, inane statements like THAT which lead me to refuse to go over this same territory for the umteenth time.
Menow
User ID: 441617
United States
05/30/2010 10:01 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I am not defending THAT it's happening. I put "Zetas" into quotation marks. I am clarifying what the claim is. And Menow was confusing the claim.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Right... as if Clare needed any help in being confusing..
Menow
User ID: 441617
United States
05/30/2010 10:03 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
(Holy shit, Menow, I bet you didn't know how important and influential you are ROFLMAO). Interfering is interfering. Look it up in a dictionary.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953



Yeah... Clare has developed a serious hard-on about me.
Menow
User ID: 441617
United States
05/30/2010 10:43 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Answered several times, by several people. The Moon's orbit is not at any special "level", so stop repeating that nonsense. The Moon possesses angular momentum which would certainly not dissappear if its Earth-orbit was halted.
 Quoting: Menow 441617



I meant to say that the Moon's *rotation* is not at any special 'level'. It is simply rotating. Nothing less, nothing more.
Reality420
User ID: 970551
United States
05/30/2010 11:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Wow. Just, wow.

Clare, a word of advice - Do not post your personal info on the internet either directly or at a remote link.
The link you gave to the Fetzer program gave your real name in full.
Since Kookville is your intellectual milieu you should realise that there are wackos who will possibly stalk you if given the chance.
The odds of a rationalist stalking you are slim, but kooks are a different matter.
Since you're a no-planer your fellow troofers come to mind.

Now, as to what can be found about you simply using Google:
- You have a degree in Art History focusing on Medieval Art.
- You like to talk at great length without saying a whole lot. This is similar to your writing.
- You work the phones for a contract phone solicitation company. IOW - you're one of those people who call at dinner time asking for donations and reading from a script.
- You have no training or education in any science or maths beyond the most basic high school level.

It's a wonder you think you can 'beard the lion' here when you have no science/technical background and your employment consists of working a phone bank.
It does explain your illucid prose concerning all things technical.
As I said - the arrogance of ignorance.

You may want to go back to where you posted the link to Uncle Fester and delete that link.

Then you may want to go back to school and take some science and math courses.

Other than that, rave on. It really is quite fascinating the level of credulity and ignorance you are demonstrating.

Have fun.


R.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:30 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Clare really ought to look through Clavius before she continues
to post utter ignorance:
[link to www.clavius.org]
[link to www.clavius.org]

She knows how to spout the talking points but has no clue
how completely and utterly wrong they are.
 Quoting: DrPostman

I have.

They are not exhaustive and parts of what they say are fine, but much of it isn't.

I'm back. I guess Geroge was right -- I do have stamina. Well, hello.

Manual F-Stops with honking bi gloves from chest, with no viewfinder and pefect exposures! HA HA HA

It was a sloppy sham, the Hollywodd part of this.

If they went, fine. But the photos are a studio set-up.

Oh, and some people remember a coke bottle in the "Live Footage". Well, Australia got the first feed AND a unique feed.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:33 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Watch the movies on the hoax. I id hours of watching. I remember it from one of the movies. If you are really interested in knowing if it's fake, then learn about it.


Wathcing moon hoax videos to find out if it's fake is NOT the scientific way to do. Because these videos start with the premise that the moon landing was fake and wont present the evidence that debunk their claims, they will just direct the viewers attention to influence him to believe their version.

If I would be really interested in this topic i would watch the original NASA footage without any comments by "researchers" who already layed out the facts to fit their hoax-agenda and without the NASA comments, too ... the pure footage.

And I see you are affiliated with Jim Fetzer the no planer ... then I see where you are coming from. I truly think 911 was an inside job, but Fetzer with his totally bunk "no-plane" theory hurt the 911-truth movement more than anyone else. He is disinfo to ridicule people who are truly researching what really happened on 911.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 986410


No, "he" doesn't have the theory; it is NECESSARY. LEar has even put together an affidavit; some of the videos show parallax problems --

So they have to be fake vids.

The people who are afraid of how it will LOOK if they come out about the lack of planes are splitting the 9/11 groups. If you really want to know what happened (and did not) you have to go to bedrock on the issues.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Well, he didn't find the equipment. He found large block structures.


No, he didn't. It's pareidolia involving distorted images.



But as to "massively documented", it's a house of cards, like 9/11.


It's massively documented.

For starters, hundreds of thousands of people worked on the project and thousands of companies, universities and research centers were involved.

I've followed this debate for a long time and there isn't one shred of evidence from the MHBs that I haven't seen soundly debunked over and over again.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 969583

I know about the distortions of pareidolia. Yes. But he found no landing stuff. Nada.

And as to the Moon hoax, no they have NOT debunked it. It's like saying Posner "debunked" the idea of conspiracy to kill JFK. He didn't. It's half-truths and misrepresenations and incomplete coverage of the evidence. Adds up to a few points right, and context and lots of points wrongo.

Some Moon Hoax advocates make mistakes, but they do not merely present one side; they ask good questions.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:37 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
FFS, Clare. Nobody says you have to go anywhere, but you should respect the topic of the thread. If you start your own thread, out of respect, I would leave it alone, and so would most debunkers here. Anyone that wants to discuss with you can. As far as I am concerned, you are more than welcome to stick around, but understand that when you make extraordinary claims, the onus is on you to support those claims. We have seen so many times that when kooks can't back up their claims they play victim and threaten to leave. It does nothing to boost your credibility.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 908953

10-Q re. not going.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Wow. Just, wow.

Clare, a word of advice - Do not post your personal info on the internet either directly or at a remote link.

It's a wonder you think you can 'beard the lion' here when you have no science/technical background and your employment consists of working a phone bank.
It does explain your illucid prose concerning all things technical.
As I said - the arrogance of ignorance.

You may want to go back to where you posted the link to Uncle Fester and delete that link.

Then you may want to go back to school and take some science and math courses.
 Quoting: Reality420 970551

As a matter of fact, I studied photography in a full program at the Art Centre, and have courses in science. My brother is also followed that as his own love.

Plus, my name is available because I did the interview. It is only honest and forthright to have one's name for an interview.

Finally, my current job lets me work for charity and lobby group interests; I hear all kinds of people every day and it is a very very good way to learn politics and real people's manners. I also do well, so no, I must not be so illucid.

:)
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/30/2010 11:41 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, and some people remember a coke bottle in the "Live Footage". Well, Australia got the first feed AND a unique feed.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Utter bilge. Do you really enjoy exposing your ignorance?

[link to www.clavius.org]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/30/2010 11:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Some Moon Hoax advocates make mistakes, but they do not merely present one side; they ask good questions.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


So far, you've presented nothing that isn't laughable.

I sure hope you have something better!
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Answered several times, by several people. The Moon's orbit is not at any special "level", so stop repeating that nonsense. The Moon possesses angular momentum which would certainly not dissappear if its Earth-orbit was halted.



I meant to say that the Moon's *rotation* is not at any special 'level'. It is simply rotating. Nothing less, nothing more.
 Quoting: Menow 441617

You are being illucid. Of course it's rotating; but in synch with our position (in tidal lock with us). So, imagine the E-M system stopped and you see revolution around the Earth, not only from the Earth but from other points.

The revolution is an illusion (one level, one relative motion) but in fact over space the Moon is seen rotating and NOT revolving around the Earth.

Which point of view is "true", Menow?

Physically, the rotation might be said to be truer; but relativity-wise, both are.

And since the angular momentum won't cease, which is right, if the Moon were halted, then FROM WHAT RELATIVITY POINT OF VIEW would it be rotating? Would the Earth see it? Likely not. Its tidal lock would not just cease, right?

So how about from the Sun? Nope. But it would still be rotating relative to the Galaxy. So yes, it would still conserve momentum.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/30/2010 11:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
I know about the distortions of pareidolia. Yes. But he found no landing stuff. Nada.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


You really are quite proud of your ignorance about all this aren't you? Until the recent Japanese Selene mission, no one has had the optics in lunar orbit with the angular resolution to see things on the surface that small. Now the LRO has photographed several of the landing sites in detail with the rover paths and equipment and the its shadows clearly seen.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:49 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, and some people remember a coke bottle in the "Live Footage". Well, Australia got the first feed AND a unique feed.


Utter bilge. Do you really enjoy exposing your ignorance?

[link to www.clavius.org]
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135

Clavius dismisses it but the woman was giving testimony; that's all.

Here is their admission: "Are we speculating? Absolutely. Are we putting thoughts and motives into Una Ronald's head? Absolutely. Might we be entirely wrong about that whole scenario? Without a doubt."

The case doesn't stand or fall on her testimony. But she was so shocked, she says, that she couldn't forget it. This is SO common that others will dismiss even as things happen to them: mental blockage and inattention is common. Someone has to be really awake to comment on some things at the time.

However, I do find the fact that back issues don't seem to have the discusion.

Cheers.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/30/2010 11:51 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Answered several times, by several people. The Moon's orbit is not at any special "level", so stop repeating that nonsense. The Moon possesses angular momentum which would certainly not dissappear if its Earth-orbit was halted.



I meant to say that the Moon's *rotation* is not at any special 'level'. It is simply rotating. Nothing less, nothing more.

You are being illucid. Of course it's rotating; but in synch with our position (in tidal lock with us). So, imagine the E-M system stopped and you see revolution around the Earth, not only from the Earth but from other points.

The revolution is an illusion (one level, one relative motion) but in fact over space the Moon is seen rotating and NOT revolving around the Earth.

Which point of view is "true", Menow?

Physically, the rotation might be said to be truer; but relativity-wise, both are.

And since the angular momentum won't cease, which is right, if the Moon were halted, then FROM WHAT RELATIVITY POINT OF VIEW would it be rotating? Would the Earth see it? Likely not. Its tidal lock would not just cease, right?

So how about from the Sun? Nope. But it would still be rotating relative to the Galaxy. So yes, it would still conserve momentum.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Why do you constantly use the term "relativity" wrongly? Are you talking about Einstein's relativity? If so, then you are dead wrong. But we've come to expect that.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
(Holy shit, Menow, I bet you didn't know how important and influential you are ROFLMAO). Interfering is interfering. Look it up in a dictionary.



Yeah... Clare has developed a serious hard-on about me.
 Quoting: Menow 441617

Are you now confusing males and females, Menow?

As to being turned on by you, all I can say is, with your atitude you make it impossible. s226
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:53 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You are being illucid. Of course it's rotating; but in synch with our position (in tidal lock with us). So, imagine the E-M system stopped and you see revolution around the Earth, not only from the Earth but from other points.

The revolution is an illusion (one level, one relative motion) but in fact over space the Moon is seen rotating and NOT revolving around the Earth.

Which point of view is "true", Menow?

Physically, the rotation might be said to be truer; but relativity-wise, both are.

And since the angular momentum won't cease, which is right, if the Moon were halted, then FROM WHAT RELATIVITY POINT OF VIEW would it be rotating? Would the Earth see it? Likely not. Its tidal lock would not just cease, right?

So how about from the Sun? Nope. But it would still be rotating relative to the Galaxy. So yes, it would still conserve momentum.


Why do you constantly use the term "relativity" wrongly? Are you talking about Einstein's relativity? If so, then you are dead wrong. But we've come to expect that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135

Th relativity insight came from imagining all motions at once - and seeing them from a beam of light.

The insight was from the superposition of all layers/ points of view on motions.

Hence, relative --

But yes, relativity theory is a specific thing, to do with light.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/30/2010 11:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
But I am more knowledgeable about 9/11 and JFK, personally.



I sure hope so, because you haven't the first clue about Apollo.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135

Not true. But whatever.

yeahsure
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/30/2010 11:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You are being illucid. Of course it's rotating; but in synch with our position (in tidal lock with us). So, imagine the E-M system stopped and you see revolution around the Earth, not only from the Earth but from other points.

The revolution is an illusion (one level, one relative motion) but in fact over space the Moon is seen rotating and NOT revolving around the Earth.

Which point of view is "true", Menow?

Physically, the rotation might be said to be truer; but relativity-wise, both are.

And since the angular momentum won't cease, which is right, if the Moon were halted, then FROM WHAT RELATIVITY POINT OF VIEW would it be rotating? Would the Earth see it? Likely not. Its tidal lock would not just cease, right?

So how about from the Sun? Nope. But it would still be rotating relative to the Galaxy. So yes, it would still conserve momentum.


Why do you constantly use the term "relativity" wrongly? Are you talking about Einstein's relativity? If so, then you are dead wrong. But we've come to expect that.

Th relativity insight came from imagining all motions at once - and seeing them from a beam of light.

The insight was from the superposition of all layers/ points of view on motions.

Hence, relative --

But yes, relativity theory is a specific thing, to do with light.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So, please stop using the term in error.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/30/2010 11:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
But I am more knowledgeable about 9/11 and JFK, personally.



I sure hope so, because you haven't the first clue about Apollo.

Not true. But whatever.

yeahsure
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Everything you have stated tonight has been in error. When are you planning to bring forth the parts about which you think you have a clue?
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 12:01 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Oh, for the photographic interested fellow --

The Hasselblad cameras were MANUAL F-STOPS.

The big gloves would NOT have been able to adjust the F-stops to all the light conditions and it was POINT-AND-SHOOT without a viewfinder, in numbers of beautiful shots and though they had many thousands of seconds there, on the Moon, they had lots to do other than photograph, yet we have a ratio of something like 1 photo every 90 seconds, or something like that.

It's all implausible, if not impossible.



Only to someone like you who has their facts all wrong.

[link to sterileeye.com]

"The 500 EL Data Cameras did not have a viewfinder, as the astronaut’s helmets restricted movement too much for it to be useful. Instead the lens was fitted with a simple sight that the astronauts used to point the camera in the right direction. This is of course not a very accurate method, so the astronauts were trained in pointing the camera all through the preparations for the mission. They would bring along cameras for simulations, take photographs and review them afterwards. The crew was even encouraged to bring along Hasselblad cameras on private trips to familiarize themselves with the equipment and perfect aiming the camera."

[link to www.ehartwell.com]

"As the use of the camera was mostly automated, the most crucial training was in pointing the camera which was attached to their chest control packs for the suit's environmental control system. The astronaut would point his body in order to aim the cameras. Films taken during the practice exercises were processed and returned to the crewmen who would study the results."




[link to history.nasa.gov]

"Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves. Additionally, the cameras had no reflex mirror viewfinder and instead a simple sighting ring assisted the astronaut in pointing the camera."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135

Of course they put it this way.

Beautiful photos of tripod level expertise (some even THE SAME FRAME CROP?), from point and shoot, with no fill light -- and all the shadow problems? Nope.

Automated? Do you know what automated cameras then meant? It meant light metering for the overall light conditions. No more. (Not counting the necessary fill lights, of course, which aren't supposed to have been used.)

Sorry.

It's fill story.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 12:02 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
You are being illucid. Of course it's rotating; but in synch with our position (in tidal lock with us). So, imagine the E-M system stopped and you see revolution around the Earth, not only from the Earth but from other points.

The revolution is an illusion (one level, one relative motion) but in fact over space the Moon is seen rotating and NOT revolving around the Earth.

Which point of view is "true", Menow?

Physically, the rotation might be said to be truer; but relativity-wise, both are.

And since the angular momentum won't cease, which is right, if the Moon were halted, then FROM WHAT RELATIVITY POINT OF VIEW would it be rotating? Would the Earth see it? Likely not. Its tidal lock would not just cease, right?

So how about from the Sun? Nope. But it would still be rotating relative to the Galaxy. So yes, it would still conserve momentum.


Why do you constantly use the term "relativity" wrongly? Are you talking about Einstein's relativity? If so, then you are dead wrong. But we've come to expect that.

Th relativity insight came from imagining all motions at once - and seeing them from a beam of light.

The insight was from the superposition of all layers/ points of view on motions.

Hence, relative --

But yes, relativity theory is a specific thing, to do with light.


Which has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

So, please stop using the term in error.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135

Yes, it does. It means the insights of relativity relate to why I used relativity, instead of "relative". But it is technically wrong to use it that way so change the term to "relative" and now see what I mean.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/31/2010 12:03 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

A resident of Perth, Australia, with the pseudonym Una Ronald, said she saw a soft drink bottle in the frame which was edited out of later versions, and said that many articles appeared discussing this in The West Australian newspaper at the time. Western Australia was the only place in the world that got their feed 'live' without delay.[23]

It is true that Australian viewers saw the footage first, as the downlink was to several radio-telescopes in New South Wales, including the famous Parkes Observatory.[24] But the lead over Houston's transmission was only 6 seconds. Not enough time to do a convincing superimposition of a bottle being kicked by an astronaut, and not enough time to convincingly remove a bottle kicked by an actor, even with today's technology, and even if the operator was prepared in advance.
Transmissions from the moon required video signals of very different design than that of ordinary television, and were converted to standard video by pointing a camera at a video screen, a process known as kinescope[24]-- similar to the predominant method of recording TV in the day -- to 16mm film, not to video-tape, which was expensive and cumbersome.[25] The process is vulnerable to added reflections between the monitor glass and the camera lens. "Ghost" mirror images of highlights appear throughout the recordings of the broadcast video and are undoubtedly a result of this process.[26] Such artifacts were noticed at the time by the operators, though some of them may have been introduced in the recording of the broadcast, rather than during the preparation for broadcast.
Analysis shows an optical artifact fitting the description given. It is clearly caused by a reflection inside the kinescope conversion system. Its motion precisely mirrors Aldrin's in the shot (see Kick the bottle and "Una Ronald").
An MPEG video segment available directly from NASA, said to be of the exact footage in question,[27] does indeed show artifacts which correspond to ghosting occurring -- although none obviously resemble any type of bottle. Indeed, with the quality of the recording available, spotting a stray bottle on the "set" is a hard task, even when told what to look for, where and when.
A researcher who examined archival copies of the editions of the paper surrounding this time was unable to find any evidence of discussion described by the original source.[23]
"Una Ronald"'s true identity has been kept secret (however the brand-name of the soft drink bottle has been widely promoted), and her claims have only been relayed by one source.
According to one source,[23] the claim from "Una" distinctly mentioned that she had to "stay up late" to watch the moon landing live. This may indicate that she is an invention of someone who is not from Australia, or who has little knowledge of the Moon Landing, as those who did watch the moon landing live in Australia usually recall that it occurred in the middle of the Australian day. This event was the news-of-the-day and the talk-of-the-town, the world over, and it requires a stretch of the imagination to conceive that someone who witnessed it could misplace the timing so grossly, and yet accurately recall the presence of a bottle flashing past in the blink of an eye, well enough to discount the weight of evidence in favour of the belief that humankind did in fact reach the moon. All Australian school children, where possible, were given the opportunity to watch it on television live -- a very very rare treat indeed, in 1969 in an Australian school![28]
It would be technically incorrect to say that Western Australia received the footage "before the rest of the world", since this discounts the remainder of Australia. So if that is what was claimed in the original source for the claim, then that is one more glossing-over of the specific details of the event, which does not count in their favour, and demonstrates an actual lack-of-familiarity with Australia.
Parkes puts the time of the broadcast at 12:54pm, and WA is 2 hours behind Australian Eastern Standard Time,[29][dead link] so any live broadcast would have been received there at around 11am local time. (Daylight saving time is not active in the Southern Hemisphere in July when the moon landing took place, so the calculation is simplified.) So assuming "Una" did indeed watch her broadcast late at night, then logically the reason her footage differed from that seen by the rest of the world must have been that it had been doctored between the time of the live broadcast when most of the world failed to observe anything unusual, and her later viewing some kind of delayed broadcast[23] (none is known to have taken place, but the possibility is hard to rule out).
However it is not difficult to verify that video-tape technology was not widely available in 1969, and was bulky, expensive and required specialist knowledge to operate.[25][30] Film was still the predominant storage medium, even for professional archiving of television broadcasts.[24] Altering a video tape would require access to prized equipment, which would be unlikely to be available to the casual practical-joker, even if they had the ability to operate it so well.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/31/2010 12:06 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Of course they put it this way.

Beautiful photos of tripod level expertise (some even THE SAME FRAME CROP?), from point and shoot, with no fill light -- and all the shadow problems? Nope.

Automated? Do you know what automated cameras then meant? It meant light metering for the overall light conditions. No more. (Not counting the necessary fill lights, of course, which aren't supposed to have been used.)

Sorry.

It's fill story.
 Quoting: mclarek 986233


Wrong again. In broad daylight with no atmosphere, they used a high f-stop which, if indeed you know ANYTHING about photography, produces a hugely deep depth of field, so focuing isn't an issue. And have you seen the hundreds of badly framed photos in the NASA Apollo photo archive? Obviously, only the good ones are published in LIFE magazine and books, but there remain a good percentage that were crappy that are there for anyone to see in the online archives.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 795135
United States
05/31/2010 12:11 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Of course they put it this way.

Beautiful photos of tripod level expertise (some even THE SAME FRAME CROP?), from point and shoot, with no fill light -- and all the shadow problems? Nope.

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 795135


WHAT shadow problems? Again, your ignorance precedes you. The subjects in the photographs are surrounded by the moon's surface lit by direct sunlight (brighter than any on earth through our atmosphere) scattering fill light into what would be non-directly lt areas. The astronauts are wearing WHITE suits and the LM is covered in reflective foil.
mclarek
User ID: 986233
Canada
05/31/2010 12:15 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: Debunker Talk LIVE Chat 24/7 - A debunker's paradise!!
Possibly a little admission, flying by, so to speak:
[link to youtube.com]

Very odd:
[link to youtube.com]

Mistake -- sloppy?:
[link to youtube.com]

But of course, one of the keys:
[link to youtube.com]

There are many small keys ... but most signs are inconclusive without the keys.

:(

News