They faked it ! The Moon Landing !! | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4126404 United States 03/10/2013 08:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Actually no, I dislike the faux Russian Space missions as well but I digress.... Quoting: SC22 28817449 You "digress"???? You equivocate, misrepresent, and downright run away from supporting any of the utter fucking nonsense you spew. What happened to the light speed issue you raised? Oh... somebody called your bluff, so you just started throwing different crap against the wall? BITE ME, you fucking insipid troll. Actually no one called my bluff because it's fact. I'm sorry, but the 1.5 second delay to and from the moon is not adhered to in the moon hoax. I've included a link to a video in my above posts which clearly shows this fact. I've also added to this, the fact that the astronaut is transparent at times which is also another glitch of the moon film. This is not a normal effect but rather a side-effect for film manipulation. That's a fact jack. Paid communist shills never produce evidence. Produce evidence commie shill |
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
User ID: 31033756 Netherlands 03/10/2013 08:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Second, which specific responses do you claim are premature? Give the time codes. Quoting: Halcyon DayzAre you sure you're not confusing the voices of people Earth-side with those of the missions crew? Have you checked the transcript? ...It almost looks exactly like ghosting. A common artefact caused by the latency of the tube. Which tube are you inferring to? The vidicon tube of the camera, as well as the CRT from the kinescope, you dummy. Now answer the questions. WHAT is the provenance of this video? WHY are you using an EDITED film as "evidence"? WHY do you believe ANYTHING could be proven from an EDITED film? Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/10/2013 08:30 PM Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
SC22 User ID: 28817449 United States 03/10/2013 08:49 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Second, which specific responses do you claim are premature? Give the time codes. Quoting: Halcyon DayzAre you sure you're not confusing the voices of people Earth-side with those of the missions crew? Have you checked the transcript? ...It almost looks exactly like ghosting. A common artefact caused by the latency of the tube. Which tube are you inferring to? The vidicon tube of the camera, as well as the CRT from the kinescope, you dummy. Now answer the questions. WHAT is the provenance of this video? WHY are you using an EDITED film as "evidence"? WHY do you believe ANYTHING could be proven from an EDITED film? LOL. It's a wonder that we've ever been able to produce any moving film without see through people. The reason you can see through the astro-not is because of the refraction of the beads on the scotch screen. Also-that part of the transmission is not edited. It does however show that the radio waves could not have traversed the distance of the moon and back. Sorry, but you've failed to counter those points. Let's move on to the construction paper, shower rods, scotch tape, of which I would equate to a grade school project. AS11-40-5922 Here at the NASA.GOV website: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4126404 United States 03/10/2013 09:28 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Second, which specific responses do you claim are premature? Give the time codes. Quoting: Halcyon DayzAre you sure you're not confusing the voices of people Earth-side with those of the missions crew? Have you checked the transcript? ...It almost looks exactly like ghosting. A common artefact caused by the latency of the tube. Which tube are you inferring to? The see through astronaut was visible on the direct projection provided by NASA. Remember, they wouldn't allow a direct feed but rather forced images to be captured from projection. That alone raises many many questions, but the television tube you are alluding to is not an issue; yet the invisible astronaut problem remains. As far as time hacks, I guess we can hone in on the 38 second marker for instance. Absent a 1.5 second delay X 2. That is basically an echo. The astronaut's mikes were voiced activated to save power. They were sometimes open when mission control was talking and it fed back into the mike. |
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
User ID: 31033756 Netherlands 03/10/2013 09:29 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Second, which specific responses do you claim are premature? Give the time codes. Quoting: Halcyon DayzAre you sure you're not confusing the voices of people Earth-side with those of the missions crew? Have you checked the transcript? ...It almost looks exactly like ghosting. A common artefact caused by the latency of the tube. Which tube are you inferring to? The vidicon tube of the camera, as well as the CRT from the kinescope, you dummy. Now answer the questions. WHAT is the provenance of this video? WHY are you using an EDITED film as "evidence"? WHY do you believe ANYTHING could be proven from an EDITED film? LOL. It's a wonder that we've ever been able to produce any moving film without see through people. You do understand the difference between a film and a video camera? The reason you can see through the astro-not is because of the refraction of the beads on the scotch screen. Quoting: SC22 28817449 You've asserted this before. People assert all kinds of shite. There's a guy here who says the Earth is flat. I suspect he's more serious than you are. It least he tries to offer evidence in support of his claim. How do you know? Do you know the provenance of this piece of film? It does however show that the radio waves could not have traversed the distance of the moon and back. Quoting: SC22 28817449 It does not. Let's move on to the construction paper, shower rods, scotch tape, of which I would equate to a grade school project. AS11-40-5922 Quoting: SC22 28817449 Here at the NASA.GOV website: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] Aaaand the Gish Gallop continues... Duane would have been so proud. *sniff* AGAIN: WHAT is the provenance of this video? WHY are you using an EDITED film as "evidence"? WHY do you believe ANYTHING could be proven from an EDITED film? WHY can't you stick to one issue? I think I'm getting close to a BINGO! Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/10/2013 09:30 PM Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 4126404 United States 03/10/2013 09:44 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Let's move on to the construction paper, shower rods, scotch tape, of which I would equate to a grade school project. AS11-40-5922 Quoting: SC22 28817449 Here at the NASA.GOV website: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] All you see is the thermal and solar insulation over the structure of the LM. Your arguments are arguments from ignorance and incredulity. Try a better argument then "gee here is something else I don't understand". |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 03/11/2013 02:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | nomuse not logged in...long time no chat. I've read through your post several times just to make sure I didn't miss anything. I couldn't help but notice there was no reply to the video I posted. Two points of argument included: #1. The absence of the approx 1.5 second delay necessary for radio waves to travel to and from the moon. #2. The invisible astronauts which coincides with a scotch screen projection. Quoting: SC22 28817449 Also...For the many you claim are absolutely convinced of the moon landing there are also many critical thinking people who know better. Unless you can produce statistics to that matter, let's just stick to the points of argument, shall we? Also, let's leave out the Ad Hominem attacks as well as they are shallow and very apparent. I am willing to be open minded on the matter, but please give me substance of rebuttal for the two points I've politely enquired about. Thanks Respectfully, the intent was not an ad hom. It is an address to the nature of truth, the nature of investigation, the very nature of thought. Feynman put it best, in a lecture to a graduating class; "Remember, you are the easiest one to fool." Science is always about asking, "Is it possible I've made a mistake?" Especially when the alternative is so far-reaching. For every group that immediately notifies the press that neutrinos had been detected moving slightly faster than light, there are a thousand groups that stop, and take a long hard look at their apparatus to figure out where the problem might be. And there are mistakes made on both sides; poor observations that are published because the scientist wishes to believe them, and good observations held back for more investigation because they disagree with the current paradigms (read up some time on the mass of the electron -- very illuminating stuff!) So it is never an insult to say that someone may not have taken a critical enough look at their own idea. Everyone does it sooner or later. Nor is it an ad hom; it is in fact an attack on the idea (or the process of the idea), not the person behind it. BTW, I did a little thinking immediately after I posted and, yes, you could achieve some degree of apparent transparency with front projection. White suits are a good start. The fact is, since such devices are usually placed extremely close to the axis of the camera lens (Kubrick used a half-silvered mirror), the projection is effectively in plane across reasonable depth. Of course the astronauts mostly pass in front of equipment and gear -- which in other shots they pass behind anyhow -- and it is ludicrous to assume that the LM and ALSEP and so forth are also part of the projection! Also, the look of the Apollo 11 EVA video is quite unlike this description of "partially transparent." The astronauts instead leave ghosts BEHIND. Their image is smeared, is larger when they move. This has absolutely nothing to do with front projection -- unless you think the astronauts were front-projected on to the background scenery! |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 03/11/2013 03:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | LOL. It's a wonder that we've ever been able to produce any moving film without see through people. The reason you can see through the astro-not is because of the refraction of the beads on the scotch screen. Quoting: SC22 28817449 Also-that part of the transmission is not edited. It does however show that the radio waves could not have traversed the distance of the moon and back. Sorry, but you've failed to counter those points. Let's move on to the construction paper, shower rods, scotch tape, of which I would equate to a grade school project. AS11-40-5922 Here at the NASA.GOV website: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] Oh, dear. Please explain in your own words how you think a front projection system is set up and how it works. |
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
User ID: 31033756 Netherlands 03/11/2013 11:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Let's move on to the construction paper, shower rods, scotch tape, of which I would equate to a grade school project. AS11-40-5922 Quoting: SC22 28817449 Here at the NASA.GOV website: [link to www.hq.nasa.gov] All you see is the thermal and solar insulation over the structure of the LM. Your arguments are arguments from ignorance and incredulity. Try a better argument then "gee here is something else I don't understand". The looks of the LM has been brought up at least twice already. Guess SC22 reached the end of his script and started at the top again. Last Edited by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on 03/11/2013 09:40 PM Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 03/11/2013 07:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Screw U User ID: 7787875 Croatia 03/12/2013 02:37 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Proof it. What is your evidence the card and the stone originally belonged together? What is your evidence the card didn't come in the mail? HAHAHAH WHAT A LIAR! The proof is in the museum, go there and look for the evidences. But you even question who "was" Xandra van Gelder!?! HAHAHA what a LIAR! LIAR! The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969 from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing. Quoting: Screw U 35818433 Copyright 2009 The Associated Press Spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder said the museum checked with NASA after receiving the rock in 1992 from the estate of the late Prime Minister Willem Drees. NASA told the museum, without seeing it, that it was "possible" it was a moon rock. Quoting: Screw U 35818433 They were rather obviously wrong. Who was this "spokeperson"?Certainly not anyone representing the Curator. Who was or who she is? U mad dude Go to Amsterdam and ask her in person about that "rock" The Dutch national museum said Thursday that one of its prized possessions, a rock supposedly brought back from the moon by U.S. astronauts, is just a piece of petrified wood. Rijksmuseum spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder, who oversaw the investigation that proved the piece was a fake, said the museum will keep it anyway as a curiosity. "It's a good story, with some questions that are still unanswered," she said. "We can laugh about it." yes we do [link to content.usatoday.com] RIJKS MOON's PIECE OF WOOD [link to content.usatoday.com] . |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 36028992 Croatia 03/12/2013 02:52 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I said... Did Americans land on the moon 1969 when the whole world was watching!? No! why!? Because, whole world was watching and there's numerous things that have could go wrong...numerous! Even the "smallest" glitch could cause fiasco...and you got whole world watching it...and you got "bad,mean Russians" just waiting for Americans to "slip" So, they recorded that in studio... Think about it!!! Maybe they went to moon numerous time before that and after that...I don't know... but I'm pretty sure people didn't see real landing on the moon that 1969. Think about it...it's just that simple! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 22213196 Canada 03/12/2013 03:14 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I said... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36028992 Did Americans land on the moon 1969 when the whole world was watching!? No! why!? Because, whole world was watching and there's numerous things that have could go wrong...numerous! Even the "smallest" glitch could cause fiasco...and you got whole world watching it...and you got "bad,mean Russians" just waiting for Americans to "slip" So, they recorded that in studio... Think about it!!! Maybe they went to moon numerous time before that and after that...I don't know... but I'm pretty sure people didn't see real landing on the moon that 1969. Think about it...it's just that simple! I love Croatians ... to the point and cut thru the bullshit !! |
Menow User ID: 636186 United States 03/12/2013 04:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I said... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36028992 Did Americans land on the moon 1969 when the whole world was watching!? No! why!? Because, whole world was watching and there's numerous things that have could go wrong...numerous! Even the "smallest" glitch could cause fiasco...and you got whole world watching it...and you got "bad,mean Russians" just waiting for Americans to "slip" So, they recorded that in studio... Think about it!!! Maybe they went to moon numerous time before that and after that...I don't know... but I'm pretty sure people didn't see real landing on the moon that 1969. Think about it...it's just that simple! It's called "BALLS", pal... good old AMERICAN BIG BRASS ONES! |
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
User ID: 31033756 Netherlands 03/12/2013 04:26 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Proof it. What is your evidence the card and the stone originally belonged together? What is your evidence the card didn't come in the mail? HAHAHAH WHAT A LIAR! The proof is in the museum, go there and look for the evidences. But they don't have evidence that the card and the stone originally belonged together. They don't have evidence the card didn't come in the mail other than hearsay. LIAR! The museum acquired the rock after the death of former prime minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969 from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing. Quoting: Screw U 35818433 Copyright 2009 The Associated Press Since the rock in the Rijks, per your own claim, isn't a moonrock, how does this proof me wrong? IF the rock was given by Middendorf, for which there is no conclusive proof, there is still no evidence that anyone at the time claimed it was a moonrock. No one was given moon rocks in 1969. So why would they give one to a private citizen nobody in the US (outside State) even knew about? Spokeswoman Xandra van Gelder said the museum checked with NASA after receiving the rock in 1992 from the estate of the late Prime Minister Willem Drees. NASA told the museum, without seeing it, that it was "possible" it was a moon rock. Quoting: Screw U 35818433 They were rather obviously wrong. Who was this "spokeperson"?Certainly not anyone representing the Curator. Who was or who she is? U mad dude Go to Amsterdam and ask her in person about that "rock" I know who Mrs. Van Gelder is. My question was who is the NASA person she spoke to? Some bureaucrat in D.C. who obviously didn't actually investigate? Or a representative of the Curator of Lunar Samples, who actually keep track of these things? And why, oh, why, are you using a MSM report as evidence? They just report what people tell them, they don't actually investigate the historical truth. It's all hearsay. Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
Halcyon Dayz, FCD
User ID: 31033756 Netherlands 03/12/2013 04:32 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I said... Quoting: Croatian Coward 36028992 Did Americans land on the moon 1969 when the whole world was watching!? No! why!? Because, whole world was watching and there's numerous things that have could go wrong...numerous! Everybody knew that it was hard and dangerous. That's why the first production run of the Saturn V was 15 units, the plan was to keep trying no matter what. "We choose to do these things not because they are easy..." May I remind you that there was a hot war going on at the time killing numerous American pilots. The astronauts were a bit embarrassed for having the safer job. William Safire wrote a speech for president Nixon to be delivered in case of such a disaster. [link to watergate.info] Why would they even bother doing that if they didn't think accidents could happen or if they were planning on faking it anyway? It expresses the sentiments of the people involved: "Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man's search will not be denied." They were heroes. Everybody knew they were heroes, because everyone knew it was very dangerous. Even the "smallest" glitch could cause fiasco...and you got whole world watching it...and you got "bad,mean Russians" just waiting for Americans to "slip" Quoting: Croatian Coward 36028992 Sure. In April 1967 three cosmonauts got killed on board the Soyuz 1. The USSR got letters of condolences, not schadenfreude. Soyuz wasn't cancelled and is now the most reliable space transportation system. In the real world, i.e. not your fantasy land, success favours the bold. If the space ship was destroyed for everyone to see you get yourself in a Capricorn One fuck-up. If it happens before the landing you can't even use the film, and what to do with the astronauts? Summarized: your "evidence" boils down to wild speculation, mostly about the motivations of people you don't know, and is not based on any actual facts. Darryl Cunningham Investigates The Moon Hoax [link to darryl-cunningham.blogspot.com] Moon Base Clavius, for all your debunking needs [link to www.xmission.com] Reaching for the sky makes you taller. Hi! My name is Halcyon Dayz and I'm addicted to morans. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 22213196 Canada 03/12/2013 04:45 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I said... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36028992 Did Americans land on the moon 1969 when the whole world was watching!? No! why!? Because, whole world was watching and there's numerous things that have could go wrong...numerous! Even the "smallest" glitch could cause fiasco...and you got whole world watching it...and you got "bad,mean Russians" just waiting for Americans to "slip" So, they recorded that in studio... Think about it!!! Maybe they went to moon numerous time before that and after that...I don't know... but I'm pretty sure people didn't see real landing on the moon that 1969. Think about it...it's just that simple! It's called "BALLS", pal... good old AMERICAN BIG BRASS ONES! LOL .... Your right ... BALLS TO FAKE IT IN A STUDIO ... Ask Kubrick ... oops he's dead. |
Menow User ID: 636186 United States 03/12/2013 04:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | I said... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 36028992 Did Americans land on the moon 1969 when the whole world was watching!? No! why!? Because, whole world was watching and there's numerous things that have could go wrong...numerous! Even the "smallest" glitch could cause fiasco...and you got whole world watching it...and you got "bad,mean Russians" just waiting for Americans to "slip" So, they recorded that in studio... Think about it!!! Maybe they went to moon numerous time before that and after that...I don't know... but I'm pretty sure people didn't see real landing on the moon that 1969. Think about it...it's just that simple! It's called "BALLS", pal... good old AMERICAN BIG BRASS ONES! LOL .... Your right ... BALLS TO FAKE IT IN A STUDIO ... Ask Kubrick ... oops he's dead. No, Bubba... the BALLS to go into space and risk their lives for REAL. Sad that you can't even imagine that sort of thing being real. |
SC22 User ID: 28817449 United States 03/12/2013 05:56 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The closest, supposedly reachable, celestial body and what do we have to show for it? Pictures of a brilliant backdrop with glorious stars from a completely new perspective, no. We get tons of videos and pictures absent a starry moon sky. Naked eye observations of such, no. According to Collins at the subsequent Apollo 11 press conference, he didn't even recall seeing them. Neil and Buzz followed suit. We get video returned with invisible astronauts which give credence to those who suspect film fraud. Pictures returned with images depicting a simultaneous focus of foreground and background objects also point to trick photography. Cross hairs covered over in images also point to fraud. Also suspect, shadows cast at different angles pointing to the use of stage lighting rather than a single source of light which would have been the sun. In later missions, moon buggy images shown in several different locations absent leading and trailing tire track imprints point to fraud as well. This would be consistent with a crane placing the vehicles on a film stage though or a solidified concrete terrain. This, however, would not be consistent with a substance so easily imprinted with an astronaut boot. Also present on almost all unmolested versions of the Apollo mission photos is a vague terminating line consistent with stage props placed in front of a backdrop. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...my friends, what you have here is a duck. |
Menow User ID: 636186 United States 03/12/2013 06:17 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Pictures of a brilliant backdrop with glorious stars from a completely new perspective, Quoting: SC22 28817449 It has been thoroughly explained to you how the moon provided no such "completely new perspective". Do you think ignoring that and repeating your paranoid fantasy will make it more true? It doesn't. |
Menow User ID: 636186 United States 03/12/2013 06:19 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Menow User ID: 636186 United States 03/12/2013 06:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
SC22 User ID: 28817449 United States 03/12/2013 06:22 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The closest, supposedly reachable, celestial body and what do we have to show for it? Pictures of a brilliant backdrop with glorious stars from a completely new perspective, no. We get tons of videos and pictures absent a starry moon sky. Naked eye observations of such, no. According to Collins at the subsequent Apollo 11 press conference, he didn't even recall seeing them. Neil and Buzz followed suit. Quoting: SC22 28817449 We get video returned with invisible astronauts which give credence to those who suspect film fraud. Pictures returned with images depicting a simultaneous focus of foreground and background objects also point to trick photography. Cross hairs covered over in images also point to fraud. Also suspect, shadows cast at different angles pointing to the use of stage lighting rather than a single source of light which would have been the sun. In later missions, moon buggy images shown in several different locations absent leading and trailing tire track imprints point to fraud as well. This would be consistent with a crane placing the vehicles on a film stage though or a solidified concrete terrain. This, however, would not be consistent with a substance so easily imprinted with an astronaut boot. Also present on almost all unmolested versions of the Apollo mission photos is a vague terminating line consistent with stage props placed in front of a backdrop. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...my friends, what you have here is a duck. It has been thoroughly explained to you how the moon provided no such "completely new perspective". Do you think ignoring that and repeating your paranoid fantasy will make it more true? It doesn't. Unfortunately, no it hasn't. This was before the time of the Hubble as one poster so eloquently put it. He also elaborated on the fact that astronomy would have been of great importance in a "real" mission scenario. That fact can not be understated. |
Menow User ID: 636186 United States 03/12/2013 06:31 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The closest, supposedly reachable, celestial body and what do we have to show for it? Pictures of a brilliant backdrop with glorious stars from a completely new perspective, no. We get tons of videos and pictures absent a starry moon sky. Naked eye observations of such, no. According to Collins at the subsequent Apollo 11 press conference, he didn't even recall seeing them. Neil and Buzz followed suit. Quoting: SC22 28817449 We get video returned with invisible astronauts which give credence to those who suspect film fraud. Pictures returned with images depicting a simultaneous focus of foreground and background objects also point to trick photography. Cross hairs covered over in images also point to fraud. Also suspect, shadows cast at different angles pointing to the use of stage lighting rather than a single source of light which would have been the sun. In later missions, moon buggy images shown in several different locations absent leading and trailing tire track imprints point to fraud as well. This would be consistent with a crane placing the vehicles on a film stage though or a solidified concrete terrain. This, however, would not be consistent with a substance so easily imprinted with an astronaut boot. Also present on almost all unmolested versions of the Apollo mission photos is a vague terminating line consistent with stage props placed in front of a backdrop. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...my friends, what you have here is a duck. It has been thoroughly explained to you how the moon provided no such "completely new perspective". Do you think ignoring that and repeating your paranoid fantasy will make it more true? It doesn't. Unfortunately, no it hasn't. This was before the time of the Hubble as one poster so eloquently put it. He also elaborated on the fact that astronomy would have been of great importance in a "real" mission scenario. That fact can not be understated. Hubble? What does Hubble have to do with it? You have already been invited to show figures comparing the resolution available from the moon as compared to the existing high-elevation scopes on Earth at that time. Go right ahead. On the other hand, you could just BITE ME. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 35435015 United States 03/12/2013 06:38 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Screw U User ID: 7787875 Croatia 03/12/2013 07:12 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And why, oh, why, are you using a MSM report as evidence? Quoting: LIAR They just report what people tell them, they don't actually investigate the historical truth. It's all hearsay. why oh why oh why LoL Liar is desperate, how come mainstream media is not reliable source anymore? Nobody's there to trust anymore LoL oh, forgot the TV - 44 years ago Middendorf, who lives in Rhode Island, told Dutch broadcaster NOS news that he had gotten it from the U.S. State Department, but couldn't recall the exact details. [link to www.nbcnews.com] |
Weasel_Turbine
User ID: 35829559 United States 03/12/2013 07:47 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The closest, supposedly reachable, celestial body and what do we have to show for it? Pictures of a brilliant backdrop with glorious stars from a completely new perspective, no. We get tons of videos and pictures absent a starry moon sky. Quoting: SC22 28817449 Which anyone the slightest bit familiar with photography will tell you is exactly what should be seen. Plus, the perspective is NOT new. The stars are in exactly the same positions. Your ignorance of those facts doesn't change their reality. Naked eye observations of such, no. According to Collins at the subsequent Apollo 11 press conference, he didn't even recall seeing them. Neil and Buzz followed suit. Quoting: SC22 28817449 And AGAIN, they were referring to a specific experiment. Your refusing to acknowledge that fact doesn't change its reality. We get video returned with invisible astronauts which give credence to those who suspect film fraud. Quoting: SC22 28817449 Expected given the 10 frame per second color wheel and tube camera used on that mission. What about the later ones with better quality? You did know there were more missions, right? I recommend this book [link to www.amazon.com] if you are actually interested in learning (I doubt it). Pictures returned with images depicting a simultaneous focus of foreground and background objects also point to trick photography. Quoting: SC22 28817449 Or the foreground and background were simply both in focus which is possible depending on the settings. more here in the section titled "focusing in the zone" [link to www.clavius.org] how exactly? The cross hairs only APPEAR to be covered in low res images and ONLY on the bright white objects. Examination of the high res pics show the cross hairs are faded and the bright areas have bled over them. Unless you think they pasted in only the white stripes on this flag? [link to www.clavius.org] More about this here [link to www.clavius.org] Also suspect, shadows cast at different angles pointing to the use of stage lighting rather than a single source of light which would have been the sun. All shadows are where they should be according to perspective and terrain. IF there were studio lighting and multiple lights, there would be multiple shadows on single objects. I dare you to find me ONE image with multiple shadows on a single object. More on shadows here [link to www.clavius.org] and here [link to www.clavius.org] In later missions, moon buggy images shown in several different locations absent leading and trailing tire track imprints point to fraud as well. This would be consistent with a crane placing the vehicles on a film stage though or a solidified concrete terrain. This, however, would not be consistent with a substance so easily imprinted with an astronaut boot. Why in the world would they use a crane when the vehicle is capable of its own movement? Why use a crane when it is also light enough to be picked up by hand? Most photos the hoaxies point to for this one show one or both of two things. The dust around the vehicle was kicked around by the astronauts as they got in and out and moved around, obscuring the tracks and/or the picture is low res and at a low angle so the tracks are not as easily visible. Also present on almost all unmolested versions of the Apollo mission photos is a vague terminating line consistent with stage props placed in front of a backdrop. Quoting: SC22 28817449 Consistent with uneven terrain. If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 16425547 Australia 03/12/2013 08:23 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Shills working really hard on this one. Lol. Getting pathetic, really. Keep it up guys, you'll bore everyone enough to leave soon and then you'll have done your duty. However, you still won't have convinced anyone who isn't already brain dead. Sort of funny, but boring. Leaving. |
nomuse (not logged in) User ID: 2380183 United States 03/12/2013 09:33 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | The closest, supposedly reachable, celestial body and what do we have to show for it? Pictures of a brilliant backdrop with glorious stars from a completely new perspective, no. We get tons of videos and pictures absent a starry moon sky. Naked eye observations of such, no. According to Collins at the subsequent Apollo 11 press conference, he didn't even recall seeing them. Neil and Buzz followed suit. Quoting: SC22 28817449 Please explain what this unique perspective is. We get video returned with invisible astronauts which give credence to those who suspect film fraud. Double astronauts, not invisible; every time there is brisk movements on the Apollo 11 EVA, you get a lingering image of where the astronaut WAS as well as an image (obscured by ghosting of the LM and other gear) where he IS. And you still haven't explained why the LM and the rest of the scientific equipment, as well as near ground rocks and soil, would be in a front-projection. That's NOT how Kubrick did it in the Dawn of Man sequence. But then, you know as much about 2001 as you know about Apollo. Pictures returned with images depicting a simultaneous focus of foreground and background objects also point to trick photography. Quoting: SC22 28817449 Learn about focus at infinity. The only times this occurs in the Apollo surface record, the nearest object is still 6-8 feet from the camera. That's well within the limit of infinite depth of field for daytime photography with a large lens. Check any photography or cinematography site. You'll see plenty of discussion on this. Heck -- ANSEL ADAMS was using focus at infinity. Not in a very clear way. Describe the scenario in which fiducals would be added prior to the compositing of the final print. For extra credit, learn how many different strips of film were stacked in the editor at the same time for the effects sequences of 2001, and how many generations there were until the final print (hint -- it's a trick question). Also suspect, shadows cast at different angles pointing to the use of stage lighting rather than a single source of light which would have been the sun. Show any image with a double shadow. Heck; show ANY image lit by multiple lights in which objects on an evenly-lit surface throw shadows in different directions. Then contact Hollywood -- they need you. In later missions, moon buggy images shown in several different locations absent leading and trailing tire track imprints point to fraud as well. This would be consistent with a crane placing the vehicles on a film stage though or a solidified concrete terrain. This, however, would not be consistent with a substance so easily imprinted with an astronaut boot. Also present on almost all unmolested versions of the Apollo mission photos is a vague terminating line consistent with stage props placed in front of a backdrop. Please illustrate this with clear dividing lines visible in Hollywood movies. Any period. See, Hollywood is smarter than that. The BBC is smarter than that. The set builders are always careful to put objects across that line so as to obscure the background/foreground division. Again, look at the actual Dawn of Man sequence in 2001. Not the film you imagine you saw -- actually go back and watch the real film. It's worth it. |
Weasel_Turbine
User ID: 35829559 United States 03/12/2013 10:01 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Shills working really hard on this one. Lol. Getting pathetic, really. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 16425547 Keep it up guys, you'll bore everyone enough to leave soon and then you'll have done your duty. However, you still won't have convinced anyone who isn't already brain dead. Sort of funny, but boring. Leaving. Translation: Crap! Detailed responses to my bluster! I'll throw some insults out and hope they don't realize that I'm ignoring the response yet again! If you have to insist that you've won an Internet argument, you've probably lost badly. - Danth's Law |