|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 19, 2010 21:50:32 GMT -4
Excellent post all around, but I want to focus on the bolded part. I am tending to believe this is true, but is there documentation of this? (If there is, can it be trusted?) Check the link in Reply #9
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 19, 2010 21:55:34 GMT -4
Check the link in Reply #9 I did; that does appear to help.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 19, 2010 21:58:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 19, 2010 22:05:48 GMT -4
Thanks for the links! ;D But the only problem I have is with the moon rock one. How can we trust those people? Could NASA have paid them off? I'm covering all the bases here...
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 19, 2010 22:13:27 GMT -4
Could NASA have paid them off? Maybe. Is there any evidence suggesting they did? No.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Aug 19, 2010 22:21:24 GMT -4
The reason I don't buy the idea that NASA could just bribe people into going along with the hoax is that a) it's a lot of people and would get really expensive, and b) it would be an ongoing expense for pretty much the rest of time. They would have to bribe every new scientist who could potentially expose the hoax... forever.
Also, eventually someone is going to get a guilty conscience and expose the hoax despite the fact that they took the bribe.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Aug 19, 2010 22:31:01 GMT -4
Or someone of principle who refused to take the bribe in the first place. It has been known to happen, after all.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 19, 2010 23:46:44 GMT -4
The reason I don't buy the idea that NASA could just bribe people into going along with the hoax is that a) it's a lot of people and would get really expensive, and b) it would be an ongoing expense for pretty much the rest of time. They would have to bribe every new scientist who could potentially expose the hoax... forever. Also, eventually someone is going to get a guilty conscience and expose the hoax despite the fact that they took the bribe. This is very true. Here's what I have been able to put together so far: 1) NASA claims to have put a man on the moon (duh) 1a) Claims backed up by: -pictures -moon rocks (which I still doubt somewhat) -repeated missions -Russians never said anything -There is 3rd party evidence -etc. I still doubt the moonrocks for the reasons I've listed (if clarification is needed, please ask). And I can still see it as a possibility that it was filmed.... I guess I need some sense beat into me (with a moonrock)
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 19, 2010 23:51:09 GMT -4
The Apollo footage was filmed by people like Ed Fendell, yes.
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 20, 2010 0:00:45 GMT -4
The Apollo footage was filmed by people like Ed Fendell, yes. I'm sorry, but I don't quite understand
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 20, 2010 0:04:28 GMT -4
Fendell was the guy in Mission Control who remotely operated the Lunar Rover camera to film the EVAs on Apollo 15, 16 and 17.
You said it was "a possibility that it was filmed," who do you think filmed it if not people like him?
|
|
|
Post by fireballs on Aug 20, 2010 0:06:50 GMT -4
Fendell was the guy in Mission Control who remotely operated the Lunar Rover camera to film the EVAs on Apollo 15, 16 and 17. Makes sense then But what are the greatest reasons why the missions were not filmed in a studio and were real?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Aug 20, 2010 0:11:31 GMT -4
Well, plenty of reasons have already been given in this thread. What about the Apollo hardware and astronaut footpaths visible in the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter pictures of the Moon? www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.htmlCan we flip this around? What are the greatest reasons why you don't think the missions were real?
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Aug 20, 2010 0:38:45 GMT -4
Thanks for the links! ;D But the only problem I have is with the moon rock one. How can we trust those people? Could NASA have paid them off? I'm covering all the bases here... Highly unlikely. Here are a few things to keep in mind too. - NASA sent parts of the Goodwill Moonrock to 134 nations (1 wasn't sent), any of which could have been removed from the protective casing and examined independently.
- Non-American Gelogists have had the oppurtunity to study Apollo moonrock samples
- Geologists have compared the samples returned by Apollo with the samples returned by the Soviet Unmanned missions.
- The Apollo samples actually ended the debate on the moon's formation not by backing one of the then current theories, but by forcing both to be abandoned and a new one developed based on the geologists results.
- The moonrocks held a number of major surprises for geologists, including the lack of water found in them.
If they were faked then: They took a huge risk giving samples out to non-Americans, and even countries who are hostile to the US. If they are paying them to keep quiet, the bill must be huge as they'd have to be paying off every single geologist on the planet. Not only that, but the Soviets would have had to have faked their samples too, and on top of that, they'd have had to totally rewritten the Science books on Earth and Lunar formation all based on a hoax that everyone knew about. Do you really think that this is likely with not one person anonymously going to the papers about it? Keep in mind that Clinton couldn't even have a quickie in the Oval Ofice without being found out and for the moonrocks to be faked would require thousands of people from different countries all to be in on it and remain quiet.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 4:07:42 GMT -4
Fendell was the guy in Mission Control who remotely operated the Lunar Rover camera to film the EVAs on Apollo 15, 16 and 17. Makes sense then But what are the greatest reasons why the missions were not filmed in a studio and were real? Heres a few - The motion of the Astronauts is consistent with being in a vacuum (ballistic trajectories of all objects, dust, flag oscillations, etc). The motion of the astronauts is consistent with moon gravity (simply filming it on earth then slowing down the film to make it look like they are on the moon is not sustainable, as can be demonstrated by viewing many hours of footage speeded up). The results are just not consistent. The shadows of the astros and equipment move at a completely different speed than they would on earth. See other thread. Also, there is only ever one single shadow seen at all times. If it was shot in a studio then it would have been exceptionally difficult to produce a single shadow over the whole set. The area covered by the astros is so large it would have needed a massive vacuum studio, for which there is no evidence of existence. There is probably more but thats my quick summary for you.
|
|