|
Post by thetart on Sept 1, 2010 10:44:41 GMT -4
Looks like they are underway at last. Jack White has refused to participate in the debate (which says a lot about him) but he is happily hijacking other threads. educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=16500The mods over there seem to just let him trample about with impunity. Some "Education" forum.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 30, 2010 3:50:07 GMT -4
I would like to view the entire Apollo 11 footage at double speed.Then do it. not just Apollo 11. You have to view all the six Apollo landings. Maybe you don't know that there were six of them. You need to make a case that every single bit of footage was shot on earth, not just your selected ones. Get on with it. View the videos, then make your case that they were shot on earth. Provide your evidence and analysis along with your conclusion. On the other hand, use the rodin method - just select a very small clip and do lots of meaningless analysis which proves nothing, then once you have been proven wrong, claim that the clip which initially you were happy to use for your claim has been tampered with once you find out that it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 29, 2010 15:58:32 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 29, 2010 4:18:20 GMT -4
It looks like they are almost ready to start the "debate"!
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 26, 2010 10:55:21 GMT -4
Richard Hoagland comes to mind, but his proposed cover-up was not that the missions were faked but that they found signs of alien life. He has taken HBs to task for their unscientific approach when declaring Apollo was faked. Something slightly different than your question. The Hoagland issue brings up another good HB conundrum. There are those on Icke who beleive both Hoagland and the Apollo Hoax. So Apollo never went to the moon but when they were there they saw UFOs. They cant quite figure out the obvious logic bust but that doesn't stop them believing in both!
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 24, 2010 18:04:20 GMT -4
Given the sheer length of the Apollo footage when it's uncut, isn't it really the case that all the footage meets the requirements, provided you watch the footage long enough? Yes it is. The Apollo 11 footage alone is over three hours long, and even though the camera barely moves for most of it you can see that it would never fit inside a 100 foot wide vacuum chamber, that the gravity is lower than on Earth, that the shadows (as well as being impossible with any lighting rig contained within a 100-foot chamber) move too slowly to be caused by sunlight outdoors on Earth, and that there is indeed a vacuum there. In other words, it can't be filmed outdoors, nor can it be filmed in any existing vacuum chamber, but equally it can't be shot in an atmosphere. I cant wait to see rodins response on that!! 5 bucks says he moves onto something else. The blast crater perchance?
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 24, 2010 10:30:31 GMT -4
G'day all. I am on a very poor connection right now and also on the move so I will be brief. I will try respond to all outstanding points asap but for 2 weeks I am travelling with family and friends First off - I re-iterate - there is no reason why one method (say wires or vacuum chamber) would be the only one employed. In fact I would think the wider shots likely were outside, or at very lest a large set ' atmospheric pressure. I agree that HB-ers have tended to be selective in what they choose to analyse and that contiguous viewing is required to place shots in context. I have yet to do this properly. However I would have expected if this was a deal breaker someone conversant with the entire mission footage would have posted the relevant section where say a vacuum requirement and a must-be more than 100 foot wide set were on the same shot. Now as to the Apollo reflectors - there are a number of ways this could be rigged. One is simply to fake the data. However there is perhaps a more ingenious way to do it and for that I would like to ask a question of the board. Do all the Apollo reflector sights return similar polarised photon counts or is there a divergence in intensity of the return signal? lol Instead of responding to the many questions you have been asked, you say you will get back to them (you won't) and you start raising new points about which you know nothing. This thread will go the way of all the others - you raise points, they get debunked, you raise different points, they get debunked, then you raise the original points again. Very dissapointing - you are better off sticking to Icke after all. Explain your claim that the moon rocks are faked please. Other than just saying "they are faked" you have provided nothing. Explain the falling astronaut film in the context of your claim that the films were shot on earth please.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 23, 2010 16:41:08 GMT -4
There is no need to be quite THAT snarky. Rodin has shown some desire to learn, and some people just prefer to ask human people questions. No I'm sorry but all I see is laziness. He has expected people to do all his legwork after throwing out a flawed analysis of a piece of video without proper understanding of either the nature of the video or of how such a analysis should be conducted. he may have reluctantly conceded a few points of fact but he has resolutely held to his basic view that Apollo was faked and provided ever more outlandish justifications for his position. I personally think he has long since used up any slack he was entitled to. I agree. He is jumping between three forums and resurrecting the old claims of wires without doing real research. He refuses to address challenges such as the falling astronaut analysis and he thinks he is in a high-level scientific debate with Jay W on BAUT and BertL on Icke. He thinks that gives him kudos as a genuine "researcher". His thread on the faked moon rock has gone dead due to his inability to post any evidence or even hypotheses about how they could be "faked". rodin - From the HB perspective you made a decent attempt at the jump analysis but it is clearly wrong. If you genuinely want to be seen as a fair researcher you need to start accepting when you are wrong and saying so. Otherwise you will be left with DIF crop-circle section as the only place where your posts will be treated seriously. Is that what you want?
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 23, 2010 10:19:12 GMT -4
Thanx for the book Reference. I'll get that on order.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 23, 2010 10:16:14 GMT -4
I don't want the hoax theory to die. Because of the hoax theory (and hence sites like this) I have learned a lot of interesting technical stuff about rocket science. But more importantly I've rekindled my passion and admiration for the folk that went to the moon. I respect them a lot more than internet HBs who refuse to accept the evidence. Truth seekers? My arse. This is also true for me. Before my interest in odd thinking and behavior brought me to the old BABB and then here, I didn't think much about Apollo. It was a part of my childhood but I had little reason to invest time in learning more, beyond the occasional visit to the Johnson Space Center where the Saturn 5 is on display. The question and answer aspect of dealing with hoax believers has taught me a world of cool information about rocket science. I'm visiting Johnson in September when I am in the US on Business. I can't wait.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 23, 2010 8:46:11 GMT -4
Does anybody know where I can get info on how the LM seperated on takeoff? I always wondered how the two parts of the LM were seperated and how the system was developed and tested.
Thanks,
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 23, 2010 3:50:55 GMT -4
I don't want the hoax theory to die.
Because of the hoax theory (and hence sites like this) I have learned a lot of interesting technical stuff about rocket science.
But more importantly I've rekindled my passion and admiration for the folk that went to the moon. I respect them a lot more than internet HBs who refuse to accept the evidence. Truth seekers? My arse.
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 22, 2010 16:24:33 GMT -4
The following is an interesting story about a documented case of an amateur radio operator who picked up and listened to the radio communications from the surface of the Moon during the Apollo 11 EVA. Eavesdropping on Apollo 11Given what we've said about the impossibility of faking a signal from the Moon without actually being on the Moon, this is some pretty strong evidence that the whole thing was real. So it's really this easy? A11 was validated by the simple fact that the transmissions only came in when dishes were pointed at the moon? It's that simple??? Well can you propose a sensible alternative?
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 20:00:02 GMT -4
Just a few thoughts, any comments Rodin? Apart from the crew (astronauts). The lights would need attention, after all the usual HB is a multiple light believer. Lights blow and on the long uninterrupted bits.... oh, hang on, maybe a standby set. That doubles gear and spares are required and some one has to be able to repair the lights in a suit. And the set needs power. Rodin, would a UPS will carry that load? So its multiple generators 24/7. They need fuel. They need cables and they need operators. They also need to chat to the lighting techs so maybe they need suits. That and other reasons require an airlock you can get spares in, maybe big bits. Lets see. Runners, gofers whatever the term is in the US. Director. Support staff. Riggers, camera men/women. Techs to look after that gear, You will need video operators and sound technicians. Comms will be required, director to rigger, move that cable etc, today it is on radio. Video operator needs gear for his or her trade as does a sound person. This kit breaks. This kit needs cables and these cables get damaged. Often repaired at site. Oh, and cables need to get to a control room, they need holes to pass through walls. Come on Rodin, how was it filmed despite it being bigger than the chamber? Not forgetting the world wide links to get the signals around on microwave and they need setting up and staffing and diversity and on and on. And don't forget as the scenes all showed a single shadow, very clearly defined, then the whole studio was lit by a single light. What size did it need to be to light a whole studio with one bulb? It must have taken them ages to replace. For those in the UK - how many Apollo hoax film crews does it take to change a lightbulb?
|
|
|
Post by thetart on Aug 20, 2010 19:14:09 GMT -4
Welcome fireballs. Coming in late, but here's my two penn'orth on the subject: Radio, same as everyone else. Apollo communications frequencies were published so anyone could listen in, and since radio receivers are pretty directional, you can tell if a transmission is coming from the Moon or not. Paltry, quite simply. The only sample return missions ever performed on the Moon were simple probes that scooped up some soil from the site of the landing and then launched it back. The total amount returned is a few orders of magnitude lower than that returned by Apollo. Or it would do if all six missions were the same. Apollo 11 spent less than three hours on the surface and didn't venture more than a couple of hundred feet from the LM. Apollo 17 spent three days on the Moon and drove out to more distant sampling sites. The amount collected on each mission actually increased steadily from mission to mission, and they are distinct enough to be placed to each mission. The question is less 'would it be possible?' than 'what evidence is there it was done that way?' There is not one single scrap of evidence for the existence and launch of such robots. Given the extensive development and testing that would have to go into such a technological project, that is exceedingly unlikely. Because of their sheer weight of numbers and distribution around the world. If all you had was some NASA geologists publishing the data you might have more of a leg to stand on when questioning the information given, but for the past four decades thousands of geologists across the world have studied the Apollo samples and not one dissenting voice is heard. When a hoax requires almost an entire field of science to be written off as either incompetent or in on the lie, the idea of a hoax needs serious re-evaluation. The amount of effort required to keep such a hoax going undiscovered for decades makes actually going to the Moon look like a stroll to the corner shop. Not without being detected. The Apollo spacecraft stack was highly reflective and large, and would have been one of the brightest naked eye objects in the sky. If a bright satellite appeared in the sky at the same time and for the same duration as the Apollo 11 mission then someone would have noticed. Additionally, the TV transmissions from the spacecraft on the journey to and from the Moon lasted too long. In low Earth orbit they were only in range of any given ground-based tracking station for about ten minutes at a time (it was not until the space shuttle that a satellite network was set up allowing continuous communication from low Earth orbit). The TV transmissions from the Apollo missions were far too long to have been sent from low Earth orbit. You can see this in the Apollo 7 and Apollo 9 broadcasts, none of which was longer than 12 minutes as these missions stayed in orbit, but the lunar missions all included TV broadcasts that could only have been made in space from a location that remained in line of sight with a tracking station for anything up to an hour.If you assume the accident was genuine then it does suggest that, but if the accident was staged (and if faking going to the Moon is easy then why not faking an accident to regain public interest and make a few more NASA astronaut heroes?) then the astronauts were never at risk so it doesn't matter how long it took. See the above point though: the Apollo 13 TV broadcast from just before the accident was too long to have been made from low Earth orbit. Very good post. Can you (or someone) expand on the radio things (how could you tell from a radio transmission that it was from the moon?) and is there documentation about the bolded stuff? Thank you fireballs, Its good to see that you are absorbing all the discussions. I hope this will help on the radio transmissions. It takes a few attempts to get the idea but once you get it you will figure it out yourself.... Radio signals fron space are are directional - that is why you need to point your reciever at them to revieve a strong signal, and that is why radio antennae on earth always have massive dishes behind them to focus the signal. For example, Jodrell Bank in the UK. Jodrell Bank was one of a number of recievers that tracked Apollo. Their tracking is on public record. If Apollo was in low earth orbit, the vehicle would have been whizzing across the sky at such a speed (about 8 minutes from one side of the sky to the other, something like that) that JB could not have followed it. And even if it did follow it, that could only be for 8 minutes then it would lose the signal until Apollo circumnavigated the Earth and came round again. Because Apollo was not orbitting the earth, recievers such as could simply be pointed towards the moon and the signals could be tracked for as long as the moon remains in the sky, a lot longer than would be the case if Apollo were orbitting the earth. Exceptions to this would be when the CM went round to the far side of the moon during its orbit, but the LEM was stationary on the moons surface which (as you probably know) is always facing the earth. So - radio tracking proves conclusively that Apollo was at or around, or moving towards or from, the moon, and not orbitting the earth. It would have been extremely simple for the Russians to blow the cover of Apollo if it were just orbitting the earth. But even that would not be necessary - as explained earlier - if Apollo was on Earth orbit, it would have been highly visibly to millions (actually the whole population of earth) of people on earth in the night sky. Nobody blew the cover so the whole population of the earth, including my good self, was in on the scam. I'm still waiting for the cheque from NASA.
|
|