|
Post by hagbard on Mar 21, 2010 8:57:41 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by HeadLikeARock (was postbaguk) on Mar 21, 2010 9:38:00 GMT -4
I echo your thoughts about the style of presentation of SVector's films. I remember telling him at the time that he should have laid off the personal attacks and just dealt with the evidence: it would have given the film much more gravitas. As for the evidence presented, I think it's pretty much been discussed ad infinitum on both this and other boards. Take the waving flag for example. There are several indicators that suggest low gravity and a vacuum, and also rule out an atmosphere. Look at the manner the dust moves when the first astronaut is making very small foot movements (near the start of the film). I've never seen anything like that on Earth. Examine the motion of the flag once it starts moving. It moves with a regular, pendulum-like oscillation. If that was filmed on Earth, there would be evidence of fluttering, and also of atmospheric damping. If you try to replicate the motion using a 5'x3' nylon flag, the movement is very quickly damped, and there is noticeable fluttering of the flag. I know because I've tried. The flag in the Apollo footage moves back and forward something like 20 times, a feat I could not even come to repeating using my flag. I always find it fascinating that on the one hand some people are willing to believe that a fully documented historical event was faked, despite the plethora of evidence supporting the landing, yet on the other are quite willing to believe something as outlandish as it was filmed on an outdoor studio on the moon itself. You're presenting evidence that you believe (wrongly IMO) shows the Apollo 15 footage was filmed on Earth, yet you're open to the possibility that it was filmed on the moon after they got there with reverse engineered alien technology, a wild speculation for which there is no credible evidence? You can't really have it both ways. There's nothing wrong with being an open-minded skeptic, but the invisible pink unicorns at the bottom of my garden tell me you're wrong!
|
|
|
Post by Daggerstab on Mar 21, 2010 11:00:06 GMT -4
hagbard, because of your last paragraph I doubt that anything I write will have any effect on you, but it has been a slow day, so, for the benefit of the random observer, Blades out!In loving memory of Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene, two men who weren’t afraid to turn the thoughts of many into words. I don't know how it is called, but I'm pretty sure declaring someone (especially oneself) as the speaker for the silent thoughts of many is some kind of fallacy. Svector also quotes the statement denouncing the Fox TV pro-hoax production made by Dr James van Allen, discoverer of the radiation belts that surround the Earth which bear his name. What Svector doesn’t refer to is an earlier statement made by van Allen in which he says words along the lines of: “There exists around the Earth a region of intense radioactive particles against which astronauts will need to be protected”. How dangerous were these radioactive particles? Did they know at the time Apollo was being planned? These two quotes seem contradictory to me. You know, if "moon hoax hypothesists" really did care about the truth, they would check when the earlier quote was made, what was the state of the scientific knowledge then, and what advances in it were made between the original comment and the Apollo flights. Anyway, the Van Allen belts and the trajectory the Apollo flights took to avoid the worst parts of them are described in detail here: www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htmThe Russian Zond 5 sent a biological payload, including a pair of tortoises, on a lunar fly-by. The critters suffered no sign of radiation damage. Actually, do you even know that the USSR had a competing lunar program? www.astronautix.com/articles/sovjects.htm
|
|
|
Post by tedward on Mar 21, 2010 12:04:09 GMT -4
Well, without resorting tho the crutch that is youtube, can you support your claims? In your own words if you can.
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 21, 2010 12:22:46 GMT -4
The new book due out in June of this year, "Live TV From the Moon" details quite comprehensively how the television cameras operated exactly as NASA said they did, sent the signal back to earth exactly as NASA said they did, and arrived on million's of people's TV sets just like they said they did. No trickerey, no blue screen, just good old TV theory put into ingenious practice by a bunch of very dedicated engineers.
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Mar 21, 2010 13:38:46 GMT -4
Svector's account is currently suspended, so including all those links was pointless. It did make me suspicious enough to google a part of your text though and I found it's a complete copy and paste of this site: hpanwo.blogspot.com/2009/01/i-went-to-godamn-moon.htmlHi Ben Emlyn-Jones (or unoriginal plagiarist) and welcome to Apollohoax.net
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 21, 2010 14:10:29 GMT -4
The new book due out in June of this year, "Live TV From the Moon" details quite comprehensively how the television cameras operated exactly as NASA said they did, sent the signal back to earth exactly as NASA said they did, and arrived on million's of people's TV sets just like they said they did. No trickerey, no blue screen, just good old TV theory put into ingenious practice by a bunch of very dedicated engineers. Gosh, Dwight, that book sounds fascinating! Can I acquire a copy of it from my local retailer for a reasonable price? Oh, and when I do, can I get you to mail me a sticker with an autograph? No point in having books written by your friends if they aren't signed, right? Regarding the OP, I agree that Bill Kaysing and Ralph Rene weren't afraid; so what? There are a lot of people who aren't afraid to declare things which are flatly wrong. Also, is a website that just discusses the mountains of evidence of the Apollo missions considered an anti-hoax site in this opinion? Does that, then, mean that a site similarly discussing the Invasion of Normandy is anti-Normandy hoax, or just following the evidence?
|
|
|
Post by carpediem on Mar 21, 2010 14:29:22 GMT -4
in fact its possible that the Apollo footage was indeed filmed in an outdoor studio on the moon or a similar airless heavenly body. ???I believe you're the first person who's come here who thinks the moon landings were faked on the moon. It would certainly explain how it looks so realistic.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Mar 21, 2010 14:52:15 GMT -4
"Hospital Porters Against the New World Order" ?
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 21, 2010 15:21:55 GMT -4
The Apollo craft took off from the NASA Cape Canaveral space centre in Florida, but did not go to the moon and merely remained in low Earth orbit. The visual record was then secretly filmed in a studio on Earth and the rocks provided were just ordinary Earth rocks; either that or real moon rocks provided by unmanned craft like the Luna probes. It's strange that the Russians who tracked the Apollo spacecraft never reported this, and that no one saw the spacecraft in Earth orbit with the naked eye. And what kind of tautological reasoning is this about rocks? "The Moon rocks aren't really from the Moon, unless they are, in which case they were retrieved by unmanned spacecraft." How convenient for conspiracy theorists. Do you believe that Gemini 10, Gemini 11 and Zond 5 were real flights? What about the ISS? You know there is a nefarious government conspiracy, you just don't know which one. Okay. If the Van Allen radiation makes it too dangerous to go to the Moon, how did they get to that "outdoor studio on the Moon" to film the Apollo scenes? Doesn't that contradict your earlier claim about radiation?
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Mar 21, 2010 15:22:36 GMT -4
The new book due out in June of this year, "Live TV From the Moon" details quite comprehensively how the television cameras operated exactly as NASA said they did, sent the signal back to earth exactly as NASA said they did, and arrived on million's of people's TV sets just like they said they did. No trickerey, no blue screen, just good old TV theory put into ingenious practice by a bunch of very dedicated engineers. Gosh, Dwight, that book sounds fascinating! Can I acquire a copy of it from my local retailer for a reasonable price? Oh, and when I do, can I get you to mail me a sticker with an autograph? No point in having books written by your friends if they aren't signed, right? Of course!! Because I am so great and loved by all, I'll even send you two!!! I'm just happy my ego hasn't swelled because of all the fame and fortune... Heck, that'd mean I'd have to start making series after series of youtube videos just to make sure I never fall out of the public eye, because, as we all know, Youtube is the center of the universe as we know it.
|
|
|
Post by banjomd on Mar 21, 2010 16:54:00 GMT -4
hagbard, You obviously have done a lot of research. Have you heard of Alexei Leonov?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Mar 21, 2010 17:57:26 GMT -4
hagbard, do you have a question? Simply cutting and pasting an entire web page and posting it here verbatim is no way to have a discussion. Do you agree with what you posted? Do you think it is utter nonsense? Is there something in particular about it that you want to discuss? We are clueless about your intentions unless you speak for yourself and tell us why you posted this information. I'm not going to waste my time guessing. If you want to have a discussion, please do so in your own words.
|
|
|
Post by hagbard on Mar 21, 2010 21:58:28 GMT -4
The words are mine. I am Ben Emlyn-Jones AKA Hagbard Celine.
Hospital Porters Against the New World Order
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Mar 21, 2010 22:15:32 GMT -4
Do you plan to answer any of the questions asked of you? Or did you just come here to promote your site?
|
|