|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 12:57:41 GMT -4
I didn't make any claim about it being impossible to fake the landings in a studio. True, but you did imply it was possible to fake them in a studio. I say it is impossible beyond any reasonable doubt that hours of continuous uninterrupted footage could be produced in any facility on Earth showing astronauts driving across kilometers of sunlit terrain with a black sky above them while experiencing six-sixth gravity in a vacuum. Do you can to explain for us how the Apollo motion imagery could have been faked on Earth? And more importantly, what evidence do you have that it was faked? People have clearly shown the scenery is duplicated in supposed different locations. What aspects of the film do believe demonstrate 1/6 gravity and a vaccuum ? |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 5, 2007 12:57:53 GMT -4
I'm not making any claims about anything. Do you want me to highlight all of the claims you've made so far? If your primary source of information is the director of a crappy movie then you've got problems. What makes you think his number is right? You need to demonstrate precisely how much of NASA's budget was unaccounted for. NASA obviously spent a lot of their budget on doing exactly what they claimed to be doing: going to the moon. People saw the Saturn V rocket launches, so clearly the rockets worked. People saw the Apollo spacecraft through telescopes. The Russians tracked the spacecraft. Radio transmissions came from the moon. How much money was left over for Hollywood? You also need to demonstrate that 1960's Hollywood special effects were up to the task of faking the Apollo missions. For starters: - How did they fake zero-G and 1/6th G for extended periods? - How did they film the entire landing all the way from lunar orbit to touchdown? If the lunar scenery was a fake prop this would be impossible. - How did they fake the way the dust kicked up by the astronauts and rovers traveled in perfect arcs (rather than forming clouds like it does on Earth)? Remember this was way before CGI. |
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 12:58:36 GMT -4
And why should you take the word of the Capricorn 1 director over every other source regarding the cost of Apollo? How many sources are there ? |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 5, 2007 12:59:32 GMT -4
People have clearly shown the scenery is duplicated in supposed different locations.
Which people and how? You want specifics from us then we demand them from you too.
What aspects of the film do believe demonstrate 1/6 gravity and a vaccuum ?
If you have to ask that you haven't actually looked at the record. WHy should we waste our time talking about bits of film or video you have never seen?
|
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 13:02:31 GMT -4
People have clearly shown the scenery is duplicated in supposed different locations.Which people and how? You want specifics from us then we demand them from you too. What aspects of the film do believe demonstrate 1/6 gravity and a vaccuum ?If you have to ask that you haven't actually looked at the record. WHy should we waste our time talking about bits of film or video you have never seen? It's a simple question, I have seen hours of NASA apollo footage. The film "What happened on the moon" clearly shows scenery duplicated in different places. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 5, 2007 13:03:23 GMT -4
People have clearly shown the scenery is duplicated in supposed different locations. No, a FOX television program made that claim a few years ago, but the clips they used were actually from the same mission just minutes apart. It was a clerical error on NASA's part that labeled them as being from different missions. The audio transcripts prove they were from the same mission. Like I mentioned in my previous post, the way the lunar dust travels in perfect arcs after being kicked up by the astronauts or rovers would have been impossible to fake using 1960's special effects. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 5, 2007 13:05:28 GMT -4
Assuming you are talking about the section that appears to show the astronauts coming down the same hill on two separate days in two different locations, that is easily discredited by going back to the original footage. Those two sections are continguous. The clips used in the documentary were mislabelled.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 5, 2007 13:06:00 GMT -4
According to this site, the total budget allocated specifically to Apollo between 1960 and 1973 was just shy of $19billion. Using the individual years figures and projecting them into today's terms gives us an equivalent budget of around $110billion ... which brings us right back to around Bob's original figure. Why should I trust your figure from Peter Hyams more than these? |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 5, 2007 13:10:03 GMT -4
People have clearly shown the scenery is duplicated in supposed different locations. No they haven't. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 5, 2007 13:13:45 GMT -4
It was a clerical error on NASA's part that labeled them as being from different missions. It wasn't even a NASA error. The mistake was in a documentary produced by somebody else, though I don't recall who. |
|
|
|
Post by greigdempsey on Jan 5, 2007 13:14:36 GMT -4
Hilarious and quite brilliant. Wet sand would do the trick. If you look at the this video you can clearly see it clump together. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8-_7uFL0iwIt would also take a footprint. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 5, 2007 13:16:26 GMT -4
Grieg, which bit of this do you not understand? The two clips are taken from the SAME piece of CONTINUOUS, UNINTERRUPTED footage. The two clips were copied over for documentary use and mislabelled, but the original footage is availabe (I have it) and clearly shows the reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 5, 2007 13:17:32 GMT -4
No one is talking about "clumping". What about the fact that dust kicked up by the Lunar Rover, or the astronauts walking around, travels out in true ballistic arcs, rather than billowing into clouds as it does on earth.
Watch some footage of the Paris-Dakar rally and then some footage of the Rover on the lunar surface and then tell us that the dust doesn't behave quite differently.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 5, 2007 13:19:54 GMT -4
Please also show us an example of wet sand duplicating everything the dust was seen to do in the Apollo footage.
|
|
|
|
Post by AtomicDog on Jan 5, 2007 13:23:28 GMT -4
Yeah, I want to see wet sand fly all over the place like lunar dust does when an astronaut shuffles his feet in Apollo 15 video.
|
|
