|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Jan 21, 2012 19:04:18 GMT -4
I have a theory that I think must be correct. I believe that they did the mock footage for Apollo 8 on Apollo 7. Or maybe Apollo 6 sneaking people on board. Something sneaky like that. They put the astronauts for 11 in 9 or 10 and then they have the mock footage.
|
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 21, 2012 19:50:24 GMT -4
Did you actually read this thread? The footage from Apollo 11 matches weather imagery from the dates that they were in space.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ranb on Jan 21, 2012 21:59:37 GMT -4
Or maybe Apollo 6 sneaking people on board. Something sneaky like that. Tell us more about Apollo 6 please? Ranb |
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Jan 22, 2012 5:39:21 GMT -4
Naw....I wanna hear how an Earth-Orbit mission is any use at all in gathering materials to fake a mission that circles the Moon and takes pictures of the far side (as well as pictures of the Earth from much, much further than low orbit).
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 23, 2012 7:58:02 GMT -4
I have a theory that I think must be correct. I believe that they did the mock footage for Apollo 8 on Apollo 7. Or maybe Apollo 6 sneaking people on board. Something sneaky like that. They put the astronauts for 11 in 9 or 10 and then they have the mock footage. This can only be a joke, right? If you're going to fake the footage anyway, what difference does it matter what flight you do it on? And again, another thread over thirty pages long that you have totally and utterly ignored before presenting your ridiculous claim. |
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Jan 24, 2012 16:21:53 GMT -4
I have a theory that I think must be correct. I believe that they did the mock footage for Apollo 8 on Apollo 7. Or maybe Apollo 6 sneaking people on board. Something sneaky like that. They put the astronauts for 11 in 9 or 10 and then they have the mock footage. This can only be a joke, right? If you're going to fake the footage anyway, what difference does it matter what flight you do it on? And again, another thread over thirty pages long that you have totally and utterly ignored before presenting your ridiculous claim. It would be important to have the photos in hand. Too risky any other way. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 24, 2012 16:28:23 GMT -4
Do you have any evidence for these beliefs you present?
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 24, 2012 16:43:12 GMT -4
It would be important to have the photos in hand. Too risky any other way. You do realise that Apollo took place in the late 1960's early 1970's, before OSHA laws, and during a period of time when there was the Vietnam War going on and 1 in 3 test pilots were coming back from their flights in a body bag? Do you really think they cared about risk? |
|
|
|
Post by dwight on Jan 24, 2012 18:44:41 GMT -4
As Brian Binnie said to me, at least in the rocketship you don't have an enemy on your tail trying to shoot your sorry backside out of the sky.
|
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 25, 2012 1:06:51 GMT -4
What exactly is that risk?
People were killed in the shuttle program, twice. It didn't bring the program to a halt. Why exactly do you think that the program managers in the 60s would have been more risk-averse than those in the 80s?
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Jan 25, 2012 1:53:38 GMT -4
I recommend the otherwise abysmal film Capricorn One for it's only positive contribution to the Apollo Hoax discussion: A beautiful illustration of exactly why concern for astronaut safety would be a monumentally stupid motivation to perpetrate a hoax.
|
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Jan 28, 2012 18:03:27 GMT -4
What exactly is that risk? People were killed in the shuttle program, twice. It didn't bring the program to a halt. Why exactly do you think that the program managers in the 60s would have been more risk-averse than those in the 80s? You misunderstand me. The risk has nothing to do with the lives of the astronauts. Their lives are not at risk anyway because this is a hoax. I thought that was understood here at this web site. As it is a hoax they would want to have the films and photos all taken care of beforehand. The risk is that the hoax would be discovered. There is no risk that the astronauts would die or be injured. |
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 28, 2012 18:06:11 GMT -4
The risk is that the hoax would be discovered. ...a risk that could have been avoided by actually going to the Moon. And that's exactly what they did. |
|
|
|
Post by laurel on Jan 28, 2012 18:06:35 GMT -4
Are you ever going to provide any evidence for your hoax claims?
|
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 30, 2012 12:52:24 GMT -4
The risk is that the hoax would be discovered. Yes, you argued this when you tried to say that's why Al Bean "intentionally" damaged the camera and why there are no tourist pictures of Neil Armstrong. All supposed evidence of trying to limit what's available so there's less to explain and less to tip off smart people. The problem is that what remains after all this careful alleged editing is still a mountain of evidence and is still picked through by conspiracy theorists to find "obvious inconsistencies and flaws." If NASA was so scared about people picking through their evidence, then why did they provide any evidence at all? And why are the people who find "errors" in the Apollo record inevitably the anonymous self-proclaimed "experts" who play all sorts of silly anonymity games? In the real world there is simply no controversy; the Apollo photos are well studied and accepted as authentic by all qualified experts. |
|
