|
|
Post by Mr Gorsky on Jan 31, 2012 8:56:04 GMT -4
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. If I am reading you correctly, you seem to be working under the misapprehension that this is a site populated by those who believe Apollo was a hoax. While the site was started by a hoax believer (who later changed his mind after examining the evidence, you will find that the vast majority of the regular posters here believe that Apollo happened as advertised. That means you can't just stroll in assuming it was a hoax and get away without presenting any evidence for your findings. Evidence is king ... and at the moment it all points to Apollo not being a hoax. |
|
|
|
Post by twik on Jan 31, 2012 11:42:32 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. OK, now I'm confused. How exactly would "films and photos" be "taken care of" to hoax a Moon *landing* on a mission that did not involve, you know, actually landing on the Moon? |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 31, 2012 11:58:37 GMT -4
OK, now I'm confused. How exactly would "films and photos" be "taken care of" to hoax a Moon *landing* on a mission that did not involve, you know, actually landing on the Moon? Forthethrillofital's entire theory is illogical because of the way the program was laid out in progressive steps. Apollo 7 was an Earth orbit test flight, so how could it obtain the photos for the next mission, Apollo 8, which orbited the Moon. Apollo 8 flew without a LM, so how could it obtain the photos for the next mission, Apollo 9, which tested the LM. Apollo 9 tested the LM in Earth orbit, so how could it obtain the photos for the next mission, Apollo 10, which tested the LM in lunar orbit. Apollo 9 never landed, so how could it obtain the photos for the next mission, Apollo 11, which performed the first lunar landing. Apollo 11 landed in the Sea of Tranquility, so how could it obtain the photos for the next mission, Apollo 12, which landed in the Ocean of Storms on the rim of Surveyor Crater. And so on. |
|
raven
Jupiter
That ain't Earth, kiddies.
Posts: 509
|
Post by raven on Jan 31, 2012 12:09:48 GMT -4
Not to mention Apollo 5, the unmanned LM test flight, was also conducted in Earth Orbit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Jan 31, 2012 12:16:17 GMT -4
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. How does that risk go away by having the photos and footage made early? That risks someone discovering or leaking the 'Apollo 11' photos before Apollo 11 flew, thus exposing the hoax. And how exactly did they fake up those pictures and footage? |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Jan 31, 2012 12:38:57 GMT -4
Not to mention Apollo 5, the unmanned LM test flight, was also conducted in Earth Orbit. I believe that LM was also flown without landing gear. So if they could some how obtain photos of it, and if they could some how get those photos back to Earth, it would conspicuously not look like the other LMs. (EDIT) Just checked ... Apollo 5 carried LM-1 and it looks like it included some of the landing gear struts, but the legs and the pads were omitted. LM-1 also didn't have windows, having been replaced with aluminum plates because of concern over the failure of LM-5's windows during a pressurization test a month earlier. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 31, 2012 14:09:37 GMT -4
The LM was mounted to the SLA by the knees on the struts. The legs and feet dangled free in the flight configuration, but could be safely omitted in other configurations.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 31, 2012 16:34:15 GMT -4
Thanks Jay, I'd often wondered about that ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by forthethrillofital on Feb 2, 2012 18:42:50 GMT -4
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. OK, now I'm confused. How exactly would "films and photos" be "taken care of" to hoax a Moon *landing* on a mission that did not involve, you know, actually landing on the Moon? My general point is that they would not hoax a moon landing without having the photos and films already in the can. The studio images must have been made before the stated dates of the various Apollo missions. |
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Feb 2, 2012 20:46:06 GMT -4
How do you reconcile that with all the evidence that they couldn't have been? The discussion of current events, the accurate weather pictures, and so forth?
|
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Feb 2, 2012 20:59:15 GMT -4
The studio images must have been made before the stated dates of the various Apollo missions. What studio images? |
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Feb 2, 2012 23:35:43 GMT -4
My general point is that they would not hoax a moon landing without having the photos and films already in the can. The studio images must have been made before the stated dates of the various Apollo missions. Cart well before the horse. Show that the photos are fake, then your speculation will begin to make sense. Until then it is foolishness. BTW, you name is the first honest thing that has come out of your many sock puppets. |
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Feb 3, 2012 11:06:24 GMT -4
The studio images must have been made before the stated dates of the various Apollo missions. You claim Apollo 11 shows non-descript landscape that could be anywhere. Yet later missions show distinctive landscape. Why the improvement? If none of the Apollo missions were real, then how and why did they abandon their "this photo could be anywhere" approach and take a more identifiable route with the photography? And if, on the other hand, they acquired the ability to obtain more convincing lunar photography, why didn't they wait to hoax the Moon landings until they had that, so that all the photography could be? In your scenario, NASA has done the stupidest thing possible out of all the alternatives. |
|
|
|
Post by Jason Thompson on Feb 3, 2012 11:12:58 GMT -4
My general point is that they would not hoax a moon landing without having the photos and films already in the can. The studio images must have been made before the stated dates of the various Apollo missions. Now prove that they are fake images and you might have an argument. What you're doing is the equivalent of debating my means and motive for murdering my wife before checking she's actually dead. |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Feb 3, 2012 20:08:28 GMT -4
OK, now I'm confused. How exactly would "films and photos" be "taken care of" to hoax a Moon *landing* on a mission that did not involve, you know, actually landing on the Moon? My general point is that they would not hoax a moon landing without having the photos and films already in the can. The studio images must have been made before the stated dates of the various Apollo missions. Soooo... given you claim that the images of Earth were taken by probes, and the weather images show that these were taken during the missions, (including those taken on the surface of the moon showing the Earth) this would indicate that these images can't have been "in the can" prior to the mission, and thus your whole claim just collapsed on itself. Perhaps you'd prefer me to add this one to contradictions. 1) All Apollo photos of the Earth were taken during the time of the missions by probes so as to get the weather patterns right. 2) Photos on the lunar surface, including those showing the Earth, were all taken in a studio previous to the missions. See the problem here? |
|
