Young Aussie genius whipping NASA in Moon Hoax Debate!

Originally posted by dragnet53

Originally posted by Exuberant1
Anyone else believe that going to the moon is easier than filming a convincing moonwalk here on earth?

Keep in mind answering 'yes' means you are saying that the Nation who went to the moon could not even film a convincing moonwalk scene here on earth.

It would be cheaper to film it here then sending people to the moon. Just look at CGI graphics today. It is cheaper to create weather on adobe after effects and make it rain, then let say wait months for the right weather occurrence to happen.

Just look at the move DAY AFTER TOMORROW, and all of that was CGI animated even some of the sunsets were CGI. They said it was cheaper. That is how Americans work.

Point is CGI is not necessary to fake what you see in Apollo.
Secondly, with NASA's budget, they could make a very nice Sci-fi adventure, backed by a lot of research. Imagine if Kubrik had NASA's budget to do 2001!

But even so NASA's productions are showing their age and their tricks.
Videos could have used Front Screen Projection


Photos were simple composites on sets.
Note how film was used on the lunar surface in photography but usually not in making movies. We would have had better looking images, but then they would have to work harder to hide their special tricks.

Another issue with the videos you can see that NASA wasnt able to fully simulate moonwalking. This is what everyone had expected to see:

Anyone recall seeing such displays from NASA's productions?
Check out the jump:


And people are impressed with plastic bags and feathers? C'mon.
This is what NASA managed to do:




or this was like their high jump:


Now pay close attention to how the astronots went behind the rover
to obscure their wire pulled assisted jumps. And you can clearly see that
on one or two occasions the wire pulled before the astronot was ready to jump.

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


But if they really wanted to fake it in a vacuum it was quite possible.
Presenting:

The Space Power Facility (SPF) is a vacuum chamber built by NASA in 1969. It stands 122 feet high and 100 feet in diameter, enclosing a bullet-shaped space. When completed, it was the world's largest vacuum chamber.

There are numerous videos from the Lunar Rover as they drive from one station to the next, sometimes over a kilometer. How in the name of God did they drive a lunar rover over a kilometer in a vacuum chamber less than 100 feet wide?

Easy, use your imagination.
It wasnt in a vacuum chamber!
Dont people watch making ofs on DVDs??
What in god's name would you need a vacuum chamber for in those rover scenes?
Think about it.

Originally posted by FoosM


Easy, use your imagination.
It wasnt in a vacuum chamber!
Dont people watch making ofs on DVDs??
What in god's name would you need a vacuum chamber for in those rover scenes?
Think about it.

If the rover wasn't shot in a vacuum chamber, what material did they use as regolith? It behaved like a fine powder but there was no dust cloud behind it. That is completely impossible without a vacuum.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

Originally posted by FoosM
What in god's name would you need a vacuum chamber for in those rover scenes?
Think about it.

Maybe you should. But first, maybe you should actually OBSERVE what happens in the video, and see what the regolith (oh sorry, that's 'DIRT') does.

Can't see anything unusual?

No, I guess you can't, and who would be surprised... Your observation skills are becoming legendary..


As far as the rest of your copious and "carefully selected" videos, quantity counts for nought. You have already demonstrated your lack of understanding and experience, and until you do something a little more brave than post other denier's videos with the most brief - and unsupported - claims, you have brought nothing to the thread but your ignorance of the topic.

PS - I had to laugh at this:

Note how film was used on the lunar surface in photography but usually not in making movies. We would have had better looking images,...

You're really quite good at this stuff, aren't you? Yeah, if only they'd have shot digital. After all, digital imaging in 1969 was pretty damned good... [/sarcasm]

Sheer genius...


By the way, can I make a small suggestion for consideration by potential Youtube 'reviewers'? If you get to a video, and find the magical, giveaway words "Comments have been disabled for this video", may I suggest you vote with your Back button.

Recognise that this is the tactic of people who are too gutless to accept criticism.

I am still awaiting one of the hoax believers to explain how the entire hoax was pulled off. I'm talking from construction of the hardware (were they really made to go to the moon, if not, why didn't anyone notice, if so, why not just go?), to liftoff (was the Sat V real?) to TLI and on to the moon and orbit (how did they fake the signals? how did the conversations between the astronauts and MC take place?) to landing (how was everything faked? how did they shoot continuous shots of film without edit?).

etc etc

It's easy when some half-wit with video editing software picks holes in various things. It's another thing entirely to have to put your own theory together.

So off you go lads, have at it....

Very interesting videos FoosM, never seen them before. Do we know who made them ? NASA ?

One thing I've been wondering, why hasn't NASA released all their 16mm Apollo film footage in HD ?

So far all we've got are some crappy low res realvideo (who uses that anymore anyway? ) or mpeg.

16mm is HD quality so the pictures would be stunning with the right transfer.

Come on NASA ... let's see them. Why not ?

Oh let me guess, they lost ALL of them, just like the telemetry data from Apollo 11.

Originally posted by FoosM
Point is CGI is not necessary to fake what you see in Apollo.
Secondly, with NASA's budget, they could make a very nice Sci-fi adventure, backed by a lot of research. Imagine if Kubrik had NASA's budget to do 2001!

Now pay close attention to how the astronots went behind the rover
to obscure their wire pulled assisted jumps. And you can clearly see that
on one or two occasions the wire pulled before the astronot was ready to jump.

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by FoosM

 

FoosM

Just watched the Ham Radio piece.
Just some nuggets:
"Apollo was transmitting on a band Hams weren't allowed to send on. How could they have listened in?"
"They didn't track it all the way, just in orbit around the moon"
"FCC says wiretapping is illegal!!!"

I just made the terrible mistake of watching that Jarrah White video.

It was the worst piece of drivel he has yet produced, and that is saying something.

0:00 - 0:30
The usual "I am better than James Bond" ego trip.

0:30 - 2:30
A whiny explanation of pointing dishes at spacecraft and receiving signals, seemingly intended for people who need words of less than three syllables and think 'ham sandwich' is a funny play on words.

2:30 - 2:45
Gives Jarrah White's impression of a ham radio operator of the 60's, with a PC??? Does Jarrah know when PC's became available? Save me.

2:45 - 3:20
Jarrah tries to suggest, completely WRONGLY and very deliberately, that Ham radio enthusiasts can't 'USE' the 2Ghz band (notice that the screen shots he gives DO cover the 2GHz band). They can't TRANSMIT on that band, but they can LISTEN. He keeps saying they can't "USE" the 2Ghz band to pretend that Ham operators couldn't listen in - they CAN. Yet he destroys his own point when he admits that they could, anyway. He also uses the term 'telescope' several times 'they tuned their telescopes'... Your average ham-radio-er doesn't use a 'telescope' to receive radio signals, Jarrah. That just shows how ill-informed you are. They use arrays, aerials, dishes...

3:20 -
The usual ad hominem attacks begin. He then admits that a few ham enthusiasts did in fact receive Apollo signals, but criticises them for not receiving signals when the Moon was below the horizon. What the..? Yes, Jarrah, they should have immediately moved their ham setups to the other side of the world... Unbelievably, it seems the main thrust of his argument is that no ham operator continually received transmissions for the entire trip to the Moon. But THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE for a single station!! - the only reason NASA could do it, was that they had radio telescopes (yes the really big dishes are called that..) on opposite sides of the Earth! Why the flipping heck does Jarrah think that the Apollo 11 first steps were actually received in Australia, when Neil and Buzz decided they wanted to moon-walk early??
Has Jarrah not noticed that the Moon moves through the sky???? It's sad when folks are born without a brain...

Finally, he makes much of the fact that the FCC's NORMAL rules don't permit unapproved re-broadcasting of radio transmissions from what is essentially a government department, without permission. That's a simple and routine formality - can Jarrah show any ham operator who was not allowed to publicise their data? If not, then he has NO POINT.


I tell you right now, it will have to be a something very special to lure me back to that moron's Youtube channel.

Jarrah White - your videos are EXECRABLE CALUMNY.

(And I know you are reading this, so.. look it up...)

(added)

Just for the sake of completion, the actual radio frequencies used were:
On Lunar Surface
2.1018 Ghz (Voice/Updata)
2.2825 Ghz (Voice/TLM/TV)

From Command Module
2.1064, 2.2725 & 2.2875 GHz


[edit on 8-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

Originally posted by ppk55
Very interesting videos FoosM, never seen them before. Do we know who made them ? NASA ?

One thing I've been wondering, why hasn't NASA released all their 16mm Apollo film footage in HD ?

It's quite tragic watching armchair critics who think that everything must be on the Internet, and then if it isn't on the first page of Google...

Have you examined any of the Apollo DVD's? What DVD's, you say?

Well, you could start here (or your nearest library - you know, outside, in the scary real world?):
www.spacecraftfilms.com...

And then to learn about the continual and ongoing process of improving the quality of the transcriptions from film to digital formats, may I suggest you research the company that does it. Here, let me hand-feed you a hint, seeing you can't seem to do it yourself:

LOWRY DIGITAL.

How come you didn't know this? Everyone who is familiar with film and digital imaging knows that you rescan your films as new, better technology arises. But we also know that with important archival film materials, you do not want to take it out of controlled storage frequently, so it is a balancing act to wait for significant improvements in the technologies.


There is NO unreleased film. If you wish to claim there is, tell us exactly which part is missing, from the COMPLETE and publicly available Apollo journals.

Do that NOW please - you made the claim, so back it up.

LOL best way to get rid of people who don't believe we went to the moon and that is just tired them out with the same arguments over and over.




Then they will pat themselves on the back for an "accomplishment".

oh I forgot this and this series actually has some good evidence either they went to the moon and covering up UFO contact or they faked it.

Originally posted by debunky
reply to post by FoosM

 

FoosM

Just watched the Ham Radio piece.
Just some nuggets:
"Apollo was transmitting on a band Hams weren't allowed to send on. How could they have listened in?"
"They didn't track it all the way, just in orbit around the moon"
"FCC says wiretapping is illegal!!!"

Here is my issue with people tracking Apollo on HAMs.
They have to find the space craft in space. Thats not easy to do.
The Earth rotates, the moon drifts across the sky, if you can see it, and the space craft was going how fast? Another thing, how easy would it be for NASA (and when I say NASA i dont mean every single person in the organization) to stage a few actors to say they heard Apollo signals on HAMs. And even if every HAM person was legit, NASA had communications satellites set up orbiting the Earth.

Check this out:

The network in its early years was not as robust as it is now. A failure of the Atlantic satellite in the spring of 1969 threatened to stop the Apollo 11 mission; a replacement satellite went into a bad orbit and could not be recovered in time; NASA had to resort to using undersea cable telephone circuits to bring Apollo's communications to NASA during the mission. Fortunately, during the Apollo 11 moonwalk, the moon was over the Pacific Ocean, and so other antennas were used, as well as INTELSAT III, which was in geostationary orbit of the Pacific

So a downed satellite would have delayed the Apollo 11 moon mission? Why would that be an issue?

Just in time for the Apollo 11 lunar landing in July 1969, Intelsat completed a sequence of launches that placed satellites in space over each of the three ocean regions foreseen by Clarke nearly 25 years earlier. As Intelsat satellites beamed live coverage of Neil Armstrong's "giant leap for Mankind," Clarke joined Walter Cronkite in the “global broadcast booth” to provide expert commentary on the mission and its relevance to a breathless world.

...The TV signal came from a satellite...


If you want to see what each station covered check this out:
www.hq.nasa.gov...

You will see out of the many tracking stations, only three were getting "signals from the moon". Because they claim you need 85 foot antennas which have a 9db gain greater than a 30 foot antenna needed to pick up primary communications. Those signals, supposedly captured by the MSFN, were relayed around the world via satellites. Now the question is, did those signals originally come from the moon, or were they sent from Australia and relayed around the world for people to pick up?
Now how easy would that be

Originally posted by FoosM
Here is my issue with people tracking Apollo on HAMs.
They have to find the space craft in space. Thats not easy to do.

No, not easy, so that means that they couldn't do it, right? Sounds like *you* would certainly have no chance... But your average ham operator is actually quite competent and knowledgable.

There is always the Moon to give you a rough idea where to start. And then did you know that all the trajectory information was available from NASA? No, you didn't, off course. (sorry 'bout that). And if we are going to discuss this, what do you know about link budgets and beam width? I suggest you do a little more Googling, and be afraid, very afraid, of trying to argue this one when you haven't a clue. I think this one is what brought about the embarrassing 'destruction' of dear old 'IDW', many many moons ago (sorry again..)

The Earth rotates, the moon drifts across the sky, if you can see it, and the space craft was going how fast?

Omigod, how could anyone cope with such complexity????

Another thing, how easy would it be for NASA (and when I say NASA i dont mean every single person in the organization) to stage a few actors to say they heard Apollo signals on HAMs.

Well, given there is a huge and active network of ham operators, many of whom KNOW EACH OTHER... - umm, what is it about ham radio operators being COMMUNICATORS that you don't get...? Yeah, that's really likely.

And even if every HAM person was legit, NASA had communications satellites set up orbiting the Earth.

For Deity's sake, you just said they would have to aim their receivers carefully - now you are saying they would be fooled by a commsat? You DO realise that there is a huge parallax problem in what you are saying - a satellite positioned for one operator would be in completely the wrong place for another! I mean really, you expect to be taken seriously when you post that sort of ignorance???

So a downed satellite would have delayed the Apollo 11 moon mission? Why would that be an issue?

They already had a few seconds delay to deal with (awkward but doable), but if you added to that the loss of high-speed global comm's, it would have made it VERY difficult and dangerous, if there was an emergency requiring rapid earth-lunar comm's and telemetry while the Moon was on the wrong side of earth. And even though it was early in the days of live TV, they realised that the public relations were an important aspect.

(added)
It needs to be noted that NASA DID end up using undersea cables, NOT satellite comm's, to relay the links. It was a rather last minute decision, only made after ensuring they could get high enough speeds and reliable enough transmission.



Seriously, these 'arguments' are now turning into manure.


[edit on 8-5-2010 by CHRLZ]

Very interesting videos FoosM, never seen them before. Do we know who made them ? NASA ?

yes those are videos from NASA's research for the Moon missions, if they were to fake it why would they do such researchs after all??

One thing I've been wondering, why hasn't NASA released all their 16mm Apollo film footage in HD ? So far all we've got are some crappy low res realvideo (who uses that anymore anyway? ) or mpeg.

16mm is HD quality so the pictures would be stunning with the right transfer.

Come on NASA ... let's see them. Why not ?

Before you say ridiculous stuff like this, maybe you should go thru this thread, I'm sure you'll find plenty of stuff that I posted that is from the 16mm's.
Anyway...are these 32 mins of 16mm HDTV transfers good enough for you??

just an example, DO SOME RESEARCH before posting OK???


[edit on 8-5-2010 by hateeternal]

Originally posted by FoosM

]


Here is my issue with people tracking Apollo on HAMs.
They have to find the space craft in space. Thats not easy to do.
The Earth rotates, the moon drifts across the sky, if you can see it, and the space craft was going how fast? Another thing, how easy would it be for NASA (and when I say NASA i dont mean every single person in the organization) to stage a few actors to say they heard Apollo signals on HAMs. And even if every HAM person was legit, NASA had communications satellites set up orbiting the Earth.

It wasn't easy to find the signals, but it was possible. Just becuase you cannot figure out how it was done doesn't mean it cannot be done. It's called an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

In addition, if you want to call all of the Hams NASA agents, go ahead, but you better have some proof.

Lastly, com satellites are either in LEO or geostationary orbit, so the signal would be racing across the sky in a few minutes or completely stationary. The signals received from the moon were FROM THE MOON, or somewhere in between the earth and moon. It is impossible to station a satellite in an orbit that would mimic the earth-moon trajectory, let alone the odd things it would have to do to mimic all the things from the moon (both orbit and on the surface).

So a downed satellite would have delayed the Apollo 11 moon mission? Why would that be an issue?



...The TV signal came from a satellite...

That was for the earth tracking stations to communicate with EACH OTHER, not the spacecraft.

You will see out of the many tracking stations, only three were getting "signals from the moon". Because they claim you need 85 foot antennas which have a 9db gain greater than a 30 foot antenna needed to pick up primary communications. Those signals, supposedly captured by the MSFN, were relayed around the world via satellites. Now the question is, did those signals originally come from the moon, or were they sent from Australia and relayed around the world for people to pick up?
Now how easy would that be

How do you fake a statellite signal, either in LEO or GSO, as coming from the moon, or somewhere in between?

And please try to answer yourself, using someone else's words, or videos, just makes you look bad.

only three were getting "signals from the moon". Because they claim you need 85 foot antennas which have a 9db gain greater than a 30 foot antenna needed to pick up primary communications. Those signals, supposedly captured by the MSFN, were relayed around the world via satellites. Now the question is, did those signals originally come from the moon, or were they sent from Australia and relayed around the world for people to pick up?
Now how easy would that be

The 20 metre parabolic antenna of the Bochum Observatory in (the then) West Germany was often in the news as it received transmissions from Russian and American space vehicles.

During the later Apollo missions, the observatory received and recorded some of the Field Sequential Color TV transmissions from the Lunar Rovers on the Moon, as well biomedical data and voice.

During Apollo 11, the observatory ‘listened in’ on the first lunar landing.

you can check out their recording of the lunar landing here.:

Originally posted by hateeternal
...you can check out their recording of the lunar landing here.:

Wait a minute...

That's an obvious breach of the FCC rules! I'm DOBBING!!!


Seriously, listening to that gives me goosebumps, and takes me back to when I heard it actually happening (well, a couple seconds later)..

Originally posted by Tomblvd

Originally posted by FoosM


Easy, use your imagination.
It wasnt in a vacuum chamber!
Dont people watch making ofs on DVDs??
What in god's name would you need a vacuum chamber for in those rover scenes?
Think about it.

If the rover wasn't shot in a vacuum chamber, what material did they use as regolith? It behaved like a fine powder but there was no dust cloud behind it. That is completely impossible without a vacuum.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by Tomblvd]

Dont mix two different scenes.

Scene 1: you see the rover run around in circles from a stationary camera.

Scene 2: Another scene you see the POV of the rover running along what appears to be a large landscape.


Scene 1: Could have been filmed in a vacuum chamber if necessary. Notice the rover runs around a limited location.
I would go as far as to say... imagine they used minatures and that rover was simply remote controlled. It ran on batteries after all



Scene 2: would have to be filmed in another way. I doubt this was filmed in a vacuum chamber because it wasnt necessary, what did your really see?

How did they fake it? I can speculate they also used front screen projection. Any other number of tricks. Just look at Star Wars the trench scenes:

Imagine it longer and not in trench

Or the scenes with the snowspeeders

what about the dust?,
shouldn't it stay in the atmosphere because of low gravity?
also as far as i can see the rover's moving preety slow, if it was on earth ,the dust would have reacted almost the same



also has the flag's movement been debunked?
is it because of the foot stomp ?

leaving all the arguments presented behind , i find the whole thing suspicious because it was a very dangerous mission , also would america at that time afford to have a failure with this programme after all the money and time invested ?
but being an astronaut in 69 must've been a living hell , i don;t really know how you can actually go on a possible morbid suicide mission of either lack of air or high amount of heat and radiation ? and sleep ok at night ?

reply to post by CHRLZ


the most relevant thing about this recording is that Bochum could only hear the transmissions from the Moon – not those being transmitted to the Moon from the tracking stations on Earth. (houston)

that pretty much debunks the claims that the transmittions were being broadcasted from a satellite or from the earth. they received the voices of the astronauts from the moon and the transmission from houston was received from Goldstone. then mixed alltogether on this recording, one on the rght channel and the other on the left.



[edit on 8-5-2010 by hateeternal]

Originally posted by hateeternal
Anyway...are these 32 mins of 16mm HDTV transfers good enough for you??

Actually, no they're not. What I'm trying to get at is .. why cant we download ALL the original footage from NASA. Like we can with the stills.

I think they took about 20 magazines or so on Apollo 16, so where can I watch them? Plus all the other mags from all the moon landings.

I don't want to see selected scenes provided to a video distributor, I want the original source footage from NASA in HD, just like they do with their stills photos.

Oh wait, those 35mm photos they provide aren't even close to HD, they're lower res than my mobile phones camera.