Disclosure of the moon landing hoax.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: choos

i delivered.. now you are moving the goalposts again and hand waving..

What? You drew a picture. If this were so easy you'd just give a real life example of people in sunlight. Not draw a picure.

does the picture display the concept?? does the picture show what is possible??? you just keep moving the goalposts..

As to the other part - I'm not who you think I am as I don't or haven't posted here until recently. I can assure you of that. I'm a simple dude who lives in Southern Michigan near the campus of Notre Dame. I've taken on Moon Hoax/Moon Truth for the last couple of years and found ATS to be the best place for discussion. I've read this thread in its entirety and the Jarrah White epic as well. I've admitted to thinking the Apollo landings were faked, so I do carry some bias, however I will admit when I can't explain things and that I'll be the first to be wow'd if I'm proven wrong. I don't see that happening.

i wanted to believe you werent like the other hoax believers.. but the more i converse with you the more i notice you ignoring any evidence or proof that corrects your misunderstandings just so that you can hold onto your belief that the moon landings were fake.. you are favouring ignorance, and i mean you are showing signs of a typical hoax believer.. not any one in general.

Sigh, It is, of course, not the case, thus rendering your calculations irrelevant. One need only apply an increased speed to the playback, that undoes the slow-motion effect applied by NASA. That has been shown to be in the neighborhood of 150%. Of course 2.45x looks silly! How many times must I prove your tactics wrong?

wouldnt work..

lets say a rock is dropped on the lunar surface in apollo footage.. lunar gravity is 1.62m/s/s
for a rock to fall 1m it will take it 1.111 seconds..

if you simply speed that footage up 150% or 1.5x it will now fall 1m in 0.74 seconds..

plug these into the constant acceleration fomulas and we have a gravity of ~3.65m/s/s.. earths gravity is 9.81m/s/s.. for a rock to fall 1m in a vacuum on earth it will take it 0.45 seconds..

does it make sense?? speeding apollo footage up 1.5x might look nice and dandy.. but that is NOT earths gravity.

a reply to: Misinformation

a reply to: choos

We aren't talking about falling rocks. We are talking about footage that has been slowed down and what percentage to speed it up to get Earthly results. So, the starting premise is different for your analogy, thus, why you're getting the wrong results

originally posted by: bobbypurify
Well put. I am unwaiverd by bias or patriotic dissonance. I've long learned that carrying these fallacies with you will burn your ability to think rationally, about anything. Apollo is slowly dying. It's only held up by people who are blinded by the religion of scientism.

'Scientism'?

As someone who has two science degrees, let me explain something in simple terms: science is not a religion, it is not a faith or a belief system.

Science is a method.

That's all.

It is the most reliable method of identifying patterns and explanations for those patterns in the world.

That's all.

The scientific method allowed us to develop techniques that got us to the moon. The scientific method has been applied to the data and material that stemmed from that.

Not one person employing that scientific method has ever found anything wrong with it.

The only people out there producing 'research' trying to discredit Apollo are not using the scientific method - they might pretend to be, and they might even pretend have some scientific credentials, but they actually just frauds cherry picking the evidence to fit in with pre-judged conclusions. That is not how science works.

For what it's worth, I tend to find that people who love conspiracy theories tend to distrust science (usually because they don't understand it) and scientists - until they find one they think is presenting information they agree with. A whole team of scientists with years of experience and accumulated knowledge will present the clearest results you can imagine and they will be dismissed out of hand. As soon as some bogus PhD bought and paid for from an online 'university', or even just made up out of thin air, makes a badly researched and unverifiable claim they will jump on it with joy.

I know who I would rather rely on.

a reply to: bobbypurify

And you have it the wrong way round.

Firstly, the footage is not slowed down. It never has been. It was broadcast on live TV.

If you think it was slowed down, then take some of it and speed it up until you think it is correct. Then do some measurements on things like falling rocks or objects and see if the calculations from that are correct for Earth gravity.

You have all the material you need, so why not put some effort in and show us how wrong we are?

a reply to: onebigmonkey

Proven science means replicated results. Outside of Apollo, this hasn't happened. Film is magic. I can produce the effect of being on a moon orbiting Jupiter by manipulating the constraints using known science. That is what I meant. I can see where you would find the term "scientism" offensive, and I'll apologize. I won't use it again

originally posted by: onebigmonkey
a reply to: bobbypurify

And you have it the wrong way round.

Firstly, the footage is not slowed down. It never has been. It was broadcast on live TV.

If you think it was slowed down, then take some of it and speed it up until you think it is correct. Then do some measurements on things like falling rocks or objects and see if the calculations from that are correct for Earth gravity.

You have all the material you need, so why not put some effort in and show us how wrong we are?

I argue the film was slowed and that's where our impasse is. So we won't get anywhere

ETA:

What the world saw was not the original footage, but rather a copy of a copy. Rather than take a direct feed of what the MSFN was ‘receiving’, the networks had to broadcast a feed from a television camera that was pointed at one of the monitors at the tracking station. This was done on all the moon flights and each time NASA pulled various other stunts that degraded the pictures.

So I don't know if it was live and because of the networks not being able to verify the broadcast from the moon - we have to question what was filmed on the monitor.

a reply to: webstra

Well, I'm just being honest, when I speak to people about conspiracy themed ideas I always ask them what they think about the moon hoax. And the results are 99% of the time the same, either they think the hoax argument is BS or they fall into category A.

I have come across plenty of C's though, and I know a few of B's, and a couple of D's.

These are my honest opinions, I'm not actually trying to offend anyone, call me an A-hole or whatever.

a reply to: seabhac-rua

I starred this repsonse because it was genuienly funny and true. You've got every right to think I'm an idiot and your blunt honesty is appreciated.

a reply to: bobbypurify

I don't think you're an idiot, there's hope for you yet...

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: seabhac-rua

I starred this repsonse because it was genuienly funny and true. You've got every right to think I'm an idiot and your blunt honesty is appreciated.

Nor do I think you are, it's nice to actually speak to someone who doesn't just spam garbage and seems to have honest questions. You should question things, everyone should within reason. It is important to learn the skills and knowledge to get the answers though as independently as possible.

Within reason btw I mean some things are literally ridiculous, like questioning if the Earth is round or flat with everything we know and experiments you can do yourself.

a reply to: AgentSmith

Well, I'm critical of the hoax side too. I've seen them pull stunts to make their claims more belivable. So, I don't blindly look at their claims and say, "well, there's proof!

originally posted by: onebigmonkey

For what it's worth, I tend to find that people who love conspiracy theories tend to distrust science (usually because they don't understand it) and scientists - until they find one they think is presenting information they agree with. A whole team of scientists with years of experience and accumulated knowledge will present the clearest results you can imagine and they will be dismissed out of hand. As soon as some bogus PhD bought and paid for from an online 'university', or even just made up out of thin air, makes a badly researched and unverifiable claim they will jump on it with joy.

Conspiracy theories have become post modern mythologies and for some fervent believers it has gone further than that and these belief systems have taken over their lives. Science has nothing to offer these people.

originally posted by: bobbypurify
a reply to: AgentSmith

Well, I'm critical of the hoax side too. I've seen them pull stunts to make their claims more belivable. So, I don't blindly look at their claims and say, "well, there's proof!

When we were discussing it in one of the big threads about 10 years ago or so, some of the hoax guys actually came up with a few good things which made me doubt it. So I would spend ages researching it and every time would figure out they were wrong, I honestly have not come across an argument yet that I have not been able to disprove.
I'm not as interested as I was anymore, too many exciting things happening in space now to watch and get involved in, but find it hard to kick the habit. My desire to learn and in turn educate has morphed more into a dislike for people that blatantly spam or deceive people, this doesn't include people like you who appear to have genuine questions of course though sometimes people get caught in the crossfire.

a reply to: AgentSmith

I'll tell you what: I'll see if I can generate a list of innaccuracies I've come across through my studies and list them. That may reignite this thread into what it once was. There are a few claims by the hoax side that have been determined "debunked" that I don't completely agree with. I just wish I would have participated earlier in the thread. I may have learned some of the things you've claimed to.

Okay, enough is enough, no more circle jerking each other - LET'S GET BACK TO BUSINESS!

One thing that always made me wonder was Armstrong's voice as they made their touchdown in the Sea of Tranquility. He sounds as calm as a Hindu stoner. And the rocket booster? Like, I get the no noise in space argument - but what about all of the substance of the LEM. Plenty there to regurgitate sound. Yet, none. There should be some right? Is he in full astro gear while landing or did they land and get geared up? Was his helmet on?

Let's go!

originally posted by: webstra
a reply to: yuppa

You have to realize that Mythbusters can only debunk something when they are aloud to.

do you remember this one ?

You do know that those two companies ARE SHARE HOLDERS IN DISCOVER CHANNEL right? Its liek a ATS owner talking crap about the ABove networks owners.

STILL THE MOON LANDING did occur. Ask yourself this IF the moon is able to be seen at night and sometimes the day it has to be highly reflective correct? Being that close to a reflective surface will screw up your ability to see ambient light thats out in the distance. THE SAME REASON WHY YOU CANNOT SEE THE STARS WHEN IN A BRIGHT CITY

Crap even the space station ya cant see stars when its looking toward the earth on th e daylight side.

YEah Mythbusters is not allowwed to do certain things. BUT the experiments can be ran by anyone and replicated on the moon landing and if you are honest will come to the same results. BTW YOU MISSED THE PART I SAID THAT IF"mythbusters" can DEBUNK THE THEORY IT MUST BE CRAP" right?(caps for emphasis not yelling sheesh)

a reply to: yuppa

We can understand why stars didn't show up. With whom are you debating with? And some astros testify they could see them and some said they couldn't. So which ones are lying?

a reply to: bobbypurify

the only people who lie about star visibility - are the idiots who quote-mine astronauts out of context when they are talking aboiut different mission phases

a reply to: bobbypurifyto put armstrongs calmness in perspective - listen to his calm deameanour as the " flying beadstead " training rig malfunctions while he is piloting it during a training mission - and he ejects