Take Your Best Shot: The Moon Landings Were A HOAX!

Originally posted by delusion


So how was the pre-recorded footage sent from space to the antennas that then re-transmitted it back to america? Did they pack in a video player or whatever the equivalent would be into the spacecraft itself?
Speculate to completion.

It was beamed from the moon to Australia, it wasn't in our skies at the time. The feed was re-transmitted from Australia to NASA.

Working on an animated .gif.. only posting because the one I put up didn't work.

Originally posted by JayDub113


It was beamed from the moon to Australia, it wasn't in our skies at the time. The feed was re-transmitted from Australia to NASA.

Yeah I know

The scenario of playing pre-recorded footage has to take that into account - pre-recorded footage that is then transmitted from outer space to australia for re-transmision needs to be stored on film, and then played on some kind of transmitter. That takes up space. And they didn't have video players back then.

If it was a mix of real and fake footage (which seems ridiculously risky) there would maybe be a sudden change in quality also as it was switched while the aliens or monoliths or whatever appeared, then they would switch back to the real transmission. All co-ordinated and done before it reached australia. So Apollo would really have been a television editing centre.
It gets more implausible the more the scenario is followed through to its logical end.
Something hoax proponents rarely do, or can only do by ignoring established facts.

Was the footage on the moon actually recorded on to film in the cameras, or was it all just transmitted signals, which were decoded onto tape on earth?

Also, how many hours of continuous video transmission? I know the TV coverage was like a couple of days, but how long was the continuous moon footage? How much film would it take up space wise?

reply to post by delusion


I'm not saying they faked the transmission, but it they were going to do it, with pre-recorded footage, then it makes the most sense to beam it from the moon. Then while they showed it, they could run around and play with the ruins or martians or whatever.

Originally posted by delusion

Originally posted by SayonaraJupiter

....The pathetic LRO doctored images of Apollo landing sites are just an obvious clue that NASA is covering up. ....

Could you focus on this claim and present a case for it?

Take a look at the "stealth LRV".

It's nothing more than a black, shadowy blob. No reflections.
Also notice that this is not strictly a NASA image... this is a NASA/ASU image because NASA/ASU Board of Regents have established a legally binding copyright agreement with regard to the release of these "enhanced" images.

Here are some of the terms of this copyright agreement,

These images, and their associated derived products, may not be copied, reverse engineered, decompiled, disassembled, translated, modified or have derivative works made of the imagery, in whole or in part. You also may not rent, disclose, publish, sell, assign, lease, sub-license, market, or transfer the imagery or any part thereof or use it in any manner not expressly authorized.

ASU has the ability to paint in astronaut "footpaths" and LRV "tracks" literally anywhere. But if they want to show you a shadowy blob they will simply use a spray paint tool over the position where the LRV should be.

Originally posted by JayDub113

Yeah, it was a response to someone else suggesting it was half fake half real.
But IF they faked the transmission, they would have to get all that equipment up to the moon, hours and hours of continuous film footage, plus a way to play and transmit it.
Doesn't really seem possible, given the observed facts, so it's not really on open option.

Here you go. I submit the following as PROOF of HOAX of "one particular piece" of moon landing footage.

I will treat this as a scientist. I will give you my hypothesis and then present the evidence that I have supporting that hypothesis. It is my theory. And like any other scientific theory, it cannot be proven to be true - only tested through experiment until such time that it is proven false.

This footage is HOAXED.



Luckily I have a piece of the same footage, procured from an old DVD on string theory. It is abbreviated, but obviously the same footage, and much better quality. We'll get to that in a bit.

I hypothesize that some variation of the Reduced Gravity Walking Simulator is being used in this shot.

Here are some pictures:





Here are some very telling pictures...






Uh oh...



Here is the higher resolution video I took that image and the following .gifs from...



What is that protruding from his knee? Connected to what looks like a wide strap around the astronauts calf?

And I realize that that small cropped image proves nothing in and of itself, so I have prepared these animated .gifs to further illustrate the point.

First Jump:




Second Jump:



Now go and watch the original video again. You can literally see the astronaut move to the left "off camera," and if you watch him and his shadow closely you can see him pull the "straps" off his knees and proceed to hold them is hands as if he were doing that the entire time.

Watch the .gifs over and over it'll make you laugh. It gives perspective on the whole video and just looks sloppy and obviously fake. This probably needs its own thread since the counter thread is full of dis-info too.

Originally posted by JayDub113
Watch the .gifs over and over it'll make you laugh. It gives perspective on the whole video and just looks sloppy and obviously fake. This probably needs its own thread since the counter thread is full of dis-info too.

The astronaut kicks up dust. The dust falls down opposite to the direction you contend the plane is inclined.

If indeed he was on a gravity simulator the dust would rapidly flow off to the right. It doesn't, it falls as if it is also under 1/6th gravity.

Theory: disproven.

reply to post by exponent


Disproven? OK

The same harness could have been used up and down with the right girding. You haven't disproven anything. Address the same "knee cable".. better yet explain how the physics of what we are seeing is not exactly as I said. You haven't disproven anything you gave your opinion.

Originally posted by JayDub113
The same harness could have been used up and down with the right girding. You haven't disproven anything.

But I have, because a vertical harness is a completely different arrangement and wouldn't have a knee strap.

You haven't disproven anything you gave your opinion.

edit on 1-12-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-12-2012 by JayDub113 because: (no reason given)

You've changed your theory, so I would say I have correctly disproven it.

Best Movie Kubrick every made: The Shinning

Most Important movie Kubrick ever made: Apollo Moon Landing

reply to post by DrGod


evidence of any kubrick involvment in the apollo program - zero

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by DrGod

 

evidence of any kubrick involvment in the apollo program - zero

evidence of any non-involvement of kubrick in the apollo program - zero

Honestly,
The fact that sheep continue to blissfully agree and submit to the Official Story of the Moon Landing or even 911 for that matter just goes to show you how doomed our "modern" society actually is.

Originally posted by DrGod
evidence of any non-involvement of kubrick in the apollo program - zero

edit on 1-12-2012 by DrGod because: (no reason given)

Evidence for non-involvement of unicorns in the apollo program - zero

It's really not rocket science to look at the evidence and understand it.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by DrGod
evidence of any non-involvement of kubrick in the apollo program - zero

edit on 1-12-2012 by DrGod because: (no reason given)

Evidence for non-involvement of unicorns in the apollo program - zero

It's really not rocket science to look at the evidence and understand it.

You just had to bring unicorns into this huh?

Originally posted by DrGod
You just had to bring unicorns into this huh?

Kubrick is the Apollo hoax believer's unicorn. He is used to explain everything that isn't explored with the light of reason.

There is no other explanation for the facts, man landed on the moon. If you believe otherwise, recreate an example shot to the same quality and recreate the SEQ bay pendulum. This is all it would take to make the theory plausible. Nobody has ever managed it even slightly realistically.

reply to post by exponent


But Kubrick certainly did.

reply to post by DrGod


Nobody seems to be able to do it in 2012, if they can't, Kubrick certainly didn't in 1969.

Can you replicate it? Do you even have a theory of how it was done?

Originally posted by exponent
reply to post by DrGod

 

Nobody seems to be able to do it in 2012, if they can't, Kubrick certainly didn't in 1969.

Can you replicate it? Do you even have a theory of how it was done?

Woah. Let me clarify as it seems this is getting off track...
I mean to say that Kubrick filmed this on the moon. He was the secret passenger known as Passenger X.
It was a very tough shoot, maybe his best work.