If you believed they put a man on the moon....

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119548990#Comment_119548990

It's like wrassling with a pig, you both get dirty and only the pig enjoys it.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119548245#Comment_119548245

Yep. People can forget that these were almost all test pilots with slide rules and buzzcuts and masters degrees mostly in their late 30's(one was fifty years of age). They weren't the more scientist based people of today in the same trade, people who have grown up with much more mass media. The original guys were very much of "just the facts" type, not prone to being talkative in general unless it was required. There were some exceptions like Al Bean who were more gregarious and came across as the guy next door. The Apollo 12 crew were all like that and were actual friends outside the programme*, but generally no and they didn't relish the attention. At the other end of the scale you had a guy like John Young who redifined the word taciturn. Pretty much all of them have said they were glad they weren't on the first crew to land as the media interest in them was insane. On the flights themselves they could be exitable and joked around, but in the face of microphones and flashbulbs no.

*this is the Apollo 12 landing sequence and you hear both of them get excited, especially Conrad.

https://youtu.be/kFSa6vUix70?t=586

You also see more dust than on Apollo 11 and they cut the engine earlier and drop to the surface more. If you look on youtube for PDI to touchdown you get all the footage from the landings. There are hundreds of hours of footage of the missions. All apparently faked. Never mind the photos and audio. The hoax nutters tend to concentrate on 11, but conveniently forget all the others where there is an avalanche of media as they got better at it and the media itself improved. In video tech alone there were some big leaps in clarity between 69 and 72, though there were still no high speed video cameras and "action replays" which were limited to 90 seconds only came out in the mid 1970's. But apparently NASA were able to fake all that and film with it.

Film and video and special FX stuff is where the hoax nutters falter. They don't understand the tech available then, so can't explain how it could be faked. It would be bloody hard even today. Take a look at the landing sequence from "First Man". The FX of the spacecraft look is fantastic, though has some glitches and they chuck them about far more than the actual landings, but look at the rendering of the moon itself when they get close to it. It looks way more jagged and "angry" looking than it actually is. That seems to be a theme in imagined renderings of the moon from before we went and after. They make it more jagged, craters harder edged and deeper. The sequences in that flic when they're actually walking on the moon looks totally wrong.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119548693#Comment_119548693

The crosshairs were on a plate in front of the film plane in the specially adapted Hassleblad cameras. They appear to vanish on some high contrast/overexposed pale subjects which is what you would expect. You don't see them vanish on darker subjects. It's basic film photography stuff.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549188#Comment_119549188

wait until they complain that you can't see any stars in the photographs

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119548990#Comment_119548990

It's far better to ask for the details of the conspiracy. You won't receive much apart from "it was shot in a studio somewhere"

Exactly and they have no real clue nor explanation as to how it was shot in a studio. Filmed in slow motion is about the whole of it. Of course not understanding that in order to get smooth slow motion you have to speed up the film, so therefore use more of it, which requires bigger film magazines and all the extra complication that causes. And high speed video cameras didn't even exist back then. IIRC Apollo 11 used 12 frames per second video, but by 15 they had just about got it up to the standard 24 FPS.

growleaves

Astronauts acting flustered when some guy is up in their face doesn't really prove anything. It can be interpreted in any way. I would be extremely bent out of shape if some guy was accusing me of things.

Btw it isn't true that "No NASA employees have said anything". Bill Kaysing was a former US Navy officer who worked as a technical writer for one of the rocket manufacturers for NASA’s Apollo moon missions. IOW he was a contractor.

Kaysing kicked off the whole moon hoax thing in the 1970s with his book We Never Went to the Moon. I haven't read it.

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549321#Comment_119549321

There were 400,000 employees, no one revealed anything.

Kaysing, who worked very indirectly for NASA, went into loony land. He never actually revealed or leaked anything.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549188#Comment_119549188

Will you ever give us a break from the "There's no way they had the technology to fake the footage" It's ridiculous! 😩

Slow and fast motion was used in the James Bond films in the early 1960s for Christ's sake!

There's a whole wikipedia page on how they achieved slow and fast motion here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_motion#:~:text=Slow%20motion%20(commonly%20abbreviated%20as,in%20the%20early%2020th%20century.

"Slow motion can also be used for artistic effect, to create a romantic or suspenseful aura or to stress a moment in time. Vsevolod Pudovkin, for instance, used slow motion in a suicide scene in his 1933 film The Deserter, in which a man jumping into a river seems sucked down by the slowly splashing waves"

1933!!! The ability to slow and speed up film has been around for as long as there are full length films ffs.

All they have to do is crank the reel faster or slower accordingly.

There is absolutely nothing special about the moonlanding footage either. You can even see the rudimentary studio techniques they very commonly used back then (i.e. foreground and background set separation, lighting, focus)

I dare you to post a single second of footage (without accompanying it with 10 essay-long paragraphs) that they would not have been capable of faking in the 60s...

I won't hold my breath...

Edit:

I've managed to find the actual slo-mo footage from 1933, here it is:

https://youtu.be/w9zi8OCyKdE?t=2271

Amazing!! Did they put some kind of chemical in the water to make it splash slower 🤣

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549580#Comment_119549580

A film-maker explains why it was pretty much impossible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549490#Comment_119549490

Having seen something like this (but not as extreme) happening to someone, it's really unsurprising and very sad for the person, these days, they can get help most of the time:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cKMwKX-Eks

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549580#Comment_119549580

The ability to slow and speed up film has been around for as long as there are full length films ffs.

All they have to do is crank the reel faster or slower accordingly.

Watch the above video posted by DohnJoe from a filmaker who actually understands this stuff. Unlike you. You read the wiki page, see slow motion was around in the 30's but don't understand why it couldn't be applied to Apollo and the hundreds of hours of footage involved. That's just film. Video, which was extensively used throughout the missions is an even bigger hurdle for you. But again you quite simply don't understand the basics. Again watch that above video from the expert in film and video.

cj maxx

It’s all documented in the film Capricorn 1. It was faked in a Hollywood studio. 😜

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549762#Comment_119549762

I watched the video and it is complete and utter nonsense. Saying that you have to be a film director to understand how 60s film technology works is like saying you have to be a pilot to understand how planes work. Your credibility to debate anything meaningfully has reached desperate levels.

Still awaiting the piece of footage that could not be faked in the 60s...

Pinch Flat

It's really sound of the 400,000 nasa employees and the entire Soviet Union that they bought into this hoax

bucketybuck

Is there a reason this thread isn't in the mental illness conspiracy theory forum?

pjohnson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549762#Comment_119549762

An absolute lack of any kind of basic understanding is key to any conspiracy. Any actual knowledge must be dismissed as part of a cover up.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119549921#Comment_119549921

I watched the video and it is complete and utter nonsense. Saying that you have to be a film director to understand how 60s film technology works is like saying you have to be a pilot to understand how planes work. Your credibility to debate anything meaningfully has reached desperate levels.

You continue to demonstrate that you clearly have zero clue and are laughably, nay fantastically ignorant about how so many things work. Your main goto is to call nonsense with nothing to back it up. Unlike the guy in the video. There was no technology available during the Apollo missions to produce hours of continuous prerecorded video, especially in slow motion. It was not possible. This is a cast iron fact. The later missions running at 24 frames per second in colour would be even more impossible with the technology of the time.

Still awaiting the piece of footage that could not be faked in the 60s...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az9nFrnCK60

Watch how the dust arcs and falls. It will not act like that in earth's atmosphere and gravity. Of course you'll ignore this too, because you don't understand the whys. Now watch First Man shot in 2018 with the best of special effects at their disposal. Note how the light falls off on the edges of the landscape, because it's not the sun millions of miles away. They avoid showing them walking about, because it just doesn't match the original and looks "wrong".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEzoVUO6Iy8

Yet between 69 and 72 we have hundreds of hours of video and film footage of them bouncing about and the environment reacting as it should. Watch Kubrick's 2001 moon scenes. They're well done, but obviously shot in a studio.

Then again I fear, actually I know, this is all pointless as you've made your mind up and that's that. I've also made my mind up, but the difference is my position is backed by physics and engineering and the thousands of people who were directly involved in this endeavour, not some eejit with a page on the interwebs convincing the gulible and the ignorant that they're privy to some deep "secret". My first short post on this thread still sums it up for me many pages later.

silliussoddius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119550007#Comment_119550007

..

Bit cynical

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119544102#Comment_119544102

Apollo 13. And the reasons NASA give for not going back probably aren't the entire truth. For one, the whole enterprise was and still is highly highly dangerous, but the Astronauts that went on the Apollo 11 mission weren't just following orders from NASA, Armstrong and Aldrin were both high degree members of Freemasonry. Armstrong held up his Masonic apron over his hips after planting the American flag, a photo of this incident is on display in the House of the Temple in Washington DC. Aldrin himself planted the flag of the Scottish rite on the lunar surface.

I don't think membership of the Freemasons was a major factor in getting the first people to walk on the moon. There were plenty of others who would gladly have stepped into their place, despite the danger, had Armstrong and Aldrin not been chosen.

JupiterKid

I applaud you, Wibbs, for keeping up the effort in dispelling the OP’s notions, I myself just wouldn’t waste the energy and time trying to argue with someone who is never going to accept stated and proven facts.

The fact the a few others on this thread share those sentiments is the most sad aspect in this era of misinformation, lies and willful ignorance.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119550298#Comment_119550298

I actually enjoy a bit of contrarian thinking JK, even with the sniff of "cover up". When it's based on something approaching objectivity. So if someone says I dunno, the lone shooter Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone doesn't quite add up, I can see some merit in it. If it turned out we found out that he made the shots, but was actually part of a wider plot by say expat Cubans and this was missed, even covered up at the time for political reasons I wouldn't be that surprised. It could have happened. It's within the realms of reality and possibility and plots like that have happened before. It wouldn't require reinventing the wheel, anachronous technology, aliens, keeping tens of thousands of people quiet, faking hundreds of hours of video, film, stills, transmissions, blueprints, ground tests and launches witnessed by thousands and orbots, tranists and landing witnessed by hundreds of millions of people in real time, while being observed and tracked by enemies of America, even enemies within America pissed off at the cost of it all, none of whom came forward to call it all a hoax.

ohnonotgmail

I heard NASA actually asked Stanley Kubrick to film a fake moon landing to have ready in case Apollo 11 failed. Negotiations were going really well until Kubrick decided he would only proceed if he was allowed to film on location.

Mister Vain

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119550550#Comment_119550550

It's a pity he was assassinated by the illuminati after he tried to expose them in Eyes Wide Shut.

ohnonotgmail

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119550644#Comment_119550644

he should have been assassinated for making such a **** movie.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119550147#Comment_119550147

Saying your position is backed by "physics and engineering" is little deterrent given that you haven't been forthcoming with any of it. Your posts have been riddled with speculation and hearsay from the very beginning. Point me to one post in this entire thread that would convince any of the 1 in 5 who are skeptical in the poll. If the moonlandings had such a firm foothold in the world of physics and engineering - this should be no problem.

That first video, all you have to do is press the little gear icon>Playback Speed>2 and you will see why the dust "arcs and falls". The audio is clearly overlayed at normal speed.

Not sure what the First Man footage is supposed to prove. It's simply 1972 vs 2018 studio footage (why didn't they go to the moon to film those scenes in 2018 😆)

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119550842#Comment_119550842

It's fact.

Your theory doesn't exist and you attack the existence of space flight and satellites armed with only disbelief and incredulity. You are impervious to any explanations, and you denigrate those who take time to explain stuff to you. You are utterly entrenched in a bizarre (and very batshiat) belief. It's the equivalent to trying to reach someone in a cult.

None of these replies are for your benefit, as you are too far gone, only for others who are reading this who may have doubts.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119550842#Comment_119550842

Saying your position is backed by "physics and engineering" is little deterrent given that you haven't been forthcoming with any of it.

I have and more than once, but you're too... well, let's not be impolite here. The "attack the post, not the poster" can be a fine line, but in this case I'd need the services of an electron microscope to discern that line. As usual irony and self awareness is all too rare a resource in some. And among people who have an actual clue in physics and engineering the "skeptical" are a rare breed indeed. Do the one in five know how rocket engines work, how basic navigation works, how radiation works(you clearly don't), how a transister works, how basic Newtonian physics works, how video and film works and all the history or advancements of same? I doubt it. If they did they'd be a lot less skeptical.

Point me to one post in this entire thread that would convince any of the 1 in 5 who are skeptical in the poll.

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Swap out the gullible, the ignorant, the mildly interested, but not really, all the way to the morons for horse and basic understanding of basic physics and engineering and history of technology for water and there's your answer. Two thirds of Americans believe angels exist. Does that mean angels are real? More to the point, four in five think the one in five have been dropped on their heads in childhood.

That first video, all you have to do is press the little gear icon>Playback Speed>2 and you will see why the dust "arcs and falls". The audio is clearly overlayed at normal speed.

🤦 This is a perfect example of... again politeness kicks in. No matter what speed you play it it, fast or slow the dust doesn't act like dust does in 1 g and earth atmosphere. That's the bloody point. One you don't understand.

Not sure what the First Man footage is supposed to prove. It's simply 1972 vs 2018 studio footage (why didn't they go to the moon to film those scenes in 2018 😆)

When the 1972 analogue footage that you and.. *politeness kicks in*... thinks is faked is way more accurate as far as physics goes and would be harder to fake than the 2018 footage which is fake, that alone should say something, but when one's position is more based on a quasi religious faith, I suppose it's easier to see all as some sort of heresy.

PeadarCo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119550842#Comment_119550842

Here's another video from VFX professionals explaining how impossible the moon landing were to fake.

https://youtu.be/_ML2ZYYFOnI

I'm not posting this for your benefit because you are far too down the rabbit hole.

For everyone else the video linked is less than 10 minutes long. The moon landing took days from launch to splash down. There is a large amount of footage that would have to be faked in real time. That's before you factor in the USSR, thousands of people working on the Apollo missions etc that have all kept quiet for decades.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119546026#Comment_119546026

There was massive progress at the end of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. Since then it's mostly the rest of us gaining access to that tech. And electronics. Rich people had servants so didn't need labour saving devices.

Cinema, motorcars, aeroplanes, radio, domestic appliances, steam turbines all predate WWI. By the end of that war it was possible to call in an airstrike by radio. In 1957 Boeing's had the 707 for the 'Jet Set'. Apart from our electronics middle class Americans had access to most of the 'stuff' we have by then.

By the 1930's most of the theoretical physics needed for solid state electronics had been done. WWII saw billions spent on electronics. Mostly on radar and other high frequency work and a bit on early computers too. And crystals for radar detectors where it was noticed that certain batches had impurities made them work much better, roll on the cold war and money was thrown at electronics.

ET didn't give us WiFi. There's no recovered flying saucer tech. It's been a hard slog every step of the way. The AN/FSQ-7 computers were insane. 250 tons, 3 Megawatts, 4 storey blockhouse and you got 75,000 instructions per second. An iPhone 13 can do 15.8 trillion instructions per second. 200 million times faster because if you've spent billions (now tens of billions) on a top notch semiconductor factory you've to do it all again in a few years to keep up with the neighbours and we've been doing that for ages.

The German V2's were very inefficient. Alcohol is C2H50H and isn't as good a fuel as diesel because the O is mostly dead weight as it's close to being H2O. The water they diluted the fuel with to keep the engine cool was way more dead weight. In addition to the propellant tanks they had a separate structure to hold them and an external skin too, more dead weight. Using vanes in the exhaust to steer was also inefficient. Despite all that the V2's were able to match the performance of Mr Amazon's publicity stunt joyride rocket.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119551378#Comment_119551378

More double-dutch...

"the dust doesn't act like dust does in 1 g and earth atmosphere"

You must be having us all on 😆

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119551388#Comment_119551388

What's your motive for trying to convince people it's real? If you believe it with such certainty then what does it matter what everyone else thinks?

The moonlandings are going the ways of old legends and fairytales - less and less are believing them as years pass.

This is why I will be watching Artemis with interest - literally nothing has happened yet, nothing will happen on 2nd Sep. Nothing will happen in 2025. And so on and so forth.