Did the Americans put a man on the moon?

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120165404#Comment_120165404

All of this is completely dependant on the footage actually being live, which you have no way of proving outside of saying "it's live because NASA said so". There is absolutely nothing that can't be faked with a bit of simple post processing - this includes the very basic moonlanding footage right up to 1972 or whenever it was that they decided to stop the fakery.

Ok, so gps works by radio waves. What are radio waves and how are they generated?

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120165816#Comment_120165816

Screw it, I'll just paste the transcript from the video, it's easier:

the thing is all these discussions are ignoring one simple point in 1969 it was not yet possible technically to fake what we saw on TV why are people missing this I think maybe they forget how primitive video was in 1969 I mean it was an amazing achievement in electronics but there was a lot they couldn't do let me try to explain that the pivotal claim for the Apollo hoax theory without which it all falls apart is that what we saw on TV was slow-motion footage of astronauts running around in a film studio because if it was a slow motion it couldn't have happened on earth right let's talk about how slow motion works in film and video there are two ways to make motion slow one is you shoot it at normal speed and play it back slow the other is you shoot it fast and play it back normal the second way is called overcranking it looks smoother and more realistic because you're sampling natural motion at a higher frame rate but that means we would have had to shoot it on film using high-speed film cameras right why because in 1969 there were no high-speed video cameras yet the electronics just weren't there some people did have a magnetic disc recorder that could capture normal speed video and play it back slow they used it for sports replace it could record up to 30 seconds playback at 10 FPS and you've got a whopping 90 seconds of slow-mo

I'm sticking with 10 frames per second because that was the video frame rate for Apollo 11 they had a non-interlaced slow scan TV camera specially made for them by westinghouse all the later missions were using regular NTSC cameras running at 2997 fps that would be three times harder to fake I'm trying to make this easy keep in mind that when people today watch documentaries about the Apollo missions they're looking at the highlights they're looking at you know short clips cut together the short clips are much easier to fake but in July 1969 600 million people including me we're all staring at a continuous lunar telecast that went on for a long time it's actually pretty boring sometimes at 16 minutes into the EBA they turn on the video camera four minutes later you get your one small step fan then Aldrin climbs out and they move the camera onto a tripod and proceeded to do all their moonwalking flag planting photo snapping and rock picking then Armstrong climbs back up into the lander and it's over by which time the video camera has been running for 43 minutes so if we're faking this with electronic slow-mo at 1/3 speed we only need to record about 47 minutes of continuous live-action video well that's a lot more than that Ampex disk recorder could hold but NASA is special maybe they have a big disk recorder right in 1969 okay how much bigger 95 times bigger I don't know man I mean government agencies are powerful but they're not God then again they are NASA maybe they did have some special way to over cranked video in 1969 for an hour and a half maybe they have some top-secret high-speed electronics that the rest of the world never knew about oh wait a minute no you guys said that the navigation computers were too slow I guess we can't have it both ways I mean it can't be fast and slow at the same time right wouldn't it be easier to shoot this on film I mean in 1969 we already knew how to over cranked film for Apollo 11 we only need to shoot 30 fps and play it back at 10 okay let's try that I'd recommend you shoot on thirty five-millimeter to minimize the shown brain that's what Kubrick would have done now let's see normal 35 millimeter runs at 90 feet per minute but since we're shooting at 30fps there will be 112 and a half feet per minute we need 47 minutes of original film so that's about 5,300 feet and of course there's no such thing as a film magazine that big Volkswagen but if you shoot thousand foot loads that's about that big then you can do it in five mags I mean I can do this you don't want to see the splice marks where you put the reels together because then everybody would know it was a fake and remember we're shooting for TV so it's one three three aspect ratio and not one eighty five so that means you have to do a and B rolls you have to split cut the negative into a and B rolls and print them onto a fifty three hundred foot fine grained inter positive then cut an answer print in the film lab and when you're done make sure everybody that works in the film lab dies mysteriously in a car crash now now you just need to find a custom-designed tella city that can transfer your fifty three hundred foot answer print to video or ten frames per second pin registered of course how hard can that be of course you need to be absolutely certain that in all that splicing and printing and transferring none of the most common film artifacts have gotten onto your giant print no bass scratches no emulsion flakes no gate we've no brain and not one single fleck of dust because any one of those things will instantly betray that this is a hoax okay so you do that and then you do it again for five more lunar emissions only those later missions you have to play back a 30fps meaning you have to shoot it like 60fps twice the torque twice as many splices to keep clean twice as much of a chance that the film's going to break in the camera you think maybe it would be easier to just go to the moon

You're claiming this is all wrong and you're right. Okay, detail how it was done.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120165816#Comment_120165816

GPS works by satellites and radio waves.

So satellites are real right? You accept that?

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120165971#Comment_120165971

What is all this blabber? Take a 35mm film reel - record the footage at 24fps. Play the footage back at 12fps. There you have it: slowmo footage at 50% speed.

Quality not good enough for you? Record the footage at 50fps, playback at 25fps.

A standard 35mm film reel (1000 ft) can playback 11 mins of footage at 24fps or 5min30s at 48fps.

"But, but, but, the moonlanding footage was 2hours that means you would need a film reel 6 times the size of a standard one, therefore the moonlanding happened!!"

Wrong.

1. NASA either had a film reel 6 times larger or more likely
2. They took 6 standard film reels projected the footage onto a wall and used a second camera to record the footage onto a single film reel

Are you really this naive to think that they could not fake it? 🤣

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166065#Comment_120166065

What is all this blabber

It's a transcript of the video you claimed to have watched numerous times

You haven't detailed how they faked 45 minutes of continuous live footage. You just conjured up a rationalisation in your head with no evidence of anything.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166065#Comment_120166065

... And they have that projector setup on the moon so that the transmissions picked up on Earth by various receiving stations know that it is all coming from the right place. Nobody would notice if they were picking up the transmission from somewhere earth based would they?

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166120#Comment_120166120

It's blabber whether it's said verbally or in text format.

The rationalization was using actual knowledge of how slo motion footage is achieved along with a Kodak film calculator available at this link:

https://www.kodak.com/en/motion/page/film-calculator

Here's a video that dispels the witchcraft that you think would need to be involved to get your 45 mins of continuous footage (that you have no proof is live)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2WBBgqV21s&ab_channel=PLASTIEK

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166017#Comment_120166017

So radios can't work without satellites?

Goodness me, I feel like a man from the future gone back in time 300 years...

robinph

Every independent GPS software developer and chip designer writing the code to calculate the location on earth based on the timings received by the satellite constellation is also in on the conspiracy, as is ESA and anyone working on the Gallileo constellation too.

You'd have thought that ESA would have noticed that GPS was fake before wasting all that money and resources on creating their own fake. Why didn't they just expose the US system as fake rather than create a duplicate fake? Having multiple fake setups of GPS equipment is surely opening things up to much greater risk of them all being exposed?

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166171#Comment_120166171

It's obvious from the way you keep trying to dodge the question you know it discredits your entire premise.

So I'll repeat the question as it is fundamental to everything that follows:

GPS works by satellites and radio waves.

So satellites are real right? You accept that?

ps Let's not forget you already discredited your entire premise by posting a video taken from orbit. In trying to claim the moon landings were faked, you implicitly proved space travel was possible.

robinph

So radios can't work without satellites?

No, the other way round. Satellites are not much use without radio, they can "work" in that they can be satellites without radio... But that would make them pretty pointless if they had no way of communicating in one or both directions.

The GPS, and other similar systems like Gallileo, work with radio and on board atomic clocks.

Have you ever noticed that your GPS watch, or in car system, loses signal if inside a thick walled building, or on driving through a tunnel or in the bottom of a multistorey carpark? Doesn't that suggest to you that they are picking up their signals from something up in the sky somewhere?

o1s1n

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164697#Comment_120164697

Are you telling us you can't tell the difference between B movie footage and actual footage?

Again, you're disproving your points with this nonsense. Nobody would look and that and think it's real.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166197#Comment_120166197

I think they're trying to imply in their round about way (as they will never admit what they actually believe) that gps can work without satellites just using radio waves, the fact you can see the satellites is neither here nor there.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166340#Comment_120166340

Even though it is the satellites that discredits the entire premise more so even than GPS...

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166192#Comment_120166192

And the Russians.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120165816#Comment_120165816

Christ... People on the ground, hundreds of them in mission control were interacting back and forth with astronauts on the Moon in real time. They'd have to fake the audio, video, even monitoring of their vital signs, suit pressures, with people asking them to look at this geological feature or other and the astronauts responding, again in real time, while passing all those back and forth signals through a relay on the Moon, so the Soviets, Chinese, British and any other agency with the gear to listen and track its source. That's every radio telescope and a load of research centres and universities on Earth, many of which were helping track and relay data for NASA when their kit was out of range because of the rotation of the Earth.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166171#Comment_120166171

Good god man, you are talking utter nonsense and with every post you fire up thinking it aids your case proves it. Again you're proving you haven't a bull's notion how film or video works and how it works in the real world. Research the history of slow motion capture and display technology in video cameras and production. In the late 60's and early 70's they didn't even have video cameras capable of recording slow motion for much more than a minute. The sports instant replay with slow motion we'rre familiar with today wasn't invented until after the last Apollo landing and it couldn't replay more than 90 seconds.

Maybe try reading the "blabber", you might actually learn something. Though at this stage the phrase of bringing a horse to water springs readily to mind. Ask any professional camera man or woman to read the same "blabber" and they will confirm every single point, because y'know clearly unlike you, they actually understand what they're talking about.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166707#Comment_120166707

That is absolutely not true. There are films from the 1920s that use slow motion all the time so stop trying to peddle this ridiculous notion that slow motion is high-tech and not possible in the 60s and 70s. All you have to do is adjust the speed of the reel 😣

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166245#Comment_120166245

GPS works in the exact same way mobile phones do. The only difference being that GPS companies usually have contracts with all network providers which means, unlike mobile phones, they can ping off any antenna to calculate location.

Phones use ground-based antennae, GPS uses ground-based antennae. Anyone who understands how radio signals work knows this.

Satellites have nothing to do with any technology we use.

Bogwoppit

Ah Markus you’re a gas man altogether

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166884#Comment_120166884

That is absolutely not true. There are films from the 1920s that use slow motion all the time so stop trying to peddle this ridiculous notion that slow motion is high-tech and not possible in the 60s and 70s. All you have to do is adjust the speed of the reel 😣

Film not video. You do understand the difference? This is terribly basic stuff here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVNTNeNMH8Q

Video above, not film. Learn the difference. Learn something for pity's sake.

Apparently shot in slomo by a video tech that didn't exist yet, with back and forth chatter, telemetry and bio readings between the ground and the Moon and the physics of lower gravity and a vacuum, on a flat Earth soundstage by Kubrick, while all who worked on it, the crew, the engineers, the scientists of many disciplines, the Brits, Aussies, the commie Russians and the Chinese were bought off in their many hundreds of thousands to keep quiet about it. Aye, that's not insane in the membrane as a theory alright...

GPS works in the exact same way mobile phones do. The only difference being that GPS companies usually have contracts with all network providers which means, unlike mobile phones, they can ping off any antenna to calculate location.

Phones use ground-based antennae, GPS uses ground-based antennae. Anyone who understands how radio signals work knows this.

Satellites have nothing to do with any technology we use.

OK. We're not in Kansas anymore folks.

odyssey06

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166884#Comment_120166884

Are there satellites in orbit yes or no?

Why are you unable to answer this simple question fundamdental to your entire premise?

You are making a statement of fact about satellites which is entirely without merit or foundation, disproved by tech in daily use by you and households across the country.

Your premise is impossible.

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166884#Comment_120166884

Where are these ground based GPS signal transmitters?

Why does GPS and mobile network signals behave differently depending on view of the sky or if you are indoors? Mobile phone voice and data works fine in most indoor environments, GPS signal does not work without a view of the sky and even heavy tree cover will mess with the location.

You can see the identity of various GPS satellites you are connected to in real-time on your GPS device or phone, depending on model and software installed. If GPS is ground based how many transmitters are their globally? How does GPS work at sea?

robinph

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120166884#Comment_120166884

Sorry, I missed the bit about "GPS companies usually have contracts with all network providers". Lol

Which GPS companies are these? Can you name any examples which have contracts with mobile phones network companies? Why does GPS work on tablets without mobile network connection, or watches and fitbits etc? Who is paying for the GPS service to those devices?

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120164697#Comment_120164697

Everyone knows Poland cannot into space

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167024#Comment_120167024

Ah, so similar to the physics-based debate, I see the technological-based debate getting too hot to handle for you? And now we are resorting to the "Too many people would have to keep it a secret" fallacy? Such a pity...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167097#Comment_120167097

Phone and GPS signals have nothing to do with a view of the sky. If it did, planes wouldn't have a 3+hour navigational blackspot over expanses of ocean upon which they have to rely on straight-line trajectory and dead-reckoning to get within range of the radar of their destined airport. This is a well known fact of aeronautics. If satellites were so useful then Elon Musk would have sent one of his many thousands of satellites up to address this problem in the aviation industry...

There is a lot of ignorance of how radar and cellular communications work on the internet, even despite the fact that 99% of communications occur by undersea cable.... Surely NASA, given that they recieve billions in funding a year, could have modified the google algorithms to credit more than 1% of communications load to their (and Elon Musk's) satellite systems?

I guess the 1% lie is sufficient to be peddled to the gullible. If this thread is anything to go by, it's working after all... 🙄

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167332#Comment_120167332

Ah, so similar to the physics-based debate, I see the technological-based debate getting too hot to handle for you? And now we are resorting to the "Too many people would have to keep it a secret" fallacy? Such a pity...

Well they would. Too many people, including America's enemies at the very height of the Cold War, one of the main reasons for the Space Race in the first place. If the US had spotted Sputnik or Gargarin and all the other Soviet firsts in space were all fake, according to your fantasy they'd ignore that and/or were somehow in cahoots with each other to fake it for public consumption. Do you realise how utterly mental that sounds?

I note you avoided the film/video stuff. We'll you clearly know bugger all about either so par for the course. As for your "well known fact of aeronatics" you're spouting utter piffle there too. Again read some books, or ask a pilot, one that's been flying the last 20 years. There are radar deadzones in the middle of oceans, or certain landmasses where the lack of ATC and radar means you're more on your own. There aren't GPS blackspots. This is 24 carat bollocks of the finest quality. Get the app Flightradar on your phone.

See all those tracked aircraft? They use a combination of things to display this information, primarily ADS-B which uses guess what SatNav and ground based locators. It actually relies far more on satnav/GPS over oceans.

And for a tech that according to you only accounts for 1% of comms(it doesn't. More bollocks), it's worth 30 billion a year as an industry.

Bogwoppit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167332#Comment_120167332

Ah good man Markus. Thanks for clearing things up a little there for us.

You're correct about the radar black spot over the ocean, what’s the explanation? Well it’s not distance surprisingly, it’s the curve of the earth!

Now, I’m sure you’ll disagree with me (more likely you’ll just ignore me), you’ll probably claim that it is due to the distance. Little fly in the ointment there though, I’m lucky enough to get to fly business class across the Atlantic and even the pacific sometimes and guess what? I can make phone calls from the middle of the ocean!! Amazing stuff altogether this satellite technology.

Now I’m sure you’ll say actually the signal is just bouncing off radar masts or some such fantasy stuff, but then what about the navigational black spot?

Backed yourself into an aul corner there Marko me little matey.

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167502#Comment_120167502

The "too many people would have to keep it a secret" argument is a well known cop-out among the sceptics of this forum and the internet in general. Anyone who has ever worked for any company would know that this is bollocks.

Why are you showing that flightradar24 image? That proves my point perfectly!

Dohnjoe

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167658#Comment_120167658

The US president couldn't get a blowjob with an intern in the privacy of the Oval Office without the world finding out.

Your conspiracy that all of space flight is faked involves vast numbers of people keeping a perfect secret over 50 years. The hundreds of thousands from NASA alone, the hundreds of thousands of space agency employees and staff from Russia, China, Japan, Europe and all the world's space agencies. People involved in the satellite industry, from TV companies to Google to GPS. A huge tract of science, physicists, astronomers, etc. The private space flight industry, Musk, Bezos, Virgin and their employees.

Can't keep a secret between three married men, but millions of people for half a century, no prob.

Wibbs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167658#Comment_120167658

It really, really doesn't. It and the tech behind it disproves your point. I struggled to type "point".

And it's not a "cop out? It's one of those uncomfortable realities, though reality can be a strange bedfellow for moon landing conspriacy types

Markus Antonius

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167962#Comment_120167962

Lewinsky was practically a teenager at the time. Bill should have known how gossipy they are. I can assure you the blowjobs that Trump, Macron, Draghi, Johnson, Winnie the Pooh, Putin, LeGarde are all coming from more mature women who know where their bread is buttered and will forever remain behind closed doors.

ForestFire

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120167962#Comment_120167962

Sorry to jump in on such an interesting topic, but I must correct some inaccuracies here:-

The reason the Oval Office indiscretion got out was that one of the participants reported it to the media for personal gain.....

She just couldn't hold in any longer.....poor girl😉

So nobody's going to swallow that cock and Bill story!!😃