Moon landing hoax

These guys have got to be part of the conspiracy now too.

You've got to wonder if those who back it all being one big conspiracy genuinely believe what they say, or are they just trolling for the craic?

In my experience it's a mix.

Some do it for the laugh, some do it to stick it to the "the skeptics" or science or whatever, some genuinely believe it, and some live in a bizarre world where they know it's false but they can't break character and keep pushing it - and everything in between.

There was a piece of incredible footage from Apollo 11 featured in 'Something Funny Happened on the way to the Moon' that I've never seen before.

Went digging for the footage itself and it's on youtube in it's entirety:

The most interesting parts are those of the astronauts trying to get a shot out the viewing port of earth.

Around the 30 minute mark you see the camera zoom out and what was once a closeup image of earth floating in space now has a light beside it, some movement in front of it, the lights then come on and you get to see the actual setup.

Now I can see how conspiracy theorists like Bart Sibrel saw this and immediately thought 'GOTCHA!'

But if you actually watch the video in full, you can see its just the astronauts trying out different filming techniques to get the best shot. They've the lights off because it's simply the best way to record earth in those conditions. At one point later in the video they're trying to figure out a way to get the camera to focus on one of their badges. Just seems like a difficult place to get a decent image. As I've mentioned before, there's no reason to jump to grand conspiracy claims when a mundane answer is far more likely.

They really go into a deep analysis of this video in 'Something funny..', at one point even saying that the movement you see in front of earth is them removing an apparatus to create the blurred terminator line in the earth shots - an absolutely amazing conclusion to jump to from a couple of shadows of movement (which are clearly just the astronaut moving in front of the viewing window, it would make sense that people would be moving around the cabin after the shots were taken).

They also state, as fact, that once the lights go up, you can actually see that earth is 'far bigger' out the viewing window in the background. No you can't, you can't see the window at all, it's just a blur.

It's all just incredibly disingenuous. The type of film that starts with a conclusion and then attempts to get 'facts' to fit the conclusion, speaking them with a ridiculous amount of conviction.

Ok so if it looks like they are faking something then it's a training video, gotcha 👍️

...but then they proceed to use this footage and claim it was halfway to the moon? Seems a little off.

Still no explanation for the other videos? Steering clear of the one with the guy clearly grabbing the harness during the somersault. Practice video too maybe?

I am not confusing radar and GPS, even though they both exploit the earth's magnetic field. It is well known in aviation that they use Inertial Navigation Systems (i.e. gyros and dead reckoning) when over vast bodies of ocean. Why fall back on hundred years old technology over oceans when GPS satellites are buzzing all over the place?

Let's pretend that your claim is actually true and planes don't use GPS over the ocean. (We have plenty of reason to doubt your word on this.)

Let's pretend that there isn't some reasonable explanation for it. (We've seen that this has been the case for every issue you have.)

Your question is framed to imply that if there's no explanation for this, it means that the GPS satellite explanation must be false.

This is tremendously contradictory given the many, many things that you have left unexplained about your theory.

If you're arguing that the satellite idea is false because people cannot provide you an explanation, then you must also accept that your whole premise is false because (to pick one example) you can't even explain why they would go to the bother of this deception in the first place.

Good grief. Do you actually think websites would allow publication of things like this on their platform or scientific journals allow publication of papers relating to "satellites not working over the ocean"? This would be like me asking you for scientific evidence that Putin ordered the killing of Prigozin.

It is all over the internet, people asking why doesn't GPS work over oceans - and it's the same bot answer: "GPS does work, aircraft just need other systems to confirm that the GPS is working" . What a load of BS. Here's one mind-numbing example:

Here's a paper that discusses different systems that are necessary due to the "unreliability" of GPS:

Reciever Autonomous Integrity Monitoring (RAIM) being one common system, designed purely to let the computer know when the GPS signal is lost and regained. Everyone knows commercial airlines are flown by computer. The flightpaths are programmed in based on previous data. Computer systems can only make estimates using Gyros as to how much they need to adjust their course due to wind or other environmental factors. All of this only necessary until they get within range of thier standard, ground-based navigation systems (ADS-B and MLAT (or GPS as you call it))

The SR71 Blackbird used a star tracking technology that could be used during the day. There is a huge amount of research now going into machine learning and AI to improve navigation. Why is all this necessary if GPS is so accessible as you say?

The first line of the first link you posted immediately contradicts you.

The first line of your second link contradicts your position

According to you, considering you don't believe satellites exist, how does GPS work?

How does my satellite TV work?

Also please note that you were asked for a source that states that planes CANNOT use GPS over oceans and that there are "dead zones".

Neither of your links support or mention such an idea and contradict it entirely.

I think this demonstrates that there's nothing to support your claim of dead zones.

The links you provided and have been provided show that planes do indeed use GPS over the ocean. You are not able to explain this.

.

Any comment on the fact you claimed the blue grid was actually used for CGI and background replacement, when it clearly wasn't? That the green ball was used for the "water droplets" when the video showing the green ball proves it was used just for the experiments shown? Why did you assume the green ball was used for CGI tracking? No proof of that, but you went there anyway? Maybe because you tend to fill in gaps in your knowledge with fanciful thinking right? No comment on this no?

Once you have commented why you were so sure this was used as a "green screen" even linking videos showing this, as proof. We can move on to the other topics. But please, let's not skip over this one until you have conceded that you were 100% wrong, and that all the evidence you brought with you was 100% wrong, and therefore the source is unreliable. No point in allowing you to hop between topics, just concede you were wrong.

No. You claimed that GPS doesn't work over oceans because of blind spots.

This has been shown to be false and you've not been able to supply anything to support that claim.

You've not actually stated how GPS works in your world view or addressed any of the issues brought up with the idea that it doesn't use satellites.

We are still waiting for your explanation for a great many things.

These are your claims.

For example, you claim that satellites don't exist, okay, but that begs the immediate question as to how does GPS work? You haven't provided any satisfactory explanation, or any explanation for that matter.

You still haven't addressed any motive for all of this, why is the world spending billions sending all these highly expensive rockets and craft and satellites up into space if it's all fake? What's the reason?

Why do you persist on lying to bolster your arguments? Everyone knows GPS stands for Global Positioning System, much to your dismay I'm sure.

Your posting is falling below level DH4 of the forum charter pyramid, therefore I will no longer respond to any further posts from you.

________

Warning applied for backseat moderation

But the claim you made was that there were "blind spots" in the system and that planes couldn't use the system over the ocean.

You presented articles that did not support this claim and you've yet to actually show that this is the case.

There's no lying needed to point out that this is a massive, massive issue for your position.