Faking the moon landings

[jfb]

Here's an example of some state of the art computer graphics from shortly after Apollo ended.

snip examples

A massive improvement (thank you Moore's law) but no Apollo.

Ah, but see, here's the genius - they were in on the hoax too.  They deliberately used suboptimal equipment and algorithms to make it look like the state of the art was far more primitive than it really was. 

Because of all the MONEY.  The unlimited amounts of money that comes from nowhere, is not tracked by anybody, and magically winds up in the bank accounts of hundreds of thousands of people, all without leaving a trace anywhere at all.

Oh, and which they don't spend, invest, or pass on in wills, because that would make it clear something was afoot.
I don't know about you, but a bribe I can't use would have as much weight as photon to me.

As a though experiment, (purely as a fantasy!) I have wondered, if I happened upon a million dollars cash, (from an untraceable source, like falling out of a drug courier's plane while I was hiking in the wilderness) how could I keep it from the attention of the IRS. My conclusion is that it is hard as hell to spend gobs of MONEY! without garnering unwanted attention, official or otherwise. And if I can't spend it, what good is it?

For me, it would be going-out money - fancy dinners, top-shelf booze, that sort of thing.  No, you probably wouldn't be able to spend all of it (unless you were buying 30 year old single malts by the case every week, in which case your liver would be the limiting factor), but that's basically how I'd task it.  Travel, cars, and other stuff draws too much attention. 

This of course assumes that the bills aren't marked or otherwise traced.  And there's really no good way to know that.

[Jason Thompson]

This is not an admission of defeat, but rather, as I can’t find any evidence to back up my assumptions, I begrudgingly have to back down and accept your arguments.

Semantics. Trying to weasel out of a discussion you started with no sound footing, finding out you can't actually bluff your way through it here, and backing down without losing face. I don't care how 'begrudgingly' you accept the arguments, if you don't have the necessary knowledge don't try and debate the issue with a bunch of scientists.

[Abaddon]

And finally, regarding dark matter, as you all know, I do not possess the knowledge to discuss that particular subject, as all I have are my own assumptions. This is not an admission of defeat, but rather, as I can’t find any evidence to back up my assumptions, I begrudgingly have to back down and accept your arguments.

Right. You have wild uninformed assumptions for which you have zero evidence at all, nor can you find any evidence, but you are going to stick to those no matter what because...why? How exactly would you describe a person who clings to a crank belief despite all evidence?

[cambo]

“What do you mean around? Provide a precise number please. Is it 2 x, 1.98 x? 1.95 x? Please be exact”

You want a precise figure? Ok, I downloaded the file and played around with different frame rates and came to this figure. 1.84135784213333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333. Ask a silly question aye!

“You said you'd consider any solid proof. You're still ignoring mine.”

Stop playing games sonny, you haven’t presented anything on this thread, which you claim is proof. Either tell me or butt out.

“How did they coordinate that when astronauts repeatedly crossed paths?”

You obviously think the gantries would be side by side, pointing in the direction of the camera. The gantries would be on either side, and coupled with some well-rehearsed choreography from the wire men, I can’t really see a problem. If Stanley Kubrick were alive, he could probably have explained it better, but he died only hours after submitting his final print for his final film “Eyes Wide Shut” which was released on the 16th of July 1999. Does the 16th of July ring any bells?

“Even the simplest film shoot requires at least twenty people, and you've got wiring involved”

And you know that for a fact? Ever heard of multitasking?

“but in your hoax scenario, the camera falling over or whatever could show the stuff you aren't meaning to film.”

That would be true if it were filmed live.

“Another is that people recognize their work”

I definitely wouldn’t, from that poor quality black and white footage. The footage from Apollo 11 is deliberately very low quality and yet still looks fake. If they could have involved more people, they may have done a better job.

“So you think the effects we see which indicate the whole setup was in a vacuum were done with the amazing, but somehow secret, 1960's / 1970's CGI?”

No, what gave you the idea CGI existed back then?

“You've still to respond to the question of what you think the state of the art in CGI was in 1969.  Believe me, it wasn't up to creating effects at that level...”

It looks like you’re getting your threads mixed up. YAWN!

“Make a video and show this then”

This is one of those things you should know without seeing it in action, it would be as easy to imagine, as holding a ball out in front of you and imagining which way it would travel if you released it. You are being incredibly awkward, and I thought we would be onto the juicy stuff by now, but I can wait.

“if you don't have the necessary knowledge don't try and debate the issue with a bunch of scientists”

Sorry, I didn’t realise you lot were scientists, and I’m sorry you think I am trying to weasel out, as you put it, so we’ll continue for as long as it takes, if it makes you happy, so here goes. NASA can’t even put a man on the moon, so how will they ever work out where all this theoretical matter is coming from? To me, they got gravity wrong, and gravity is gravity, whether on a planetary or a cosmic scale, so you prove me wrong without using theories from those liars at NASA.

[Jason Thompson]

NASA can’t even put a man on the moon, so how will they ever work out where all this theoretical matter is coming from?

What makes you think NASA has a monopoly on research into gravity and dark matter? WHy don't you go off and do some basic research into this before you even try arguing it? Dark matter was theorised to exist as a result of cosmological observation before NASA even existed, and the scientists who published the research that cemented it as a real problem in cosmology were not NASA scientists.

To me, they got gravity wrong,

Since you clearly haven't actually grasped any of the basics of gravity, your interpretation is irrelevant.

and gravity is gravity, whether on a planetary or a cosmic scale,

Funny, earlier on you argued that it was a big leap from small scale to planetary scale to cosmic scale...

so you prove me wrong without using theories from those liars at NASA.

Newton and Einstein have nothing to do with NASA, and we have already explained why their theories are still useful, even if we may have to modify them to apply on a galactic scale somehow.

NASA is not the only entity that has anything to do with space. Centuries of observation on a planetary system scale confirm the calculations used to predict the behaviour of objects in gravity fields work on those scales well enough, and that was before NASA even existed.

[nomuse]

So the twelve-person film crew is running cranes, too. With that other free hand. (After already doing the job of three or four people. Pity Hollywood has never thought of multitasking. Think of how much cheaper catering would be!)

Someone should tell Broadway, too, where the minimum crew for a single-track flight is two, plus spotters. Of course you can always go the Cirque route...but in 1968?

Hella cranes, too...or has the bot missed seeing shots like House Rock, or the Grand Prix?

[nomuse]

Oh, of course. I totally forgot they already had at least one crane; for lowering the Rover on to the set!

Funny, thing, though. About how those "missing tracks" are on high detail, near-IMAX quality still frames that can be matched moment to moment, angle to angle, item to item with the video record, and can with minimum effort be linked to exact moments in the transmitted audio which was intercepted live by amateur radio enthusiasts.

[cos]

Well the EVA's on J missions would require 6 hrs of continuous live wire work (as it has been pointed out amateur radio ham's listened in). Funnily enough the 360 degree pans from the rover camera never showed the studio and how do you get the dust from the rovers wheels to follow a parabolic curve if not in a vacuum? And coincidentally the photographic record exactly matches the radar topography from the Selene satellite sent decades later (not a Nasa mission I believe). How did they get that right without actually being there? You'll need to wave your hands especially fast to dismiss these questions because you sure as hell can't explain any of it.

[nickrulercreator]

There's no way 12 people could've faked the entire thing. It would have taken hundreds at the very least.

[nomuse]

I just want to re-visit the "nobody is an expert so my opinion is as good as yours rant" to point out both Jay and I have done wire-work for the stage. I have to humbly admit I never got to run a rig myself, but I was rigging assistant to at least one Foy and the people from the other major company in the business (whose name escapes me on this long night). Jay I believe has an even better connection.

Cool story from one of those productions. The Foy walks in to meet with the director. "So, you need this, this, and this. Single point rig for Dorothy in the tornado. Double point for start of Scene 3, which gets re-used in Act II. Now how many monkeys do you have?"

Director is just standing there agape. "What happens in Scene 3?" he starts off.

"Glinda's entrance. I have the hoop in my truck."

[Obviousman]

My, my - there is so much handwaving going on by cambo that I think I'll have to issue a gale warning!

[Jason Thompson]

My, my - there is so much handwaving going on by cambo that I think I'll have to issue a gale warning!

Of course, that's what trolls do. I hope when I reach his apparently advanced age I can find better things to do with my time than post to online forums just to wind people up. He has no genuine interest, as is clear from the fact that any and all evidence that disagrees with him is either from NASA (liars) or from a third party supporting NASA (also liars). That's why I'm not bothering with any pictures or video, despite the obvious wrongness of his statements regarding them.

[inconceivable]

Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

[AtomicDog]

Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

Wait, what?

[benparry]

Maybe they filmed some of this in New Mexico around Los Alamos Canyon area.  They built Los Alamos National Laboratory on a conspicuous gravity low.  Maybe this gravitational anomaly had a role to play in all these discrepancies.

Wait, what?

lol i thought the same. why do people engage with people like inconceivable.