Faking the moon landings

[onebigmonkey]

And I’m sure they will do it one day.

They did. I can prove it. Can you do the same for your claim?

[gillianren]

You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.

No, you don't.  However, to make it look like the footage we have is considerably more than "a man in a space suit on a movie set."

[Peter B]

"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!

*smack forehead*

Of course!

Because no one has ever been motivated by a sense of honour to reveal national secrets - if only Daniel Ellsberg, Christopher Boyce, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden had been paid MONEY! then they'd have never released any secret documents...

Obviously MONEY! is some form of extra-attractive, extra-powerful currency.

[/sarcasm]

[Peter B]

You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.

You don't for some footage, maybe.

But how was this footage faked:

Please watch all of it and explain how the footage includes evidence of low gravity and a vacuum, all recorded in a single cut.

[molesworth]

You don’t need sophisticated graphics software to take a picture or video of a man in a space suit on a movie set.

You don't for some footage, maybe.

But how was this footage faked: <snip>

Please watch all of it and explain how the footage includes evidence of low gravity and a vacuum, all recorded in a single cut.

And also explain how it could be faked using only early 1970's technology...

[jfb]

"Movie sets require a lot of production personnel, prop makers and logistics people. How come none of them have ever spilled the beans?"

MONEY!

Money from where?  How much?  Where's the paper trail for those payments?  Who approved those payments?  Show me in the annual federal budget where that money comes from, because it would be a lot, too much to hide behind a black program.  Literally thousands of people were involved with Apollo, from the astronauts all the way down to the machinists who fabricated the tools to build the spacecraft. 

You believe the landings were filmed on a sound stage, then find me evidence for that sound stage.  Not just "this digital image that's been repeatedly rescaled and reprocessed and cropped and converted between image formats to the point where the compression artifacts dominate looks funny to me, therefore it was shot on a stage." 

Who built the stage?  Where was it built?  Who worked the cameras?  Lighting?  Electrical?  People were contracted to work, money changed hands, there would be a paper trail somewhere.  Find that paper trail and we'll talk.  Until then it's fantasy.

To repeat myself again, some more - there's an old saying, "three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead." 

There's been some discussion toward the end of the Radiation thread about how it's impossible to accurately replicate Apollo footage on a sound stage.  The movement of the astronauts cannot be accurately replicated either by overcranking or using wire rigs.  The behavior of the dust cannot be replicated outside of a vacuum chamber. 

The only way to accurately replicate the Apollo footage would be to a) build a vacuum chamber the size of a football field, b) build a set of the Lunar surface inside of it, complete with dirt, c) put it on an airplane that can do a parabolic dive to simulate 1/6 g, and d) maintain that dive for several minutes at a time.   

It wasn't faked. 

[twik]

And I’m sure they will do it one day.

If it's doable, why would you doubt they've already done so?

[cambo]

“If it's doable, why would you doubt they've already done so?”
It’s called sarcasm.

I hate to have to point out something that is so obvious to all other people on this planet, but everything is about money.

I’ve seen that footage several times, but I decided to humour you and watch it again. Every time I see one of these videos, it becomes more apparent just how fake they really are. You are seeing things that just aren’t there, while blocking out the obvious fakery. First of all, it is definitely played back in slow motion. Played at 2x speed, it looks normal, although if I was being picky, I’d say it needs to be played back slightly slower. Secondly, I can see the obvious line where the stage ends and the fake scenery begins and towards the end when they disappear over the alleged hill, they are obviously walking around in a pit at the back of the stage. If you bother to open your eyes, you will notice you don’t see the astronaut’s feet. Go on, show me another, this is easy.

And as for jfb, there are things living at the bottom of ponds with more intelligence than some of you. This is my take on things, that is all, so why don’t you prove it wasn’t motivated by money. Can’t you see how ridiculous you sound? As for the dust you mention, it’s more than likely sand, as when you kick sand in the air, it doesn’t cloud or hang in the air. It comes straight back down again, exactly like you see in the alleged Rover footage. I say again, you lot only see what you’ve been told to see.

[Luke Pemberton]

I’ve seen that footage several times, but I decided to humour you and watch it again.

That's so very kind of you to humour us in this way.

Go on, show me another, this is easy.

See below.

And as for jfb, there are things living at the bottom of ponds with more intelligence than some of you.

If all you have are insults then your argument is weak.

As for the dust you mention, it’s more than likely sand, as when you kick sand in the air, it doesn’t cloud or hang in the air. It comes straight back down again, exactly like you see in the alleged Rover footage.

What, you mean the grey dust in the footage behaves as though it was filmed in a vacuum. I wonder why? 

Unlike the sand in this footage that billowed and held up in the atmosphere.

...and this footage

Go on, tell me another, this is easy.

 

[LunarOrbit]

...there are things living at the bottom of ponds with more intelligence than some of you.

Stop it with the insults and attitude or you won't last long.

[AtomicDog]

I hate to have to point out something that is so obvious to all other people on this planet, but everything is about money.

So I repeat my question: why don't the people who worked on the hoax cash in on their knowledge by revealing it? A tell - all book "I Worked on the Moon Hoax" with proof (secret photos, work orders, pay stubs) would make the author a lot of MONEY!

[AtomicDog]

As a matter of fact, cambo, why don't you write your proof of the moon hoax into a book and have a best seller? Don't you want to make a lot of MONEY!?

[raven]

Let's test that claim, canbo. Any youtube video let's you alter the speed of the video to adegree, so here's some film of the LRV been driven from Apollo 16. Let's speed it up x2. I don't know about you, but that sure fudge does not look like how it would on Earth. For one, dust lingers when thrown into the air thanks to the drag from its high surface area, while the moon has no air, as I hope you are aware, so it falls back to ground much more quickly.

You'd need some video altering software to test whatever your exact value for 'slightly lower' is, but I'll leave that to you.
But wait, there's more!
Apollo 14 filmed an inadvertent pendulum that resulted from a hanging lanyard. Now, a pendulum's swing depends on local gravity and how long it swings depends on drag. One source of drag is air.
Not only would it speeding the video up so that the pendulum's motion match what it'd be in Earth gravity result in the astronauts  moving like we should be playing Yakety Sax, but, again, the length of time it swings is strong evidence there's  no atmosphere.

The difference in quality is because the former is actual film, while the latter is live, colour video being transmitted to Earth from the moon.

[jfb]

And as for jfb, there are things living at the bottom of ponds with more intelligence than some of you.

True, but you really don't want to disturb the Old Ones.  They get ... cranky. 

This is my take on things, that is all, so why don’t you prove it wasn’t motivated by money. Can’t you see how ridiculous you sound?

Why don't you prove it was?  That's how this works, you take a position, and then you supply evidence to support your position.  You don't take a position and demand we prove you wrong, especially when you've signaled that you don't believe anything we have to say anyway. 

Serious question - how much money would it take to buy your silence for the rest of your life?  Think about it for more than a couple of minutes.  A hundred bucks?  A thousand?  A million?  A million a year?

There were literally thousands of people involved with the Apollo program.  How much would it cost to buy everyone's silence over the course of several decades?  What's to stop people from demanding ever more money over time? 

Where does that money come from?  How would you hide those payments in the federal budget so that they aren't immediately obvious to any second-year accounting student?  How do you convince subsequent Congresses to continue those payments over time?  You think the current Republican Congress wouldn't leap at the chance to discredit Kennedy and Johnson?     

How would you explain those payments to the IRS? 

How much money would the first person who could credibly expose the Apollo missions as a hoax make by comparison? 

Work the numbers, then get back to us.

[LunarOrbit]

There were literally thousands of people involved with the Apollo program.

And countless more who didn't work for NASA at the time of Apollo, but still have (or will have) the capability to expose the hoax. I'm not sure cambo has thought this through. The secret of the hoax would have to be protected for the rest of time or eventually someone will expose it. NASA can't afford to bribe this problem away.