Faking the moon landings

[nomuse]

Meh. I think by the time someone has drunk enough of the koolaid they think it's worth focusing on one tiny moment out of the surface video record in hopes their efforts with a crappy YouTube copy and a hand-held stopwatch will reveal an error in gravity...

I say just back out one step, and ask how an entire unbroken ten-minute clip in which astronauts are moving fifty meters or more from the camera and all of it consistent with low gravity can possibly be explained.

There can always be some reason why one tiny bit in isolation looks weird or behaves paradoxically. A stray sound. A corner flap or a sleeve moving. A broken shadow, a kicked-over track.

I wish these idiots would spend more time on IMDB. Movies with 70 million dollar budgets, and there are long long lists of errors and screw-ups, of crews caught in a mirror, buttons getting re-buttoned during a cut, boom mics in shot (to be fair...I've played with a wee fishpole boom and my hat is off to the guys and gals who do that professionally!)

[nomuse]

To be fair, you could modulate by giving a timed series of hard pushes. Except then the swing wouldn't be natural. And you'd probably notice if you were firing off an air cannon at regular intervals into the dirt around the set.

True, but as you say that would have to be deliberate intent to make the swing period faster, which excludes a bag caught in a draft. It would be a simpler exercise not to allow any motion like this to be shown. Besides this is only one example of a pendulum the one highlighted by the ALSJ is probaby a better example.

https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14pendulum.html

There's another rant buried here.

The hoaxies generally come on with an assumption that there is no appropriate expertise. The cambot has made it more explicit than most; he appears to assume there is some special "NASA Science" that both is constrained to and contains all of the science necessary to understand Apollo. With this in mind, the hoaxies are able to approach the clues they think they've discovered as if on a level playing field; that all are equally skilled as an observer.

Now take this board. Outside of specific specialist expertise in aerospace (which should by itself close the argument, but leave that aside for now) we aren't generic observers, equipped with only the same common sense and common life experience as the hoaxie. We have people who study and who work professionally with photography, with history, with film lighting, with astronomical observation, with thermal engineering, with radio...

So when a hoaxie comes up and says the motions of astronauts in the surface video is completely compatible with just "slowing the film down," they don't get that they are in discussion with people who dance professionally, who are skilled gymnasts, who have done animation and film editing; all people who frequently have to analyze human movements in a professional capacity.

Cue the Dara Ó Briain quote.

[molesworth]

build a movie set and a huge vacuum chamber

Am I missing something? What would a vacuum chamber be in aid of?

Really?  You  don't think a vacuum chamber would be required??

It becomes more obvious with every post that you haven't thought this through at all...

[Jason Thompson]

Cue the Dara Ó Briain quote.

Ask and ye shall receive...

[cambo]

It will not work like that the duration of the swing is dependent on the gravity field no amount of draught will make it swing quicker.

I’ve seen it happening, it will slow down slightly quicker on the back swing, due to the flow of air, but each swing is exactly the same, and since we are seeing the bag from the front, rather than the side, and in very poor quality, it wouldn’t be noticeable. Cranking up the air and adjusting the angle to catch the bag at the end of its back swing, will lengthen the swing and its duration.

pick out your favourite movie.  Watch the credits.  How many people are in them?  Which ones can you eliminate for a technically complicated shoot like faking the Moon footage?

The people setting it up, such as laying the sand, and bringing in the equipment and props, would think it was for training purposes, look at the lengths they went to at the Langley Research Centre, and more recently the NBL, which is also allegedly for training purposes. All in the full view of the public, they must be laughing their tits off.

There is no big epic script to write, as it was just a series of situations, they probably dreamed up overnight. Then there’s the film producer, working with a handful of NASA/CIA staff, trained in the use of his new state of the art equipment, and that’s about it. Twenty people tops. Comparing it with a full length movie with an actual storyline, with dozens of actors, and many locations, as appose to two actors in one location, isn’t really a fair comparison.

“but as he probably doesn’t know anyway”

“ it wouldn’t surprise me if the president himself wasn’t aware.”

How do these two sentences contradict each other? They both point to my assumption that the president may not know. You are just being over critical.

I say just back out one step, and ask how an entire unbroken ten-minute clip in which astronauts are moving fifty meters or more from the camera and all of it consistent with low gravity can possibly be explained.

I stated earlier, after watching the short clip, when they were just standing in one spot, I thought it looked like 1x speed. However, after watching the full footage, it becomes obvious it is being played back at around 2x speed, with the aid of wires to produce that floating effect. Also, the end of the stage, or should I say horizon, is only a few yards away. Contrary to popular belief, Apollo wasn’t all rocket science.

So when a hoaxie comes up and says the motions of astronauts in the surface video is completely compatible with just "slowing the film down

You forgot the wires.

Really?  You  don't think a vacuum chamber would be required??

Correct.

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

I stated earlier, after watching the short clip, when they were just standing in one spot, I thought it looked like 1x speed. However, after watching the full footage, it becomes obvious it is being played back at around 2x speed, with the aid of wires to produce that floating effect. Also, the end of the stage, or should I say horizon, is only a few yards away. Contrary to popular belief, Apollo wasn’t all rocket science.

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

[onebigmonkey]

I stated earlier, after watching the short clip, when they were just standing in one spot, I thought it looked like 1x speed. However, after watching the full footage, it becomes obvious it is being played back at around 2x speed, with the aid of wires to produce that floating effect. Also, the end of the stage, or should I say horizon, is only a few yards away. Contrary to popular belief, Apollo wasn’t all rocket science.

Your first problem there is that a 10 minute unbroken clip is really just a short segment. EVA footage goes on for hours. Your next problem is telling us where the wires were attached. Who was operating the pulleys? How did they coordinate that when astronauts repeatedly crossed paths?

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

[gillianren]

The people setting it up, such as laying the sand, and bringing in the equipment and props, would think it was for training purposes, look at the lengths they went to at the Langley Research Centre, and more recently the NBL, which is also allegedly for training purposes. All in the full view of the public, they must be laughing their tits off.

There is no big epic script to write, as it was just a series of situations, they probably dreamed up overnight. Then there’s the film producer, working with a handful of NASA/CIA staff, trained in the use of his new state of the art equipment, and that’s about it. Twenty people tops. Comparing it with a full length movie with an actual storyline, with dozens of actors, and many locations, as appose to two actors in one location, isn’t really a fair comparison.

No, it isn't--most full-length movies are shorter than the Apollo EVAs and take place on Earth, with Earth gravity.  They don't range over several miles.  So either you have to build an enormous soundstage or you have to worry about weather.  Either of which comes with its own problems.  Even the simplest film shoot requires at least twenty people, and you've got wiring involved.  So you have to factor in the people in charge of the wiring.  You've got the lighting people--they don't need to have the lights set up for training, but you'd certainly notice if the light were wrong in the footage, if you knew anything about lighting.  So by having them do their job at all, you've let them in on the hoax.  You've only got to have one cameraperson, it's true, for large amounts of it.  Or you can do what Apollo did and set it up without a human running it, though I wouldn't want to risk that, honestly.  It was one thing on Apollo, but in your hoax scenario, the camera falling over or whatever could show the stuff you aren't meaning to film.

You cannot simply say, "Oh, the people doing the work will just think they're building another training center."  There are several problems with that scenario, and not just how many people you'll need on the shoot itself, which is more than you think it is.  Another is that people recognize their work.  I grew up in LA and notice when places I knew are in movies, and I've never worked in the industry--though several of my friends do.  But my Ren faire boss makes jewelry that has been used in a few movies, and I notice his work.  So if you're the guy who made a specific rock, you may not need to be in on the hoax, but you'll certainly notice when a rock exactly like the one you made just happens to be on the Apollo footage.

[molesworth]

Really?  You  don't think a vacuum chamber would be required??

Correct.

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?

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...

[raven]

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

It's stunning for the time, but it's decades too primitive to fake Apollo even half-convincingly.
And let's pretend for a moment that some  engineers managed to pull off such a feat of completely impossible computer animation. After Apollo was over, they'd be out of work. Naturally, some of them would return to their original work in the computer imagery. After all, it was their area of expertise. Even with massive bribes to keep silent, would they be able to resist the temptation to use some of the techniques learned in their own animation? Instead, a decade after the above, we get animation like this.

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

[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. 

[raven]

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.

[AtomicDog]

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?

[molesworth]

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?

Which comes back to my comment about the missing hordes of NASA people who live in the Bahamas, drive Ferraris etc.   

The fact is, there's no trace of these very rich, bribed to stay silent, people, and despite Cambo's assertions that there would be very few, in reality there would have to be thousands spread through all areas of the project.  The whole idea is completely ludicrous...

[Bryanpoprobson]

It will not work like that the duration of the swing is dependent on the gravity field no amount of draught will make it swing quicker.

I’ve seen it happening, it will slow down slightly quicker on the back swing, due to the flow of air, but each swing is exactly the same, and since we are seeing the bag from the front, rather than the side, and in very poor quality, it wouldn’t be noticeable. Cranking up the air and adjusting the angle to catch the bag at the end of its back swing, will lengthen the swing and its duration.

Make a video and show this then.