Brilliant debunk video of hoax claims - HBs take note (if you can)

[Echnaton]

[That would be the LEM IMU update

I notice that your reply had nothing to do with my questions of your knowledge of the video.  It was remarkable familiar little rant though. 

[nomuse]

If you want to see somebody on a wire, here's a peter pan movie from 1960.  She runs around and flies all over the place without being pulled back.  (It's cued up.)

And now you are straying into MY field, Doc.

Nonsense.  Idiotic.  No theatrical "wire" system does dang-all UNTIL the slack is pulled in.  Then the actor's movements become almost entirely controlled by the fly crew, and by inertia.

I've done Peter Pan twice at major regional theaters.  Once with Flying by Foy, once with ZFX.  I had the opportunity to chat at some length with the chief rigger during the installation of the latter, and he described the tools available at that time (which was decades after the Apollo missions).

With the most elaborate system they had then, you almost had three axes of motion of the pick point, and the actor had two axes of motion in relation to the pick point.  Not usually done this way on Broadway except for the "flying over the audience" gag; because an upstage-downstage travel gets in the way of pretty much every drop and electric you have over the stage.

The normal rig is a traveling head and a single pick point.  Used cleverly, this can give the illusion of a flight from any point to any point...but it is achieved through carefully choreographed motions of the head and full use of inertia and geometry to create the various flights.  (As in; a typical gag is to have the actor walk to a point upstage of the track, then fly them; as soon as they are in the air they will swing downstage, and by timing it carefully you drop them back down to the stage at the furthest point of their swing.)

The only way a theatrical system could give an illusion of constant lower weight is if it was carefully choreographed to every single moment of the actor's travel, the actor was further restricted in the paths they could take...and trying to take the inertia out of the swings would be an absolute nightmare.  No such system would ever have evolved the lunar bunny hop we see in the Apollo footage.

Put it this way -- no feature film has EVER tried (with the possible exception of those films specifically made to celebrate the Apollo program).

Do you really think a guy was sitting in mission control with a joystick just to work the camera for 2 seconds?

Do some research some time.

He didn't sit down for that moment, at that moment.  Stupid, stupid, stupid.  The camera was remote-controlled for the duration of the EVA full stop.

So, please send me the apollo LEM telemetry along with a machine to read it and I'll take a look at it.

Aye, there's the rub.  Hoaxies love coming up with what they fondly hope are impossible goal posts, don't they? 

In your world, of course, only the original 2" tape could POSSIBLY do.  Apparently we haven't the faintest idea what Ptolemy ever wrote, because no-one has the original copy of the Almagest.

[RAF]

You don't have access to that kind of information.

A "secret" engineer....hoo boy.

At least tell us a lie that might possibily be true...this lie ain't working for ya.

[RAF]

You wouldn't be able to confirm anything.  You don't have access to that kind of information.  It was technically Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.  It's where the Air Force launch pads are.  I didn't work for NASA,  I was on an Air Force contract.

I worked in the aerospace industry at Cape Canaveral for NASA as well. Although technically I was actually just a passenger in a 747 and I wasn't at the Cape, I was just at Mascot Airport, and it wasn't NASA but Sydney Aquarium I worked for. Still all I said was true.

I was the first man on the Sun, but I got a hotfoot, and had to come home...

What?...this isn't the "can you tell the biggest lie" thread?

Someone should tell sanchez.

[gillianren]

In fact, if NASA really went to the moon, and they gave me the telemetry, and they paid me, I'd prove they went to the moon and nobody could ever argue with it.

Sadly not true.  There are always ignorant people on the internet who deny all the evidence.  Why, some of them even lie and claim to be engineers, despite obviously knowing nothing about engineering!

[sts60]

You wouldn't be able to confirm anything.  You don't have access to that kind of information.  It was technically Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.  It's where the Air Force launch pads are.  I didn't work for NASA,  I was on an Air Force contract.

Interesting.  I worked out of AE and S when I was at the Cape, and a number of other buildings (as well as 39A and B) on the KSC side.  So you were a contractor?   Who did you work for?  What did you do?

I'm a little confused, though, since you said you worked on ISS GNC, but you then said you were working on the Cape side on a USAF contract... How exactly did that work?

Oh, and welcome to the board.

[Zakalwe]

That would be the LEM IMU update using a theodolite and a survey point to convert to lunar units.  The LEM doesn't know where it is or what it's alignment is on the moon, not the least of which was caused by Armstrong's manual landing of the vehicle.  The big problem is that there's no survey marker because somebody would need to have been to the moon previously to put it there.  Saturn 5 had a glass window with a poro prism so you could see the IMU and the center of inertial reference and tell the guidance computer where the IMU is located in geodetic earth coordinates (to 5 decimal places.)  It takes a guy on the pad with a theodolite and a plumb bob.  They do this repeatedly up to the moment of launch.  When lifting off from the moon, both the LEM and the CM would need to be running on moon coordinates so that the CM (moving much faster than a speeding bullet) could tell the LEM it's coordinates and velocity (state vector).  And the LEM would need moon coordinates to know how to maneuver for rendezvous using it's known position and alignment on the moon, and calculating the intercept point in moon coordinates.   There's no way around it.  They would not have been able to do an IMU alignment on the moon.

Blimey...this all sounds familiar, now doesn't it?

What's your thoughts on the Lunar Laser Ranging Reflector and the Lick Observatory???    (don't bother with a response....we already know it)

[smartcooky]

Blimey...this all sounds familiar, now doesn't it?

Is "alexsanchez" one of the "thousand names" then?

[raven]

It's all good fun, but is there direct evidence this actually a sock puppet?
I admit the MO is certainly similar, but any actual proof?

[smartcooky]

It's all good fun, but is there direct evidence this actually a sock puppet?
I admit the MO is certainly similar, but any actual proof?

There's this saying about ducks......

BTW, I have just viewed the Gizmodo video for the first time.

Its excellent.

It hammers the final nails into the HB coffin without even getting into any argument.. it just shows, as most people my age realise, that there was simply no way to fake the Apollo landings... the required video technology just did not exist at that time.

[dwight]

But as sanchez tells us they would have had to use film rather than video, but as Sg tells us in there video, you encounter a list of problems which make that impossible. But then again I never worked at KSC while actually being in the air force  in Cape Canaveral,  so who know what shenanigans were involved.

[Mag40]

This is a new video which does an amazing job of explaining why the TV technology of the day was not up to faking a moon trip:

http://gizmodo.com/5977205/why-the-moon-landings-could-have-never-ever-been-faked-the-definitive-proof

Enjoy!

Devils advocate : What's to stop them videoing at normal speed and videoing the slowed playback on a good quality screen?

Obviously this doesn't solve the regolith and limb movement being out of balance with the vertical stuff etc. I suspect that the colour wheel artefacts would now look totally wrong, but would appreciate a more technical reason, as moonhoax believers may well argue this point.

With all the socking my little question got lost......can somebody answer it? This is right up your street Dwight.....I would love to read your input on it.

[Mag40]

There's a video on youtube where they take the mythbusters video with an astronaut jumping using a wire harness, and they slow it down 67%, and it matches up perfectly with a NASA video of an astronaut doing the same thing on the moon... which proves that it's easy to make a video that looks like you're on the moon using slow motion and a wire suspension.  However, it doesn't PROVE that we didn't go to the moon, it only proves that the mythbusters are full of shit.

Wrong. It proves that Jarrah White will move the goalposts to attempt to make his theory fit the visual record. He basically takes a 2 second clip that he can roughly get to synch in with John Young's jump.....but fails to apply that to the entire EVA. There is a very salient part of mythbusters that he did not, and could not address. When Adam Savage moved under wire support, every time he moved forward, the wire dragged him backwards......resulting in a very jerky motion. I believe it is to do with his centre of gravity. Nowhere in any of the Apollo video record do we see any jerky motion....unavoidable with a wire support.

A bigger problem with the moon video is where the thing takes off from the moon and the camera follows it up.  The problem is not that it couldn't be controlled from earth.  The problem is saying it was controlled from earth, like that's the answer.  I hope NASA didn't say that.  The problem is that it would not have been controlled from earth.  But the video is fake for another reason.

Very poor research. Ed Fendell simply delayed each of his commands aligned to an exactly timed launch, with a 2 second delay to account for the light speed, relay station and equipment response time.

The reason I say no, the next step isn't proving it's slow motion, is because NASA made sure that can't happen by saying they no longer have the original video or telemetry tapes.  Kinda like the "dog ate my homework" defense.

If they were faked in the first place! Why admit it, and why not simply reproduce a set? Besides it was only on Apollo 11, they were overwritten......not lost. 

If NASA wanted to make the hoax accusations go away, they'd provide the telemetry tapes and that would solve it once and for all.

Then knock yourself out, Apollo 12-17 are fully intact.

I want to see the IMU data.  They can't provide it because they don't have it.

Please indicate what you would do with it.

The mythbusters wire demo was designed not to work.  It's completely lame.  If you want to see somebody on a wire, here's a peter pan movie from 1960.  She runs around and flies all over the place without being pulled back.  (It's cued up.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hJFtCfHDFfw#t=1488s

That is a nonsensical response......you show me a girl in complete suspension swinging like a pendulum? She runs around under normal gravity but there are multiple wires to combat the problem with excess swinging. Fail.

You didn't address the centre of gravity problem with a single vertical wire.......please do so. Then you can explain how they didn't get the wires tangled up during the course of crossing over.....further......explain how they managed to rig wires up, hundreds of yards up big hills.

[Andromeda]

Hi Alex

Are you actually going to provide evidence to back up your claims, or just keep repeating word for word your comments on You Tube (which appear to be arguments from personal incredulity and, as such, have no weight)?

[Echnaton]

Alex

You haven't answered my first question. Do you think the moon missions were faked or do you think the video record was faked?  Until you actually say what it is you are  claiming, you are just trolling.