why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[ProfessorAlfB]

Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist.  Some cursory Googling shows that easily.  Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".

ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!

"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."

Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:

[Abaddon]

I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.

Then stop cluttering every single one of your posts with unrelated quotes.

Or alternatively, learn to use the quote function correctly. It's not hard. All of us gullible Apollo faithful manage it. Why can't you?

ETA: By "you" I meant prof Alf, not RAF.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:

White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.

[JayUtah]

"Wire" is not this all-purpose tool that supports an actor in any position you want and makes every kind of motion you can dream up just happen.  If you are going to accept it as a generic term at all, it still has to refer to a suite of techniques, each of which has very different results and all of which have very distinct restrictions.

Indeed, many years ago Foy helped us fly the actors on stage for Peter Pan, and there was a whole long laundry list of things we had to do to the set and stage to accommodate the limits of the "flying" technology in order to keep it believable.  One of those limitations is that natural movement of the actors before and after the fly consists of getting those wires on and off of them.  You have to block the actors prior to flight such that a hidden stage hand can attach the wire from behind.  Ditto after the flight; someone has to unhook them.  Otherwise the natural blocking for the rest of the activity renders the flight wires a tangled mess.

Several years after that my theater (linked in a separate thread) designed its own fly system and I participated.  It's limited in speed, travel, and and the extent of the stage over which it can be used.  I'm very proud of it.

Lately I've had the opportunity to look at Cirque du Soleil's standard flyrigs, which are engineered by their automation department and identical units used in many of their stage and traveling shows.  These are million-dollar state of the art for 2012, and still cannot do what Apollo video implies.

[ProfessorAlfB]

I realize I'm a broken record on this, but every time the hoaxies say, "They use wires" it bugs me.  Because they might as well be saying, "They used magic."

"Wire" is not this all-purpose tool that supports an actor in any position you want and makes every kind of motion you can dream up just happen.  If you are going to accept it as a generic term at all, it still has to refer to a suite of techniques, each of which has very different results and all of which have very distinct restrictions.

The "yanked to his feet" wire claim the hoaxies make about one moment (Young, is it?) is a particular sore point.  The only thing that comes close to the kind of situation where one person is holding on directly to a support cable (must be one STRONG person, I'd think!) is the wire PULL from the movies; when a bunch of burly stunt people yank on a single cable usually to throw a stuntperson horizontally as well as vertically -- to simulate getting blasted with a shotgun or blown up into the air by a mine or so forth.  And this is a single, ballistic act; the stuntman is not under wire control after his flight.  You can't just run down the catwalk and haul him up again from where he landed.

If you ignore the specifics of the hoaxie phrasing, it does sound more like theatrical flying, especially the school that uses a direct cable with no mechanical advantage (like VFX prefers).  A typical flight gag has the fly man standing on top of a short stepladder, holding on to a thick padded rope.  He takes up slack and softly drops off the ladder, a bit like the technique called in rock climbing the "dynamic belay."  Again, though, this is essentially a single motion.  There is a some control over the speed of descent (often done by running back up the ladder!) but it isn't a continuous effort by the muscles of one person to take the weight of another.  It is instead human counterweight and ballistic movements.

The closest analog to always-on, always-taking-the-weight is bungie flying. We've been doing that a lot at the house I work at now -- our usual flight choreographer also works with a group in San Francisco that does elaborate bungie dance shows often in outdoor spaces.  The trick for this is you take up slack, then lock in.  After that, the actor is in control of their motions; they can make short hops and flights (but they have to be careful to bend their knees on the down!)

At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos and then see if the term "using a wire" makes more sense  :
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7A98D401BB7B21A4

[RAF]

I already have been editing, but it takes time with such lengthy posts.

Then stop cluttering every single one of your posts with unrelated quotes.

Anyone seen Life On Earth?

Just kidding! 

Interestingly enough, I fail to find anything "funny" about hoax believers "kidding around".

[JayUtah]

Actually, according to Jarrah White...

No, a Jarrah White video is not evidence.  What convinces you that he knows what he's talking about?

[JayUtah]

At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...

No.  If we wanted to watch YouTube videos we'd be at YouTube.  Explain in your own words.  We don't care about your expressions of belief in other people.

[ProfessorAlfB]

Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:

White doesn't know what he's talking about, and is a proven liar.

Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.

[Abaddon]

Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist.  Some cursory Googling shows that easily.  Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".

ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!

"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."

Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:

Good old Jarrah got that totally faffed up. He couldn't pick between 50% faster, 33% slower, 33% faster or 50% slower. Indeed he came up with some rather unique maths which publicly proved rather embarrassing for him. The backpedaling was so furious, we could all here banjo music. In reverse.

[Jason Thompson]

Actually, according to Jarrah White

You will get nowhere here using Jarrah White as a source. He knows nothing relevant and is even more intellectually dishonest than most HBs.

He makes a compelling case:

No, he doesn't. He does not know what he is talking about.

We do.

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...

What case? White is a liar and has been shown as such by his fraudulent claims, dishonest editing of his videos, misrepresentation of the facts etc. Search around this forums and you will see such claims debunked by proven experts.

Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.

I have seen them, and am familiar enough with the Apollo program to know the claims made are not true or not accurate.

Since you admit that he lies, what method do you use to determine when he is telling the truth?

[nomuse]

Look, ProfessorAlfB, we KNOW you are a hoaxist.  Some cursory Googling shows that easily.  Please stop with the "I'm just asking questions" and present your "evidence".

ATS....ProfessorAlfB: "No, the Apollo footage is already slowed down...You need to speed it up to about twice the speed to see how it would have actually looked. We also know that the Astronauts were suspended from overhead cables to simulate being 1/6th as heavy as on Earth, and there is certainly firm video evidence for this.
Therefore you can easily fake 1/6th gravity, right here on Earth!"

Do you care to defend this? Surely you aren't relying on David Percy again......he is a bit of a liar to say the least!

"Here is 100% proof that Hoax film makers manipulate the footage to give a false impression. A small cherry picked jump from a corrupt businessman trying to make his film sell."

Actually, according to Jarrah White the the Apollo footage has been slowed by 33%, NOT by 50%...He makes a compelling case:

Good old Jarrah got that totally faffed up. He couldn't pick between 50% faster, 33% slower, 33% faster or 50% slower. Indeed he came up with some rather unique maths which publicly proved rather embarrassing for him. The backpedaling was so furious, we could all here banjo music. In reverse.

I thought it was Yakkity Sax.

[ProfessorAlfB]

At the risk of bugging you even more, watch this series of 9 videos...

No.  If we wanted to watch YouTube videos we'd be at YouTube.  Explain in your own words.  We don't care about your expressions of belief in other people.

I haven't said I believe him, but unless you know what his videos show, you cannot have an informed comment and you cannot argue against their content...It can pay to keep an open mind.

[Jason Thompson]

Simply dismissing him as a liar isn't helping your case...Unless you know what the "opposition" is saying you are not empowered to comment on what they are saying...Watch his vids with an open mind and you should be able to easily pick out the truth from the lies.

Here's a novel idea: just maybe we have seen Jarrah before. Just maybe we DO know what he is saying without looking at those vids this time around. Just maybe we have had personal experience 'debating' him before. Jarrah IS a liar. He never EVER admits to making mistakes, even to the point of furiously complaining that considering January 1st the zeroth day of the year is a valid way of counting up just to explain why he got one of his claims one day out.