I really wonder why people still believe we have send men to the moon.

[bknight]

Time to roll this one out again.


https://xkcd.com/1357/

Tindawhatshisface will not doubt cry "Ad Hominem", "Fake" or "Its a document, so it can't be trusted"

 

First time I scrolled through the series.

[nomuse]

Just occurs to me there is a label that is NOT visible in any of the scenes.

If we in the theater had a rock that had to go back in the right place on stage every night, there wouldn't be a label on the rock or anywhere else to make sure you got the right one. That's what Stage Manager's diagrams (and crew memory) is for. After all, the cast can remember two hours of blocking and choreography -- the crew can certainly remember that the slightly brownish rock is the one on the left, and the l-shaped rock is near the leg.

No, what is marked in these cases is the FLOOR. Spiked (behind the prop, so the audience shouldn't see them when the item is in place) so you can get it to the exact geometric relationship each time.

I haven't seen anything like all those little bits of colored tape in any of the Apollo Surface Record.

(At least the astronauts wouldn't need glow tape -- they aren't required to find their way on set in the dark!)

[Tedward]

Hi Tedward, not a problem. It is just my professional observation that props are not labelled. The area in which they are stored is, but not the props themselves.

I definitely agree with you.

And to L.O. I thank you. Funny to see such people show their true colours, isn't it?

It is always interesting to hear from people such as yourself and other web informed people on here.

[Peter B]

How about responding to that, cobber?

Peter, are you Australian or are you implying something (or both)?

Guilty, Your Honour.

It was just the way our guest was calling everyone Mate, I thought I'd provide a bit of Aussie alternative.

But then the old brain cells started to fire up. Back around 2000 a mobile phone company produced this TV ad:

And more recently a minister in the Federal government had a torrid interview with a radio shock jock who'd previously been a good friend. At the start of the interview the minister called his interviewer Ray (Hadley) but as the questions turned hostile, Ray was replaced by Mate, uttered increasingly tersely: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/scott-morrison-1-ray-hadley-0-and-god-were-still-not-sure-what-he-thinks-20150918-gjpq2e.html

ETA: Not that anyone uses the term "cobber" these days. I've never heard anyone use it, except as a joke.

[Peter B]

I also wonder why you would need to label the rocks. What possible scenario would lead to filming the Moon Landings out of order, and having to redress the set back to what it looked like in a previous take?

And furthermore, if there were labels on the rocks, then this would seem to describe having to do this so often it made sense to label everything. Like doing a show in repertory, when you have one or two performances, strike, another show performs, then you come back again. That's when you label. And I can't imagine any shooting schedule for Apollo in which this would make sense.

Sputnik?

After all, Tindarormkimcha claims that Sputnik was faked too...

(Yes, I know, the chronology doesn't make sense, but obviously that's what they want you to think!)

[LunarOrbit]

In order for your next post to be approved, you will have to provide answers to these questions that have been asked of you:

1) Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
2) How do you fake a moon rock so convincingly that scientists from around the world can be fooled? How do you create a rock in 1969 and make it look 4 billion years old?
3) How can NASA lie about the Van Allen Belt radiation without someone at some point discovering the truth? If they knew they would get caught, why would they lie?

Also, I want you to prove to me that a single official Apollo photograph has been faked. Just one will do. Explain to me the process of how it was faked.

If you can't answer those questions then as far as I'm concerned you have failed to make your case that the moon landings were faked.

Tindarormkimcha,

You have made 7 post since I asked you to answer those questions, and I will not approve them until you have answered me.

[bknight]

In order for your next post to be approved, you will have to provide answers to these questions that have been asked of you:

1) Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?
2) How do you fake a moon rock so convincingly that scientists from around the world can be fooled? How do you create a rock in 1969 and make it look 4 billion years old?
3) How can NASA lie about the Van Allen Belt radiation without someone at some point discovering the truth? If they knew they would get caught, why would they lie?

Also, I want you to prove to me that a single official Apollo photograph has been faked. Just one will do. Explain to me the process of how it was faked.

If you can't answer those questions then as far as I'm concerned you have failed to make your case that the moon landings were faked.

Tindarormkimcha,

You have made 7 post since I asked you to answer those questions, and I will not approve them until you have answered me.

Disbelief goes well beyond Apollo.

[tarkus]

Make a point about something specific instead of spraying a perfectly good forum with your hoax dung. Until then you have nothing but disbelief, a substandard education and a desperate desire for adult attention to sustain your fantasy world. Prove me wrong and provide actual evidence to support whatever claim you think you might be making.

It is exactly the opposite: those who cling to the ificial version of trips to the moon are like those stubborn children who get angry when they discover that Santa Claus does not exist, and refuse to admit though others assure them that parents who place toys next to the Christmas tree.

[JayUtah]

On the contrary you'll find that many or most of us here are actually quite aware of the relevant facts, and that at least a few of us are professionally qualified in the sciences and techniques that apply to space, including travel to the Moon.  It is not simply a matter of rote belief or wishful thinking.

In contrast we find that many hoax claimants, yourself included (see your newly minted thread), are astoundingly ignorant of the specific factors that affect your claims as well as the general knowledge of what it takes to prove a point.

[tarkus]

So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?

Except for the vast majority of eclipses where it is not big enough to cover the sun.  See annular eclipses

Lie, in most total eclipses of the sun, the moon completely covers the sun disk, only when the Moon is near aphelion annular eclipses occur.
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.

[bknight]

The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.

Please explain this statement.

[JayUtah]

Lie, in most total eclipses of the sun, the moon completely covers the sun disk, only when the Moon is near aphelion annular eclipses occur.

Factually misleading.  Annular eclipses occur roughly half again as often as total eclipses.

The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.

Leaving aside the factual incorrectness in your presentation of the data, you seem to be inferring from the relative sizes and distances of Earth, Moon, and Sun that the Moon must be an artificial construct.  That's a non sequitur.

[Tedward]

All a bit of a coincidence really.

[Abaddon]

So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?

Except for the vast majority of eclipses where it is not big enough to cover the sun.  See annular eclipses

Lie, in most total eclipses of the sun, the moon completely covers the sun disk, only when the Moon is near aphelion annular eclipses occur.
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.

The Moon is getting ever further from the Earth, and as it does so, annular eclipses will become the norm. Claiming that because it so happens that the Moon is in it's current location by divine providence of something you are unable to identify is no different than claiming leprechauns dunnit. Or mermaids. Or bigfoot.

Basically that is abject crankery. We have seen it all and done it all. One chunk of crankery is much like another.

[frenat]

So what is your evidence for the Moon being artificial?

Except for the vast majority of eclipses where it is not big enough to cover the sun.  See annular eclipses

Lie, in most total eclipses of the sun, the moon completely covers the sun disk, only when the Moon is near aphelion annular eclipses occur.
The artificiality of the moon is so obvious that only a superstitious he is able to deny it.

Wrong.  The majority are annular eclipses.