Sadly so is access to disinformation. Any crackpot can get their ideas out to the world with nary a publisher in site to utter the words "Fact checking".
So the moon landing was faked!
- Thread starter LateX'Dog
- Start date
Sadly so is access to disinformation. Any crackpot can get their ideas out to the world with nary a publisher in site to utter the words "Fact checking".
Ipad... But me quickly typing on a ipad doesn't make me some kind a amoeba. Well a little
So this guy in the video reckons they didn't have the tech to fake it in a studio.
What about Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey? Released in 1968 the year before the Apollo 11 landings. He did a pretty good job without computers and just good old fashioned cinematography. Maybe the moon they landed on was actually in Shepperton Studios
What about Kubrick's 2001 A Space Odyssey? Released in 1968 the year before the Apollo 11 landings. He did a pretty good job without computers and just good old fashioned cinematography. Maybe the moon they landed on was actually in Shepperton Studios
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
Agreed. Like the 911 controlled demolition theory.
Sort of.
The Apollo spacecraft beamed telemetry back to Earth. This took up the part of the spectrum used by video broadcasting. The only way to send live video over it would have been to turn the telemetry off - not exactly a great idea! So engineers developed a smaller format - slow-scan - to beam live video back to Earth. This slow-scan footage (320 scan lines, 10 frames per second, transmitted back to Earth at 500kHz) would then need converting to US television's standards (525 scan lines, 30fps, transmitted out at 4.5MHz). And the easiest way to convert it and still reasonably call it a live broadcast was to point a TV camera at the screen that was receiving the slow-scan footage.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 Mar 2003
- Posts
- 57,755
- Location
- Stoke on Trent
Have you got a link to how it was filmed because this is a new one on me and I've been reading this stuff since the early 70s?
I'm not saying that it wasn't filmed like that.
So let's talk about this picture. It depicts a laser ranging retro-reflector, as can be seen it was manually placed this can be seen by the lack of any rover tracks and only footprints. It can still be used today to bounce lasers off and it's position is known with great accuracy.
What is the theory from conspiracists on how it got there. Was this picture created in a studio with great accuracy, including the exact distance from the landing pod and it's position on the moon?
Did an insanely advanced 2 legged rover go up and place it? because the rovers on the moon would obviously show tracks.
How did the Russians get their reflectors on the Moon? They've never set foot on the Moon so how did they do it?
People really need to realise that it doesn't take manned craft to do the things people are claiming are 'Proof' of a manned landing.
Through the use of rovers, that wasn't my question. My question was how did this one get there?
Do the Russian ones have visible footprints all around them with no other signs of placement?
I'm not sure who's worst, the die hard conspiracy theorists or the die hard believers....
One thing that always bugged me, why did NASA not allow any tv station to broadcast live. Instead they made everyone watch tv from cameras filming a crappy tv. Something's a bit fishy. .....it's a amazing way to hide every detail till it can be edited to perfection
Fluke runs after throwing grenade in thread
IIRC standards conversions at the time where incredibly difficult to do reliably.
And NASA wouldn't have been using a standard that the TV industry would likely have used (for frequency and power reasons), and almost certainly wouldn't have wanted to physically hook up an outside parties equipment to the same feed they were using.
At the time it was very common for TV broadcasts to be done from things like projected film, or in the case of broadcasts from different systems, via a camera pointed at a suitable screen.
IIRC in the 60's and 70's there were several occasions where the BBC rebroadcast stuff from France using a camera pointed at a studio monitor in a building on the coast, with a big old aerial to pick up the French broadcast, and then allow it to be rebroadcast using the UK TV standards, as that was the only realistic way to do it.
Remember we are talking about a time when the predominate tech was still valves, and individual transistors, when even getting a reliable timing signal for a TV receiver was so hard that they relied on mains frequency in most cases for reference rather than having an independent timing circuit in the TV.
Why ask questions trying to refute the conspiracy theory, you get the answer you are expecting (the one you expect a theorist to say) and then you just get more aggressive, like its all their fault.
First of all, logically, one could surmise that image could be false or it could have been done elsewhere while also placing the item on the moon.
So the question is boring and pointless.
People need to realise that the best position is no position, the onus is only on the people that directly participated in the journey, NASA and the US government.
Everyone else is a spectator, regurgitating Chinese whispers infinitely till it is nonsense.
First of all, logically, one could surmise that image could be false or it could have been done elsewhere while also placing the item on the moon.
So the question is boring and pointless.
People need to realise that the best position is no position, the onus is only on the people that directly participated in the journey, NASA and the US government.
Everyone else is a spectator, regurgitating Chinese whispers infinitely till it is nonsense.
The answer I expected, those who dismiss it are sheep, you are the real 'knowing' one. If you start from the standpoint of 'you wont listen to me' rather than we have perhaps listened but have chosen to dismiss it because of the MUCH broader evidence to support it. You see this is where conspiracy falls down, it assumes your chosen insight is more informed, more likely to be the case and simply more insightful when more often its riddled with holes and misses the evidence that FAR outweighs small aspects that are the basis of your argument.
It's not about having it my way, I just don't think debate with someone who believes themselves more informed is going to go anywhere, it is wasted effort. See the last religious thread for a prime example of my point.
Did you miss the point he was making?
You have instantly made up your mind about the discussion at hand as well, which is to be expected due to how often it turns up, but gib hardly posted an infowars video or anything to instantly dismiss.
What a depressing point of view. I hope you're happy in your little bubble of ignorance.
I've not instantly made up my mind on anything. The conspiracy theories that suggest that people didn't land of the moon, the images were faked, that flags blew in the wind, that shadows were wrong etc etc, have been around for many years. I've read them, not all but many, digested them and feel they are not in anyway substantial enough to support the conspiracy people didn't walk on the moon. I don't think the support further discussion as my uncle Gordon who worked at NASA in the 60's told me they happened and that for me is enough...though I take the masses of other documentation as substantiation of his view too.
Ignorance should be used in the correct contexts, preferably not just thrown around as an insult to try and make your point "clearer".
@Housey - Fair enough.
I agree with the rest though.There is moon footage, many photos, mission documentation, plans, hundreds of staff and loads of witness accounts. Throughout all of this evidence there is not one thing that suggests the missions never happened and everything in all the evidence is represented exactly as expected.
Every single conspiracy to do with the footage of the moon landing can be refuted with evidence and real world testing.
How is refusal to believe it happened not ignorance?
Why ask questions? Its sort of a natural thing to do when presented with BS that doesn't really stand up to questioning.
Spreading lies/bogus theories about events like this does take away from something that was an incredible feat at the time by both the engineers/scientists on the ground and the guys who put their own lives at risk to achieve it.
Granted its not as bad as those who deny the holocaust or put forward bogus accounts of 9/11 which potentially serves to upset, confuse and cause distress to the victims/relatives of the victims etc... but still it is something that deserves contempt. Especially when its nothing new, the 'conspiracies' have been put forward plenty of times before and generally debunked. Unless someone is going to propose something new, compelling etc.. then they're just another bunch of idiot conspiraloons regurgitating the same old nonsense and happy to ignore anything contrary to their rather unrealistic versions of events.