Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>>   Which possibility seems more plausible?
> 
> He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more 
> plausible than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.
> 

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/conspiracy_theorist_convinces_neil

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> He *did* say "portions" of the footage were faked. That's far more plausible 
> than everything being faked, and far easier to cover up.

  I still don't see too much difference from what I wrote.

  The astronauts would have to either be involved directly in the fakery,
or some other people would have to be put in suits to fake the photos.
Even if the fakery did not require actually taking photos, only manipulating
existing material, the astronatus would notice some of the photos not
matching anything they did. In either case I find it implausible for all
these people to keep quiet about it.

  Some people have to make the decision to create the fakes and arrange
for making them. Some people need to do the actual faking. Some people
would notice that some of the photos were not in any of the films in
the actual cameras, and would certainly start asking questions about
where those photos came from. All of these people would have to be kept
quiet about these issues for the past 40 years.

  And what would be the point? Why fake some photos while still having
some genuine photos? Why take the risk of this information leaking?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>  I still don't see too much difference from what I wrote.
>
>  The astronauts would have to either be involved directly in the fakery,
> or some other people would have to be put in suits to fake the photos.
> Even if the fakery did not require actually taking photos, only 
> manipulating
> existing material, the astronatus would notice some of the photos not
> matching anything they did. In either case I find it implausible for all
> these people to keep quiet about it.
>
>  Some people have to make the decision to create the fakes and arrange
> for making them. Some people need to do the actual faking. Some people
> would notice that some of the photos were not in any of the films in
> the actual cameras, and would certainly start asking questions about
> where those photos came from. All of these people would have to be kept
> quiet about these issues for the past 40 years.
>
>  And what would be the point? Why fake some photos while still having
> some genuine photos? Why take the risk of this information leaking?

Think about it this way, the crew has just had hairy landing almost
out of fuel, they call back "the eagle has landed", on earth everyone is
elated, they've made it. Armstrong is going down the ladder when
the video feed breaks up, having planned for every contingency
"they" cut in a video portion of "Armstrong" descending a ladder,
after the delay everyone on earth hears and sees what is really going
on, the USA has beaten the USSR to the moon. Soon after the
video breaks up again... "they're" done with the clip. The astronauts get
the camera from inside and set it up, they get the rover camera working,
who knows about the edit? The astronauts obviously don't, the
video went thru JPL, so it's likely no one at mission control knew,
it's the sort of secret that some military type might take to the grave
with them. Is there proof? No... just a few inconsistencies in what
remains of the footage. The original is gone, so there's no way to
look for a definitive forensic video fingerprint proof.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood wrote:
> "they" cut in a video portion of "Armstrong" descending a ladder,

I went to a lecture where Armstrong (Or Aldrin?) explained why they went 
around out of sight while descending. Apparently, he couldn't see his boots, 
he slipped of the ladder, and he thought "I sure as hell don't want to fall 
off the ladder with everyone in the world watching me live on TV."  Now you 
know.

Then he went on to talk about how God showed him where to find the white 
rocks he was looking for. Kind of an odd lecture.

> just a few inconsistencies in what
> remains of the footage. 

And what inconsistencies are you seeing?

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Understanding the structure of the universe
    via religion is like understanding the
     structure of computers via Tron.

Post a reply to this message

> And what inconsistencies are you seeing?

It's not my project (who cares as long as they really
were on the moon?) but from what I understand there
were reflections of lights showing in the helmet
visor.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/02/09 18:58, Tim Attwood wrote:
> with them. Is there proof? No... just a few inconsistencies in what
> remains of the footage. The original is gone, so there's no way to

	All that you described does not constitute an inconsistency.


-- 
Whose cruel idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have a "S" in it?

Post a reply to this message

> Armstrong is going down the ladder when
> the video feed breaks up, having planned for every contingency
> "they" cut in a video portion of "Armstrong" descending a ladder,

As Warp said, if this really was the case, there would be a huge number of 
people who knew about it, and it is *really* unlikely that many people could 
keep their mouths shut for so long.  I don't see how you could do such a 
thing with only 1 or 2 people knowing about it.  It's not like some senior 
NASA person could come in one night with a friend and shoot the fake video 
to exactly match what hadn't even happened yet.

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> Think about it this way, the crew has just had hairy landing almost
> out of fuel, they call back "the eagle has landed", on earth everyone is
> elated, they've made it. Armstrong is going down the ladder when
> the video feed breaks up, having planned for every contingency
> "they" cut in a video portion of "Armstrong" descending a ladder,
> after the delay everyone on earth hears and sees what is really going
> on, the USA has beaten the USSR to the moon. Soon after the
> video breaks up again... "they're" done with the clip. The astronauts get
> the camera from inside and set it up, they get the rover camera working,
> who knows about the edit? The astronauts obviously don't, the
> video went thru JPL, so it's likely no one at mission control knew,
> it's the sort of secret that some military type might take to the grave
> with them. Is there proof? No... just a few inconsistencies in what
> remains of the footage. The original is gone, so there's no way to
> look for a definitive forensic video fingerprint proof.

  Your mistake is to think that NASA was in direct line-of-sight to the
Moon for the entire mission, and that all video feed was received and
relayed forward solely by the NASA mission control center and nobody else.

  If you think about it, you'll find some problems with that idea. As you
know, the Earth rotates. This means that one point on the surface of the
earth is in direct line-of-sight to the Moon for an average of 12 hours
per day. It's physically impossible for the NASA mission control center
to have a 24-hour direct link to the signals sent from the Moon.

  Of course everybody knows this, and it wasn't a problem. NASA mission
control center was certainly not the only place on Earth which was
receiving and relaying those signals.

  (Also, do you *seriously* think that eg. the USSR was not watching
closely every single transmission? The USSR would have loved nothing
more than to expose a hoax and ridicule the USA.)

  If instead of living in an illusion you *really* want to know the truth,
then please do some research. See how they managed the missions, the
transmissions and everything. You'll see that many of the conspiracy
theory accusations will crumble solely by doing that.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Tim Attwood <tim### [at] anti-spamcomcastnet> wrote:
> It's not my project (who cares as long as they really
> were on the moon?)

  Why shouldn't we care? If NASA created fakes, we should know about it.

> but from what I understand there
> were reflections of lights showing in the helmet
> visor.

  Do you honestly and seriously think that nobody has ever thought about
that?

  Let me ask you a question: Do you know the mechanics and physics behind
the so-called photographic lens flare effect?

  I warmly recommend you to read some debunking websites besides those hoax
theory websites. Then make an informed decision on whether the explanations
make sense and which possibility is more plausible.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On 09/03/09 03:31, Warp wrote:
>    If you think about it, you'll find some problems with that idea. As you
> know, the Earth rotates. This means that one point on the surface of the
> earth is in direct line-of-sight to the Moon for an average of 12 hours
> per day. It's physically impossible for the NASA mission control center
> to have a 24-hour direct link to the signals sent from the Moon.

	Satellites?

>    (Also, do you *seriously* think that eg. the USSR was not watching
> closely every single transmission? The USSR would have loved nothing
> more than to expose a hoax and ridicule the USA.)

	That's the kind of logic conspiracy theorists use.


-- 
"Biplane"  ...last words a pilot says before bailing out.

Post a reply to this message