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

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

Of course, both sides have gone over every detail, and while
I haven't followed the conspiracy wesites, I remember having
watched a TV special about it, and most of the portions they
discussed seemed to have simple RL debunks. It really makes
the hoax theorists look like idiots.

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

Yeah, light bounces beween the lens front and back.
There was quite a bit of glass in the moon rocks too,
so it's possible that there was sparkle from rocks.

>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.

I'm not sure it's really worth my time, there's not going
to be any proof that misplacing the tapes is incompetence
as NASA claims, vrs intentional as I suspect.

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 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?
> 

But.. The same people that "think" they managed to do this also thing 
that a Florida man who once worked as a janitor at a lab, by the name of 
Lazar, is actually a physicist who had every scrap of evidence, 
including his own SSN, school records, birth records, etc. **all** 
erased by the NSA and CIA, and replaced by ones showing he was a 
clueless, uneducated fool, to hide the fact that he worked on the secret 
projects to reverse engineer alien space craft. You know.. The stuff 
that we came up with, like gravity drives (oh, wait, no, we haven't 
managed that one) or micro chips, the later of which work so well, that 
there are dozens of research projects trying to replace them with light 
based chips, quantum computers, and even, in some obscure circles, new 
classes of analog systems... None of which work *anything* like a 
transistor, but I am sure the same people think where "reverse 
engineered" from the same glowy flying space ships, in a secret 
building, that Mr. Lazar worked with.

Oh, and the real fun thing.. The moron insists that the almost instantly 
decaying, Ununium 115 is the power source for these ships, and that its 
"natural" form is neither radioactively toxic, nor unstable (never mind 
the fact that the stuff made by us in particle accelerators *is* the 
natural kind, and you would have to strip off like 30+ electrons (this 
is an estimate, since I have no idea what the next stable "downward" 
element would be), or add 69 of them, to get a "stable" configuration of 
184 electrons. Pretty sure, though its been a while, that isotopes have 
only +/- 1 electron, maybe 2, but nothing I have ever seen suggests you 
could add, or remove 30-70 of them to get a "stable" form. For one, I 
doubt the core would sustain that many lost, or gained, without them 
flying off, or causing a collapse of the structure. The 184 element 
*might* be feasibly worth something, if anyone ever made any, which we 
haven't, and I suspect its properties are probably not anything like "fuel".

Oh, yes, and the local wacko that believes Lazar *and* the moon landing 
being a hoax, also thinks that 9/11 was "staged".

The way I figure it, if all the shit they think people faked over the 
years where faked, the amount of power such people would have to have 
would make it **easier** for them to simply arrange for inconvenient 
people like Lazar to die in a car accident, *before* they write a dozen 
fracking books, then erase anything they might have written down, 
instead of wasting decades erasing documents to make the guy look like a 
quack. Basically, anyone able to cover up the shit they are accused of 
could make the population of an entire state vanish, if they where 
"inconvenient" and be similarly *never caught at it*. Yet, somehow, all 
these people who "know the truth", these thousands of walking corpses, 
these inconvenient people that, if they just dredged up one single 
document some place, could bring the whole thing down, are amazingly 
alive, loud, prolific in whining about the conspiracies, and, in many 
cases, making a damn good living off of selling stuff that any *sane* 
conspiracist would have had burned, along with their bodies, before the 
first book hit the printers, never mind a book shelf.

These people make my head hurt...

-- 
void main () {

     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

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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?
> 
Of which there where what.. Maybe 5 at the time, all stationary *over* 
the US, not in the least because people in other countries would have 
been less than happy to know they where being potentially spied on. On, 
and.. Unless you missed the point of how they are built, they have two 
systems on them, both aimed *at* what they are dealing with, one to 
receive, the other to transmit, and both at pointed *down*, at the 
earth. As a rule, most satellites, especially from that period, could 
only relay information from the ground, to other satellites, or back to 
the ground, and then only in line of site, and then only on the same 
plane, if the moon was *behind* the damn thing, it would be worthless, 
as it would be on almost any angle to the moon from it. We still have 
the same issue talking to orbital systems and space craft today. 
*Something* has to be pointed at what you plan to receive.

Now, I suppose, if you where taking a long approach, you could have shot 
up a dozen satellites, all specifically *designed* to receive data from 
the "opposite" direction of the earth, but that would have taken more 
launches, before we put people into space. Fact is, even today, we 
*still* have our space craft talk to ground stations, then *those* 
stations relay the data up to a satellite, which shoots it across to 
another one, and finally back down to the ground. The shuttle/ship never 
"talks" directly to the 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.
> 
Uh, no. Conspiracy theorists make up implausible secret agencies, then 
claim that *those* are watching everyone. We know the USSR existed, we 
know they spied on us, we know they watched our TV, we even have 
documentation indicating they listened in on a lot of stuff we did in 
the space program. Its hardly implausible, or only supported by some 
random wacko with a book, who insists he once worked for some secret 
project to paint rocks for a fake landing, or the similar BS you get in 
conspiracy theorist thinking.

-- 
void main () {

     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