The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 12:38:25 AM

Title: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 12:38:25 AM
For Moon landing hoax believers, why wouldn't Russia have faked a landing on the Moon before the USA did?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2022, 12:57:30 AM
The US Moon Landing was only the biggest win because you were conditioned to see it that way in the western school system. Russia had claimed many firsts:

- First intercontinental ballistic missile and orbital launch vehicle
- First satellite
- First person in space
- First robotic space rover on the Moon
- First probes sent to Venus and Mars

Considering these firsts, suggesting that Russia should have focused on being the first to send people to the Moon to claim that just seems arbitrary. Apollo was highly criticized because there was nothing a person could do on the Moon that a robot couldn't do, and that NASA was unnecessarily endangering the lives of people for national prestige.

From The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/nasa-moon-artemis-2025/620668/): "Over the years, I’ve spoken with many people who think deeply about space travel, and when I ask some of them about the whys, they admit, a little sheepishly, that there might be no compelling reason to send people into space—robots, yes, but people, maybe not. They seem hesitant to even say it aloud, as if to do so were blasphemous."

There wasn't actually a scientific reason to send people to the Moon. Why should Russia give importance to something the US arbitrarily decided to do?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 01:13:51 AM
The US Moon Landing is only the biggest win because you were conditioned to see it that way in the western school system. Russia had claimed many firsts:

- First intercontinental ballistic missile and orbital launch vehicle
- First satellite
- First person in space
- First robotic space rover on the Moon
- First probes sent to Venus and Mars

Considering these firsts, suggesting that Russia should have focused on being the first to send people to the Moon to claim that just seems arbitrary. Apollo was highly criticized because there was nothing a person could do on the Moon that a robot couldn't do, and that NASA was unnecessarily endangering the lives of people for national prestige.

From The Atlantic (https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/nasa-moon-artemis-2025/620668/): "Over the years, I’ve spoken with many people who think deeply about space travel, and when I ask some of them about the whys, they admit, a little sheepishly, that there might be no compelling reason to send people into space—robots, yes, but people, maybe not. They seem hesitant to even say it aloud, as if to do so were blasphemous."

There wasn't actually a scientific reason to send people to the Moon. Why should Russia give importance to something the US arbitrarily decided to do?


If Russia's "firsts" were faked (as a space travel conspiracy believer would believe) seems like they were on a roll and would have also faked a Moon landing in their own studio. Landing on another space body for the first time in human existence seems like an opportunity Russia wouldn't have put on the low end of their priorities.

Russia were also risking human lives / endangering lives at the cost of space travel. In 1967 Russia commenced with a high risk space mission that ultimately killed Cosmonaut, Vladimir Komarov. Read the Wikipedia for this one, very grotesque.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2022, 01:23:14 AM
There were multiple government organizations involved. Money has to be appropriated. Neither NASA or the Soviet Space Agency had authority to appropriate money to itself.

NASA to US Congress: Russia is beating us!! Please give us billions of $$ for Apollo manned lunar landing.

US Congress: OMG OKAY

Soviet Space Agency to Soviet Russia: NASA is sending men to the Moon, please give us billions of ₽₽ for a Soviet manned lunar landing to beat them at that too!

Soviet Russia: That would unnecessarily endanger human lives. We already beat them at the most important space achievements. We won. We are going to reduce funding that area and not focus on it, never really getting past the planning stages.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 01:28:44 AM
There were multiple government organizations involved. Money has to be appropriated. Neither NASA or the Soviet Space Agency had authority to appropriate money to itself.

NASA to US Congress: Russia is beating us!! Please give us billions of $$ for Apollo manned lunar landing.

US Congress: OMG OKAY

Soviet Space Agency to Soviet Russia: NASA is sending men to the Moon, please give us billions of ₽₽ for a Soviet lunar landing to beat them at that too!

Soviet Russia: That would unnecessarily endanger human lives. We already beat then at the most important space achievements. We won.


But, going to space is a conspiracy / faked in a studio as space travel conspiracy theorists would contend. It wouldn't need to cost billions.

As mentioned, Russia unnecessarily endangered human lives with their space missions.... the story of Vladimir Komarov being one of the most unfortunate examples. There were about 5 additional Russian cosmonaut fatalities.

Landing on the Moon and planting a flag on said Moon would indeed tend to rank at the top, in terms of space achievements.

Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2022, 01:52:57 AM
Quote
But, going to space is a conspiracy / faked in a studio as space travel conspiracy theorists would contend. It wouldn't need to cost billions.

The Russian government and populous thinks it does though. Pretty fishy if the RSA claimed to do it without getting the money appropriated, or if they did it after the Soviet government denied their funding request for it.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 01:53:41 AM
Quote
But, going to space is a conspiracy / faked in a studio as space travel conspiracy theorists would contend. It wouldn't need to cost billions.

The Russian government and populous thinks it does though. Pretty fishy if the RSA claimed to do it without getting the money appropriated, or if they did it after the Soviet government denied their funding request for it.

Landing on the Moon and planting a flag on said Moon would indeed tend to rank at the top, in terms of space achievements.

Whose to say Russia couldn't fake appropriations if able to fake space travel.
 
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2022, 01:58:41 AM
The Soviets did claim that they were the first to put a flag on the moon.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/russian-flag-on-moon-first/

(https://i.imgur.com/X1urkwU.png)

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviet-probe-reaches-the-moon

Quote
In September 1959, the Soviets upped the ante considerably with the announcement that a rocket carrying the flag of the Soviet Union had crashed onto the moon’s surface. In Washington, a muted congratulation was sent to the Soviet scientists who managed the feat. At the same time, however, the United States warned the Soviet Union that sending the Russian flag to the moon gave the Soviets no territorial rights over the celestial body.

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/2125:_Luna_2

Quote
(https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/images/8/86/luna_2.png)

Luna 2, the first artificial object to touch another world, carried a sphere made of steel Soviet flag emblems. [A patterned sphere is shown blowing up to pieces.] It was designed to blow apart on impact, scattering tiny metal flags and ribbons across the surface of the moon.

https://thecosmical.com/which-countries-have-a-flag-planted-on-the-moon-2021-edition/

Quote
The “Flags” of the Soviet Union

In all sense of the matter, the Soviet flag was technically the first to reach the surface of the moon.

In the 20th Century, the Space Race between the two Cold War adversaries, the Soviet Union (USSR) and the United States (USA), spurred on the scientific advancement in the space domain. The race soon brought the nations to the moon, when in 1959, the Soviet Union took another step forward in its space program with the launch of the Luna-2 probe.

Luna-2 was the sixth attempt of the Soviet Union to impact the moon, which ultimately succeeded to become the first man-made object to reach the lunar surface. With a crash landing mission directive, the Lunar-2 detonated two sphere-shaped pennants prior to impact.

(https://thecosmical.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Luna-2-Pennants-.jpeg?ezimgfmt=ng:webp/ngcb1)

72 titanium alloy pentagonal elements covered the two pennants. The center of the spheres was an explosive designed to detonate on impact to scatter the tiny pentagons all across the moon. The centerpiece of the sphere contained the state emblem of the Soviet Union with the Cyrillic letters CCCP (“USSR”) and the launch date engraved below it.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 02:13:46 AM
The Soviets did claim that they were the first to put a flag on the moon.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/mighty-history/russian-flag-on-moon-first/

(https://i.imgur.com/X1urkwU.png)

https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviet-probe-reaches-the-moon

"In September 1959, the Soviets upped the ante considerably with the announcement that a rocket carrying the flag of the Soviet Union had crashed onto the moon’s surface. In Washington, a muted congratulation was sent to the Soviet scientists who managed the feat. At the same time, however, the United States warned the Soviet Union that sending the Russian flag to the moon gave the Soviets no territorial rights over the celestial body."


If Russia went so far as fake a rocket carrying the flag being shot to the Moon, why not follow-up on that achievement with a fake Moon landing with the USSR being the first to have their people walk on the Moon before the USA faked their Moon landing?

Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on May 02, 2022, 04:08:31 AM
There's definitely a distinct level of "achievement" gap between exploding a metal soccer ball on the moon versus having a human drive a flagpole into it.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2022, 04:52:30 AM
Yeah, it was called the space race, not the 'send a man to plant a flag on moon' race. It was a race to space. The goal posts shifted to planting a flag on the moon with a man after the US lost the space race. Russia clearly and obviously won it with what it was claiming, and was under no obligation to win further arbitrary goal post shifting.

If you lose a foot race and then decide that the race is actually to your car in the parking lot, that just makes you a big loser.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 06:14:29 AM
Yeah, it was called the space race, not the 'send a man to plant a flag on moon' race. It was a race to space. The goal posts shifted to planting a flag on the moon with a man after the US lost the space race. Russia clearly and obviously won it with what it was claiming, and was under no obligation to win further arbitrary goal post shifting.

If you lose a foot race and then decide that the race is actually to your car in the parking lot, that just makes you a big loser.


But, if all of these races were faked anyways, why not fake the one with the biggest cherry on top.... which is having your country's citizens be the first to step foot on a foreign satellite, the Moon?

Set a fake budget, set up some fake missions, and fake the first Moon landing by your country in your own studio.

I mean, what's better than the first person in space but the first person to set foot on Earth's Moon. If space travel is a conspiracy and fake anyways, why not fake being the first country to set foot on the Moon.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2022, 06:27:21 AM
Even if you are faking your achievements, it still takes effort to fake. Someone cheating in a foot race with steroids wouldn't necessarily entertain someone deciding that the race was to his car in the stadium parking lot.

Again, it was called the space race and not the "first man to the Moon" race. Putting a man on the Moon was just something that the US did to feel better about losing the space race and wasn't really the original goal.

If you are having a competition with someone you need to stick to the original goals, not make them up as you go along. It was called the space race, clearly. The goal was to get into space. The race to space was to express military dominance in terms of orbital and ICBM weapon capability. It was to show the world that you have the capability of creating orbital weapons. A manned lunar mission has little to do with that. It was tacked on because the US didn't want to appear to be a complete loser on the world stage.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 07:02:40 AM
Even if you are faking your achievements, it still takes effort to fake. Someone cheating in a foot race with steroids wouldn't necessarily entertain someone deciding that the race was to his car in the stadium parking lot.

Again, it was called the space race and not the "first man to the Moon" race. Putting a man on the Moon was just something that the US did to feel better about losing the space race and wasn't really the original goal.

If you are having a competition with someone you need to stick to the original goals, not make them up as you go along. It was called the space race, clearly. The goal was to get into space. The race to space was to express military dominance in terms of orbital and ICBM weapon capability. It was to show the world that you have the capability of creating orbital weapons. A manned lunar mission has little to do with that. It was tacked on because the US didn't want to appear to be a complete loser.


But, there was indeed a race to the Moon, with the ultimate goal of being the first to land on the Moon in a manned spacecraft.

Note the various Luna, Ranger, and Surveyor missions as progress steps to trying to get to that ultimate goal.

Why would the Soviet Union go so far as to fake the various Luna missions to the Moon but not go one step further in faking the ultimate cherry on top landing in a manned spacecraft.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 02, 2022, 07:17:17 AM
The US Moon Landing was only the biggest win because you were conditioned to see it that way in the western school system.
This is such obvious bullshit. Landing a man on the moon and returning them to earth safely is orders of magnitude more complicated and risky than anything the USSR achieved. There was no well defined end of the space race, it was just about willy waving and demonstrating technical superiority. The Russians were clearly doing that initially but putting a man on the moon was clearly a massive win for the US - that's why the Russians were trying to do it too. ( https://www.rferl.org/a/why-the-soviets-never-landed-on-the-moon/30043556.html )

Quote
Apollo was highly criticized because there was nothing a person could do on the Moon that a robot couldn't do
Well this is obvious nonsense too. Even now a robot can't do all the same things a human can, and we are more than 50 years on from Apollo.
To say that "there might be no compelling reason to send people into space" is to miss the point of exploration. What is the reason for going to the South Pole or to climb Everest? Humans have a spirit of exploration and even if it were true that we would learn as much from a robot exploration as a human one - which it is not - there is still something about seeing a human footprint on the moon that gives one goosebumps.

Quote
There wasn't actually a scientific reason to send people to the Moon. Why should Russia give importance to something the US arbitrarily decided to do?

As I've said, there were scientific reasons - in one of the later missions they actually sent a geologist to the moon. The moon rocks which were brought back have taught us a lot about the moon's origins. And secondly Russia were also trying to send a manned mission to the moon, their bigger rockets just didn't work well enough to do it.

I'm interested what your narrative here. Presumably you think that the early achievements by the USSR were faked? So the US started faking their own? I mean, it's all very silly given that people could hear the signals from Sputnik in the same way radio hams can now contact the ISS. The Australians were relaying signals for the US during the Apollo missions, were they "in on it" or being fooled too? And Jodrell Bank in the UK were tracking both the Apollo missions and a USSR craft which was also trying to land at the same time to steal the US's thunder. Were they in on it too?

The mental gymnastics you have to do in order to keep your beliefs going are ridiculous.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2022, 07:29:18 AM
It's simple. If there is a competition both parties need to agree to it.

From the Wikipedia article on "Space Race" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race


Both parties agreed to this and publicly communicated their intentions. The Soviet Union won this.

In contradiction, the Soviets did not publicly claim at the time of Apollo that they were in a race to the Moon:

https://www.history.com/news/space-race-soviet-union-moon-landing-denial

The Soviet Response to the Moon Landing? Denial There Was a Moon Race at All


https://reason.com/1979/08/01/the-moon-race-cover-up/

The Moon Race Cover-Up

Ten years ago Apollo 11 landed on the moon. Did the US really beat the Soviets, or was the moon race just a NASA hype?


The above articles go on to describe that Russia was making some steps towards a future manned lunar mission, and developed a few things. But they were clearly not publicly claiming to be in a moon race at the time of Apollo. Russia said that they were not in a race to the moon. It is claimed by the western side that Russia was in a moon race and that Russia was lying when publicly stating that they were not in a moon race.  ::)

In order to have a competition you need two parties who communicate their intention. Russia did not agree to any such race. Despite whatever research they developed towards a possible future moon landing, the claim that they were secretly in a race is clearly just coping. It was a space race, which the Soviets won. It turned into a "moon race" when the US needed to cope.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 01:45:16 PM
If all of the Soviet's firsts were faked, and they endangered lives to carry out their faked missions, why would they have skipped a beat and declined faking a manned Moon landing?

- fake the first man in space. Check
- fake the first satellite launched and in orbit. Check
- fake the first probe to orbit the Moon. Check
- fake the first probe to land on the Moon. Check
- fake the first manned Moon landing. Ah, we'll just skip this one.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2022, 01:53:26 PM
There is nothing to skip. Read above. They publicly said they were not in a race to send men to the Moon and that their lunar program was robotic; which was cheaper, more flexible, and without risk to human life.

Apollo is prided on being "risky" and "hazardous"... which is really nothing to be proud of. The US Congress funded such a risky scheme out of desperation. The Russians were not desperate, and was not keen on funding wild hazardous manned missions to the moon. Even if fake, you still need to get the public and people out of the loop on board and convince people of the plan to get funding.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 02:09:16 PM
There is nothing to skip. Read above. They publicly said they were not in a race to send men to the Moon and that their lunar program was robotic; which was cheaper, more flexible, and without risk to human life.

Apollo is prided on being "risky" and "hazardous"... which is really nothing to be proud of. The US Congress funded such a risky scheme out of desperation. The Russians were not desperate, and was not keen on funding wild hazardous manned missions to the moon.


But, faking a Moon landing in a studio wouldn't actually require any wild hazardous manned mission to the Moon....because it could just be faked.... in a studio.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 02, 2022, 02:11:39 PM
See my comment above:

Even if fake, you still need to get the public and people out of the loop on board and convince people of the plan to get funding.

The US Congress approved the risky scheme because they were desperate.

Russia was not desperate, and did not publicaly announce that this was their goal. Clearly a difference there.

Easy to see why a desperate US would try to beat the Russians at something after so many losses. Turns out that the Russians never consented to a manned moon race  and it was mostly hype.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 02, 2022, 02:17:03 PM
See my comment above:

Even if fake, you still need to get the public and people out of the loop on board and convince people of the plan to get funding.

The US Congress approved the risky scheme because they were desperate.

Russia was not desperate, and did not publicaly announce that this was their goal. Clearly a difference there.


The Soviets could have created a fake funding scheme..... to fund a fake manned mission to the Moon.

Russia wouldn't need to be desperate anyways.... because its all fake.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on May 02, 2022, 05:53:59 PM
See my comment above:

Even if fake, you still need to get the public and people out of the loop on board and convince people of the plan to get funding.

The US Congress approved the risky scheme because they were desperate.

Russia was not desperate, and did not publicaly announce that this was their goal. Clearly a difference there.

Easy to see why a desperate US would try to beat the Russians at something after so many losses. Turns out that the Russians never consented to a manned moon race  and it was mostly hype.

I'm not sure what all this stuff about competition or no competition, race versus no race is, nor why it matters or is relevant. In any case, it appears the Soviets were fully onboard with a manned lunar landing.

The Soviet decision to land cosmonauts on the Moon (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ef8124031cfcf448b11db32/t/5f1c443485d7250b81014298/1595687988727/Siddiqi+Soviet+Decision+to+go+to+the+Moon+2004.pdf)
In the early years of the Soviet space programme, no decree, however, had more of an impact on Soviet aspirations to explore space than the one adopted and signed on 3 August 1964 (‘decree no. 655-268’). This decision committed the Soviet Union to a manned lunar landing in competition with the American Apollo programme; specifically it approved the development of the N-1/L-3 lunar complex

The Soviet Reach for The Moon (https://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications/books/sovietReach/index.pdf)
Meanwhile, in the US the Saturn I had already flown with a boilerplate Apollo spacecraft, and the lunar program was on track for a landing on the Moon before the decade was out. Finally, Korolev succeeded in convincing the Soviet goverrunent that a Russian could still be the first man on the Moon only if an official program were initiated inunediately. A decree entitled "On Work Involving the Study of the Moon and Outer Space" set 1967-1968 as the target date for a lunar landing. However, Korolev found his N-l rocket competing with designs by Chelomei (UR-7
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: markjo on May 02, 2022, 09:16:19 PM
There is nothing to skip. Read above. They publicly said they were not in a race to send men to the Moon...
If Russia was willing to lie about sending humans to orbit, then why would you think that they wouldn't be willing to lie about their intentions to send humans to the moon?  Don't forget that, because of the Cold War, much of Russia's space program at the time was carried out in secret and many missions only announced after they were over.  We didn't find out a lot of things about their space program until after the Soviet Union collapsed and they opened their archives to the world.

Quote from: https://science.howstuffworks.com/5-secrets-about-soviet-space-program.htm
3: Was Russia Going to the Moon?

"We choose to go to the moon this decade," said President John F. Kennedy to a crowd assembled at the sweltering Rice University football stadium on Sept. 12, 1962, "and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...." With those words, there was no doubt about the United States' intention to land a man on the moon. But as the Americans ramped up their lunar program, the Soviets seemed unimpressed, calling the lunar missions risky and worthless while insisting they were focusing on the development of space stations. It left some wondering: Was the Space Race even a race at all?

As it turns out, it was a race — but the world didn't know for sure until 1989. That's when the Soviets let a group of U.S. scientists tour relics of the communist country's manned lunar program dating from the 1960s and 1970s. Among the equipment was an advanced lunar-landing craft and Earth-return module, indicating not only that the communist nation had a lunar program, but that they were actually quite serious about it [source: Wilford]. The Soviets might have even beaten the U.S. to the moon except for one problem: the rockets. They just didn't have the power to launch equipment with the complexity needed for a moon landing. Tests flights produced mixed results, and in the face of several American successes, the Soviets scrapped the program in the 1970s [source: Hardigree (https://www.wired.com/2010/10/russian-moon-mission/)].
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: SteelyBob on May 03, 2022, 04:24:54 AM
The goal posts shifted to planting a flag on the moon with a man after the US lost the space race. Russia clearly and obviously won it with what it was claiming, and was under no obligation to win further arbitrary goal post shifting.

This is utterly surreal. So the US clearly lost a race, despite both participants only pretending to compete?

Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on May 03, 2022, 08:05:43 AM
As a wise Captain will one day say: 

Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship (enter name of starship). Its (enter planned duration) mission: to explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before!

Still don't get it?  Space is just the frontier, its a vacuum, its nothing. The finish line is the new worlds, lives and civilizations.  And we aren't there yet. 

And life must be a riot in the Bishop-household btw;

"Dad, Dad, can we go to Disneyland"?

"No need kids, we'll just send a robot". 
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2022, 10:18:35 AM
There is nothing to skip. Read above. They publicly said they were not in a race to send men to the Moon...
If Russia was willing to lie about sending humans to orbit, then why would you think that they wouldn't be willing to lie about their intentions to send humans to the moon?

Actually I said that Russia did not publicly concede to a race to the Moon. They never declared that they were sending people to the moon during the time of Apollo. It wasn't a competition. They may have researched a few things, and made their model of a lander, but NASA interns and academics make new models of planetary landers every year as a standard academic exercise, which never see the light of day. When your space agency partners with academia they research all kinds of wacky stuff. (https://web.archive.org/web/20200812014651/https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084000-our-top-5-wacky-nasa-missions-that-might-just-happen/)

The assumption that Russia was actively competing to get to the moon is just that, an assumption. At the time they never publicly said that they were trying to get people to the moon, or were in a competition, so that's that. When Apollo 11 happened Russia denied that there was a moon race at all.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Gonzo on May 03, 2022, 11:08:30 AM
Tom, I think you need to do a lot more research into the Soviet space programme in the 50s, 60s and 70s before declaring there was 'no comptetion'. Lots of evidence out there, including books written by those involved.

Of course the USSR did not say there was.

In other news, the German Democratic Republic wasn't actually a democracy.

Shocking.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: tusstoss on May 03, 2022, 02:04:30 PM
There is nothing to skip. Read above. They publicly said they were not in a race to send men to the Moon...
If Russia was willing to lie about sending humans to orbit, then why would you think that they wouldn't be willing to lie about their intentions to send humans to the moon?

Actually I said that Russia did not publicly concede to a race to the Moon. They never declared that they were sending people to the moon during the time of Apollo. It wasn't a competition. They may have researched a few things, and made their model of a lander, but NASA interns and academics make new models of planetary landers every year as a standard academic exercise, which never see the light of day. When your space agency partners with academia they research all kinds of wacky stuff. (https://web.archive.org/web/20200812014651/https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084000-our-top-5-wacky-nasa-missions-that-might-just-happen/)

The assumption that Russia was actively competing to get to the moon is just that, an assumption. At the time they never publicly said that they were trying to get people to the moon, or were in a competition, so that's that. When Apollo 11 happened Russia denied that there was a moon race at all.

Tom, you clearly have no clue about USSR, it's history or leaders.

You should really go beyond some random wiki articles. I lived in USSR and studied it's history, your claims are something of third grader from USSR school system who read random two pages of 600 books available. Amateurish...
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 03, 2022, 02:16:30 PM
tusstoss, if you have an argument to make, make it. If you have nothing to say, consider saying nothing.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 03, 2022, 02:57:07 PM
Tom, I think you need to do a lot more research into the Soviet space programme in the 50s, 60s and 70s before declaring there was 'no comptetion'. Lots of evidence out there, including books written by those involved.

Of course the USSR did not say there was.

In other news, the German Democratic Republic wasn't actually a democracy.

Shocking.

The evidence of what they were doing in "secret" and what they were focused on and prioritized on in "secret" is based on speculation though, based on decades-later archival digging and seeing that academics were putting some amount of research into lander and rocket designs.

During the Space Race they were clearly working on lots of different space projects.

(https://i.imgur.com/MxdT3bC.jpg)

It is clearly a matter of national coping to claim that it had to be a man on the moon to win the Space Race, much like the previous analogy given of after losing a foot race deciding that the REAL race is the race to your car in the stadium parking lot.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on May 03, 2022, 05:37:22 PM
I’m trying to figure out what your argument is in regard to the OP, "why wouldn't Russia have faked a landing on the Moon before the USA did?"

Is it that there was no space race, no competition between the US and America because:

1) There were no terms of what a competition would constitute, a manned landing on the moon was not a part of the agreed-upon parameters of who could be declared the “winner” - America moved the goalposts by touting a manned attempt started by JFK in 61’.
2) So the Soviets were never in the development game of putting a man on the moon, all evidence that they were is “speculative”
3) Even if there was a “race” the Soviets won with their pre-Apollo achievements in space and a manned lunar landing was never in the cards as a part of said “race" (See #1)

Ergo, the USSR felt no need to fake a moon landing because they had already won the space race, a race that didn’t actually exist.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Gonzo on May 03, 2022, 06:24:53 PM
Tom,

I agree with stack.

Please can you express what your position is on the Soviet space programme. Maybe I'm missing it but you aren't making a coherent position clear.

Do you accept that the USSR (Note, not Russia!!!) did go into space? It seems from your last post that you do.

I urge you to do reading on the subject. It's not speculation. Leonov, Chertok, Titov, Gerovitch, and Chelomei as well as the standard texts by Siddiqi, Clark, Oberg, Cadbury and French and Burgess are valuable texts.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: SteelyBob on May 03, 2022, 08:19:01 PM
It is clearly a matter of national coping to claim that it had to be a man on the moon to win the Space Race, much like the previous analogy given of after losing a foot race deciding that the REAL race is the race to your car in the stadium parking lot.

Except, if I've understood you correctly, you're contending that neither the stadium, nor the car park, exist, and that both parties mutually agreed to fake the existence of both, whilst also agreeing, for some odd reason, to not fake running their best race.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 04, 2022, 01:01:49 AM
Tom, I think you need to do a lot more research into the Soviet space programme in the 50s, 60s and 70s before declaring there was 'no comptetion'. Lots of evidence out there, including books written by those involved.

Of course the USSR did not say there was.

In other news, the German Democratic Republic wasn't actually a democracy.

Shocking.

The evidence of what they were doing in "secret" and what they were focused on and prioritized on in "secret" is based on speculation though, based on decades-later archival digging and seeing that academics were putting some amount of research into lander and rocket designs.

During the Space Race they were clearly working on lots of different space projects.

(https://i.imgur.com/MxdT3bC.jpg)

It is clearly a matter of national coping to claim that it had to be a man on the moon to win the Space Race, much like the previous analogy given of after losing a foot race deciding that the REAL race is the race to your car in the stadium parking lot.


Tom - in the above list of the Soviet Union's fakery of "firsts", why would the Soviet Union skip faking #8 above which is a manned landing on the Moon?

What's more newsworthy at that time than your own citizens landing on the Moon, walking around on the Moon owning it, and then returning safely to Earth showing technological capability. Why skip a beat not faking this. It doesn't make sense.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on May 04, 2022, 01:20:44 AM
Tom - in the above list of the Soviet Union's fakery of "firsts", why would the Soviet Union skip faking #8 above which is a manned landing on the Moon?

Probably because they had already won the space race by that point. Again, it was called the space race and not the 'put a man on the moon' race.

Someone has to approve the plan and give the go-ahead for exorbitant release of public monies, real or fake. The gravy train has to wind down at some point. Note that immediately after Apollo the NASA gravy train of public money also slowed significantly and everyone stopped caring about the Moon.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 04, 2022, 01:25:50 AM
Tom - in the above list of the Soviet Union's fakery of "firsts", why would the Soviet Union skip faking #8 above which is a manned landing on the Moon?

Probably because they had already won the space race by that point. Again, it was called the space race and not the 'put a man on the moon' race.

Someone has to approve the plan and give the go-ahead for exorbitant release of public monies, real or fake. The gravy train has to wind down at some point.


Likewise, it was called the space race and not:
- 'put an animal in space' race
- 'put a woman in space' race
- 'do a spacewalk in space' race
- 'land a spacecraft on the Moon' race

So, why did the Soviet Union simply not include faking the 'put a man on the Moon' as part of their list of accomplishments?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on May 04, 2022, 01:30:51 AM
Tom - in the above list of the Soviet Union's fakery of "firsts", why would the Soviet Union skip faking #8 above which is a manned landing on the Moon?

Probably because they had already won the space race by that point. Again, it was called the space race and not the 'put a man on the moon' race.

Someone has to approve the plan and give the go-ahead for exorbitant release of public monies, real or fake. The gravy train has to wind down at some point. Note that immediately after Apollo the NASA gravy train of public money also slowed significantly and everyone stopped caring about the Moon.

It's well documented, not speculative, that they did pour money and resources into a manned mission to the moon. A bunch of citations and references to which have already been posted here. Whether they were "racing" is neither here nor there. They were trying to land a man on the moon throughout the 60's, just like America.

As someone pointed out before, considering that you believe that the Soviets won the space race that apparently never existed, does that mean you believe they launched a satellite, put an animal in space, photographed the far side of the moon, put the first human & woman in space, performed the first spacewalk, and landed a craft on the lunar surface?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Gonzo on May 04, 2022, 06:30:07 AM
Tom - in the above list of the Soviet Union's fakery of "firsts", why would the Soviet Union skip faking #8 above which is a manned landing on the Moon?

Probably because they had already won the space race by that point. Again, it was called the space race and not the 'put a man on the moon' race.

Someone has to approve the plan and give the go-ahead for exorbitant release of public monies, real or fake. The gravy train has to wind down at some point. Note that immediately after Apollo the NASA gravy train of public money also slowed significantly and everyone stopped caring about the Moon.

Tom, you are showing how little you know about this subject.

NASA’s budget was at its peak in 1966, when the Gemini programme was still active.

And no, everyone didn’t ‘stop caring about the moon’.

You are aware of Artemis?

Please can you distill down your view on space? It’s coming across as very confused.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on May 04, 2022, 07:27:41 AM
By the late 1960s, the Soviet Union was promoting the benefits of Marxist-Leninist society in technology, sport and culture in its own territory, and in the promotion of satellite states (no pun intended) across Europe, Asia and the Americas.  The whole world marvelled at the sound of Sputnik's ping, applauded it Bolshoi, and cheered its superhuman athletes.  Is it even conceivable that they had no aspiration to put Soviet feet-on-the-ground on the biggest object in the night sky? 

"In your face, capitalist pigs!"
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tumeni on May 04, 2022, 01:34:43 PM
During the Space Race they were clearly working on lots of different space projects.

(https://i.imgur.com/MxdT3bC.jpg)


Is it the basis of your argument that all of things actually happened for real?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on May 04, 2022, 10:05:59 PM
Tom, I think you need to do a lot more research into the Soviet space programme in the 50s, 60s and 70s before declaring there was 'no comptetion'. Lots of evidence out there, including books written by those involved.

Of course the USSR did not say there was.

In other news, the German Democratic Republic wasn't actually a democracy.

Shocking.

The evidence of what they were doing in "secret" and what they were focused on and prioritized on in "secret" is based on speculation though, based on decades-later archival digging and seeing that academics were putting some amount of research into lander and rocket designs.

During the Space Race they were clearly working on lots of different space projects.

(https://i.imgur.com/MxdT3bC.jpg)

It is clearly a matter of national coping to claim that it had to be a man on the moon to win the Space Race, much like the previous analogy given of after losing a foot race deciding that the REAL race is the race to your car in the stadium parking lot.


Tom,

It still doesn't make sense that the Soviet Union skipped faking #8 accomplishment above but then proceeded with faking accomplishments #9,10, and 11 if they had already thought that they had won the space race.

- Based on your reasoning that the Soviet's had no more to prove, why did the Soviet's invest so heavily in the Buran Space Shuttle program if the USA's Space Shuttle program came before and launched in 1980. The Buran was ultimately ditched after just 1 unmanned flight after it's first launch 8 years later (1988) and ultimately when a hanger collapsed on the Buran Shuttle I think in 1993. Why would they invest in faking a Shuttle Program that the USA already had 8 years prior? 

- Earlier in this thread, you stated something to the effect that the Soviet Union did not want to endanger lives which is part of the reason why they did not move forwards with trying to be the first manned lunar landing. This is not true, the Soviet's did indeed endanger lives; 6 Cosmonauts are know to have been killed, at least one of them could be classified as manslaughter.

- Later in the thread you reasoned that it wasn't called the 'First Man on the Moon' race; the Soviet's already thought they won the space race and therefore didn't need to perform to USA's own definition of a space race. But, at the same time, it also wasn't called:
    'put an animal in space' race
    'put a woman in space' race
    'do a spacewalk in space' race
    'land a spacecraft on the Moon' race

- Lastly, if space travel is a conspiracy (as you believe) and all of the Soviet's firsts of space accomplishments were faked (as you would also believe), why didn't the USA fake being first before many of the Soviet's firsts were faked?
    first to 'put an animal in space'
    first to 'put a woman in space'
    first to 'do a spacewalk in space'
    first to 'land a spacecraft on the Moon'

Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Aggelos on May 24, 2022, 08:58:18 PM
I dare to say that despite pretending to know so much about the moon and the hoaxes surrounding it, flat Earthers cannot make a single prediction about the moon. Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Clyde Frog on May 24, 2022, 09:32:44 PM
I dare to say that despite pretending to know so much about the moon and the hoaxes surrounding it, flat Earthers cannot make a single prediction about the moon. Am I wrong?
You think a group of people could keep track of the behavior of the moon over a period of months or years and not be able to make a single prediction about its behavior? I dare to say I don't think you are actually using your head at all if you'd suggest such a thing. Anyone can take notes on the cycles of waxing and waning and look for patterns that repeat.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Aggelos on May 24, 2022, 09:55:06 PM
I dare to say that despite pretending to know so much about the moon and the hoaxes surrounding it, flat Earthers cannot make a single prediction about the moon. Am I wrong?
You think a group of people could keep track of the behavior of the moon over a period of months or years and not be able to make a single prediction about its behavior? I dare to say I don't think you are actually using your head at all if you'd suggest such a thing. Anyone can take notes on the cycles of waxing and waning and look for patterns that repeat.

Yet, they don't. Isn't it strange? Everything is there. Whole tables of the positions of the stars and the moon and the sun, spanning centuries, and yet, they cannot put them down, study them, figure out the way they move, and make predictions. Why don't they even try? What do they luck? Would that be education, or proper understanding? For people who try to understand how the world works they put way too little effort on it.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 24, 2022, 10:44:21 PM
Yet, they don't.
Substantiate your assertion.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on May 24, 2022, 11:08:15 PM
I dare to say that despite pretending to know so much about the moon and the hoaxes surrounding it, flat Earthers cannot make a single prediction about the moon. Am I wrong?
You think a group of people could keep track of the behavior of the moon over a period of months or years and not be able to make a single prediction about its behavior? I dare to say I don't think you are actually using your head at all if you'd suggest such a thing. Anyone can take notes on the cycles of waxing and waning and look for patterns that repeat.

Yet, they don't. Isn't it strange? Everything is there. Whole tables of the positions of the stars and the moon and the sun, spanning centuries, and yet, they cannot put them down, study them, figure out the way they move, and make predictions. Why don't they even try? What do they luck? Would that be education, or proper understanding? For people who try to understand how the world works they put way too little effort on it.

What specific prediction do you think an FEr lacks?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on May 24, 2022, 11:14:48 PM
I dare to say that despite pretending to know so much about the moon and the hoaxes surrounding it, flat Earthers cannot make a single prediction about the moon. Am I wrong?
You think a group of people could keep track of the behavior of the moon over a period of months or years and not be able to make a single prediction about its behavior? I dare to say I don't think you are actually using your head at all if you'd suggest such a thing. Anyone can take notes on the cycles of waxing and waning and look for patterns that repeat.

Yet, they don't. Isn't it strange? Everything is there. Whole tables of the positions of the stars and the moon and the sun, spanning centuries, and yet, they cannot put them down, study them, figure out the way they move, and make predictions. Why don't they even try? What do they luck? Would that be education, or proper understanding? For people who try to understand how the world works they put way too little effort on it.

While the FE model for the moon cannot make predications they have adopted the ancient Saros Cycle method of making predications of lunar eclipses: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Aggelos on May 25, 2022, 04:57:01 AM
I dare to say that despite pretending to know so much about the moon and the hoaxes surrounding it, flat Earthers cannot make a single prediction about the moon. Am I wrong?
You think a group of people could keep track of the behavior of the moon over a period of months or years and not be able to make a single prediction about its behavior? I dare to say I don't think you are actually using your head at all if you'd suggest such a thing. Anyone can take notes on the cycles of waxing and waning and look for patterns that repeat.

Yet, they don't. Isn't it strange? Everything is there. Whole tables of the positions of the stars and the moon and the sun, spanning centuries, and yet, they cannot put them down, study them, figure out the way they move, and make predictions. Why don't they even try? What do they luck? Would that be education, or proper understanding? For people who try to understand how the world works they put way too little effort on it.

While the FE model for the moon cannot make predications they have adopted the ancient Saros Cycle method of making predications of lunar eclipses: https://wiki.tfes.org/Astronomical_Prediction_Based_on_Patterns#The_Eclipses

Well, now you have several problems ahead of you.

a. Saros cycles do not predict the duration of the eclipse to the second.

b. Saros cycles cannot predict the path of totality.

c. There are multiple ongoing Saros cycles and you cannot know when a new Saros cycles will begin.

d. A Saros Series will finally end, and there will not be any more eclipses on that cycle.

e. You have to somehow explain why the Saros cycles happen, since you adopted them.

Good luck.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: SteelyBob on May 25, 2022, 06:39:00 AM

Well, now you have several problems ahead of you.

a. Saros cycles do not predict the duration of the eclipse to the second.

b. Saros cycles cannot predict the path of totality.

c. There are multiple ongoing Saros cycles and you cannot know when a new Saros cycles will begin.

d. A Saros Series will finally end, and there will not be any more eclipses on that cycle.

e. You have to somehow explain why the Saros cycles happen, since you adopted them.

Good luck.


We’ve been around this buoy on several occasions before - here’s one:


 https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18054.msg237363#msg237363 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18054.msg237363#msg237363)

FEers never explain how simple periodic data, like saros and inex, can be used to predict the start of new cycles - indeed in the thread I linked to the FE proponent’s own source clearly articulated the many limitations of the tables, and pointed to ephemeris data. Moreover, they also never explain how the precise geography of each eclipse is predicted with such precision. When all this is pointed out, with evidence, the thread usually ends with zero response, just as that last one did.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Aggelos on May 25, 2022, 06:44:36 AM
We’ve been around this buoy on several occasions before - here’s one:


 https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18054.msg237363#msg237363 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18054.msg237363#msg237363)

FEers never explain how simple periodic data, like saros and inex, can be used to predict the start of new cycles - indeed in the thread I linked to the FE proponent’s own source clearly articulated the many limitations of the tables, and pointed to ephemeris data. Moreover, they also never explain how the precise geography of each eclipse is predicted with such precision. When all this is pointed out, with evidence, the thread usually ends with zero response, just as that last one did.

As I thought so. Thanks for the feedback.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Clyde Frog on May 26, 2022, 06:49:30 PM
So you're changing your argument then? Because initially, it was that FE can't make a single prediction about the moon, remember? Now that you've been asked to actually try and defend that laughably wrong statement, you want to move the goalposts to someplace more comfortable?

I dare to say that despite pretending to know so much about the moon and the hoaxes surrounding it, flat Earthers cannot make a single prediction about the moon. Am I wrong?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: scomato on May 27, 2022, 07:15:56 PM
The true and factual history of moon missions is much more complex than is presented above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_the_Moon

Look at the chart of all moon missions, starting with Pioneer 0. It wasn't just a simple matter of who did what first. Both the US and the USSR experienced countless mission failures for every narrow success. There were different mission objectives, from orbiters to flybys, impactors and finally landers. The space race wasn't just one achievement, NASA didn't decide one day to put a man on the moon - it was the culmination of decades of rapid but incremental advancements in rocket science.

If space is a hoax, then does that mean every space professional is also in on the hoax? According to this source [1] "the global space sector employed around 1 million persons around the world in 2017. To give orders of magnitude, around 350 000 full-time employees are active in the United States, 200 000 in the Russian Federation and around 60 000 in Europe." 

That is quite a lot of people who are in on the conspiracy. It is quite incredible that 1 million people are able to keep the existence of a super secret criminal organization completely and utterly hidden. Imagine the life of fantastic wealth and luxury that they could afford by collectively embezzling tens of billions of dollars a year. Don't conspiracy theorists every feel jealous that they are being left out?




[1] https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/c5996201-en/1/2/3/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/c5996201-en&mimeType=text/html&_csp_=ffe5a6bbc1382ae4f0ead9dd2da73ff4&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on May 28, 2022, 07:54:53 AM
Was talking to a colleague who in a former job worked for the MoD moving various satellites so they covered areas needed for various operations. He was telling me how all that stuff is currently being used to support Ukraine.

So not sure if he’s “in on it” or was being employed in a spurious job and lied to for some reason.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: jimster on June 06, 2022, 06:57:02 PM
There is a reason the soviets were first in all those things. When they first developed their atom bombs, they were behind the US by years and their bombs were much bigger and heavier, The military missile race preceded the space race. Soviets always made big military stuff, ww2 tanks, pre-war bombers, big subs. In the early 50s when the space race started, the soviet ICBMs were simply much bigger and thus more capable when used for exploration. US did not get there until Saturn 5.

Russian culture does not do complicated and advanced very well. Their fighters in WW2 were less capable than Germany, US, UK, they did eventually have an overwhelming number of them. They succeed with mass, not with excellence and cleverness. Ref: Ukraine.

They shot their massive rocket to the moon before we could. But we had the advantage when the problem was no longer "shoot something at the moon and hit it." Add in the problems of keeping human alive and returning them and we beat them to it.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: jimster on June 06, 2022, 07:06:30 PM
Here is an interesting proof point re the moon landing: (and pretty entertaining)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: existoid on June 13, 2022, 11:57:45 PM
They succeed with mass, not with excellence and cleverness. Ref: Ukraine.

I admit this is off topic, but wanted to interject, the Soviets of WW2 actually did succeed via excellence and cleverness. It's a common myth to repeat that they beat Germany with sheer numbers alone. That's too simplistic and is more inaccurate than correct. A better, yet still succinct explanation, is that the Germans were tactically superior to the Red Army, but that the Red Army was operationally superior. Turns out the operational level of war is a super important factor in winning a combined arms and mechanized war like WW2. (One could argue that the Red Army was strategically superior as well, but that's much more open to debate).

A way to explain Soviet operational superiority which ironically shows how the "overwhelming numbers" myth easily continues, is that the Soviets, by 1943, were able to mass far more rifles, tanks and assault guns on a much narrower front than the Wehrmacht. When you have a lot more men per mile in a small localized area, it's true that the Soviet's used "overwhelming numbers", but only in a limited area. In that area, the Germans were overwhelmed, but in other places which mattered less, the Germans would easily have more troops and units (though not decisively so). In other words, the Red Army continually put the right units in the right places at the right time more efficiently and consistently than the Germans. When you keep doing that over and over, you tend to win more and more battles and take more and more prisoners. Which is what happened. It was operational-level superiority.

In fact, the Soviets called this their "Deep Battle" doctrine. It was very similar to the concept of "Blitzkrieg," except more robust and frankly, better. In short, by 1945 the Red Army was out-Blitzkrieging the Germans everywhere and doing it better than the Germans ever did!

(Blitzkrieg was made famous because after the war, West Germany had plenty of former generals and other military historians publishing stuff in English, and of course they wanted to portray the evil Soviets as an overwhelming mass of soldiers, not an actually competent military, as that would lessen their prestige. And behind the Iron Curtain the Soviets obviously kept secret their own narratives and information as to how and why they were able to win against Hitler. After the fall of the USSR the military archives were opened in the 90s and Western military historians like David Glantz (and many others) have been able to better analyze how the Eastern Front really went down, and turns out the Red Army was a pretty good one after all).

Back to RET/FET stuff.   ;D

I agree Russia in Ukraine is an astonishingly poor showing, and clearly their military is nothing like it was in the 1940s.  Good thing, cuz Putin is a bastard for invading.



Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 14, 2022, 10:39:52 AM
Here is an interesting proof point re the moon landing: (and pretty entertaining)

I posted something similar here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17989.0
It's a video of 3 VFX artists looking at Apollo footage and basically concluding that there was no way of faking those shots with 1960s technology.
Predictably in the rest of the thread the original video wasn't really addressed, there were instead various diversions about the fact that the astronauts looked uncomfortable in subsequent press conferences, and then a long rambling discussion on the Van Allen Belts.

It's noteworthy that the people who look at the pictures/video and declare them fake invariably don't know what they're talking about - in your video the bloke mentions not seeing stars, a common claim from people who say it was all fake. But if they did fake it then why wouldn't they have just put stars in the background? That would have been the easy bit to fake. Anyone who knows the first thing about cameras knows that you can't capture faint things and bright things well with the same exposure settings, you either capture the bright things with a low exposure - which means you can't see the dim things - or you capture the dim things and the bright things are an overexposed mess. It's such basic stuff.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: SteelyBob on June 14, 2022, 01:15:43 PM
Here is an interesting proof point re the moon landing: (and pretty entertaining)

I posted something similar here: https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=17989.0
It's a video of 3 VFX artists looking at Apollo footage and basically concluding that there was no way of faking those shots with 1960s technology.
Predictably in the rest of the thread the original video wasn't really addressed, there were instead various diversions about the fact that the astronauts looked uncomfortable in subsequent press conferences, and then a long rambling discussion on the Van Allen Belts.

It's noteworthy that the people who look at the pictures/video and declare them fake invariably don't know what they're talking about - in your video the bloke mentions not seeing stars, a common claim from people who say it was all fake. But if they did fake it then why wouldn't they have just put stars in the background? That would have been the easy bit to fake. Anyone who knows the first thing about cameras knows that you can't capture faint things and bright things well with the same exposure settings, you either capture the bright things with a low exposure - which means you can't see the dim things - or you capture the dim things and the bright things are an overexposed mess. It's such basic stuff.

The Van Allen belt arguments are one of the more ludicrous around here. If you think the earth is flat, and that NASA fakes everything, then you don't believe in Van Allen belts. Their detection was done using technology that FEers routinely claim cannot exist, travelling distances away from the earth that exceed the alleged height of the sun, moon and stars, according to FE.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on June 14, 2022, 04:15:20 PM
Finally took the time to watch the video.  Have watched the other mentioned as well.  Aside from the analysis of why faking the landing is impossible I enjoyed these:

First, one of the more brilliant descriptions of the space race.

"It was a global dick wagging contest on a scale never seen before in human history."

Second

(https://i.imgur.com/cFetUCm.jpg)
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2022, 04:26:17 PM
Because belief in the space agency claims doesn't come with belief in unattainable technologies you can never know, right.  ::)
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on June 14, 2022, 04:28:27 PM
Because belief in the space agency claims doesn't come with belief in unattainable technologies you can never know, right.  ::)

So,  you don't understand the context of the quote in relation to the video subject.  Got it.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: markjo on June 14, 2022, 09:46:19 PM
Because belief in the space agency claims doesn't come with belief in unattainable technologies you can never know, right.  ::)
To which "unattainable technologies" are you referring?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Gonzo on June 14, 2022, 09:50:02 PM
Tom,

Please, it would really help us if you could express your belief on what the Soviets achieved in space.

To me your position is confusing.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2022, 11:24:13 PM
Because belief in the space agency claims doesn't come with belief in unattainable technologies you can never know, right.  ::)

So,  you don't understand the context of the quote in relation to the video subject.  Got it.

I've seen it. The man appears to agree that the low-gravity astronaut scenes on the moon could have just been an astronaut in a studio in slow motion, but claims that NASA couldn't figure out how to make a video slow motion, so it's real.

Come on. Even if he was correct that no technologies existed at the time which could make the film run in slow motion (which I have some doubts), even in the Moon Hoax scenario NASA clearly employed engineers and rocket scientists who are making things. Apparently according to this narrative Moon Hoax NASA would have sooner ended the project and admit that they couldn't get to the moon than to use their engineers to make a video run in slow motion.

I'm pretty sure you just need to regulate the motor's current and it can go faster or slower and that the technology necessary to do slow-motion is nowhere near the sentiment "YOU'VE STEPPED OVER INTO THE REALM OF MAGIC" in the image you posted.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 14, 2022, 11:58:11 PM
According to Wikipedia magical slow motion was done in the early 20th century:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_motion

"Slow motion (commonly abbreviated as slo-mo or slow-mo) is an effect in film-making whereby time appears to be slowed down. It was invented by the Austrian priest August Musger in the early 20th century. This can be accomplished through the use of high-speed cameras and then playing the footage produced by such cameras at a normal rate like 30 fps, or in post production through the use of software."
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on June 15, 2022, 12:20:31 AM
I'm pretty sure you just need to regulate the motor's current and it can go faster or slower and that the technology necessary to do slow-motion is nowhere near the sentiment "YOU'VE STEPPED OVER INTO THE REALM OF MAGIC" in the image you posted.
No.  It's not so easy.

If the scenes were shot with film, motion picture cameras are quite complex and can't just be arbitrarily sped up or slowed down.  The intermittent film transport system and the shutter need to be kept in perfect synchronization whilst also maintaining proper exposure.  The only solution in this case would be a specially designed camera.

If the scenes were shot on video tape the matter is even worse.  Back the you would need a camera that could record in a different video format (for the higher frame rate) and also another device to convert the format back to something that could be displayed on TV.

They had such things so the effect you are talking about could be created, but not as easily as you assumed.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on June 15, 2022, 12:25:26 AM
I'm not sure the slo-mo excuse works. As has been pointed out over the years, slo-mo would slow down all movements in the frame. As can be seen by, for example, the "falling" compilation, the movements of arms and such to brace amid a fall or after are at normal speed. That wouldn't happen if the whole thing was slo-mo'd.

https://youtu.be/LEdYf4SGhuI
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on June 15, 2022, 12:43:35 AM
I'm not sure the slo-mo excuse works. As has been pointed out over the years, slo-mo would slow down all movements in the frame. As can be seen by, for example, the "falling" compilation, the movements of arms and such to brace amid a fall or after are at normal speed. That wouldn't happen if the whole thing was slo-mo'd.
Exactly.  And that is the real proof.  If fine dirt is kicked up in air, clouds of it will float around as it slowly falls back to the ground.  You don't see any dust floating around on the moon.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2022, 12:51:45 AM
I'm not sure the slo-mo excuse works. As has been pointed out over the years, slo-mo would slow down all movements in the frame. As can be seen by, for example, the "falling" compilation, the movements of arms and such to brace amid a fall or after are at normal speed. That wouldn't happen if the whole thing was slo-mo'd.

That's not normal speed. You apparently have never seen someone trip and fall.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on June 15, 2022, 01:02:10 AM
I'm not sure the slo-mo excuse works. As has been pointed out over the years, slo-mo would slow down all movements in the frame. As can be seen by, for example, the "falling" compilation, the movements of arms and such to brace amid a fall or after are at normal speed. That wouldn't happen if the whole thing was slo-mo'd.

That's not normal speed. You apparently have never seen someone trip and fall.

Well, they were on the moon with 1/6 gravity.  This is bound to make things take a bit longer to fall.  However, he was talking about the astronauts' arm movements and such.  Not the time falling.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: markjo on June 15, 2022, 01:42:20 AM
If the scenes were shot with film, motion picture cameras are quite complex and can't just be arbitrarily sped up or slowed down.  The intermittent film transport system and the shutter need to be kept in perfect synchronization whilst also maintaining proper exposure.
Don't forget that normal sounding audio would need to be synchronized with the slow motion video.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2022, 04:36:16 AM
I'm not sure the slo-mo excuse works. As has been pointed out over the years, slo-mo would slow down all movements in the frame. As can be seen by, for example, the "falling" compilation, the movements of arms and such to brace amid a fall or after are at normal speed. That wouldn't happen if the whole thing was slo-mo'd.

That's not normal speed. You apparently have never seen someone trip and fall.

Well, they were on the moon with 1/6 gravity.  This is bound to make things take a bit longer to fall.  However, he was talking about the astronauts' arm movements and such.  Not the time falling.

Yes, when you fall your arms tend to shoot out faster than your body falling. Otherwise you would fall on your face.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2022, 07:20:39 AM
Yes, when you fall your arms tend to shoot out faster than your body falling. Otherwise you would fall on your face.
What if you’re in a bulky space suit?
Also, the dude in the video doesn’t NOT claim that slow motion technology didn’t exist at the time, but there would have been no way to create a continuous slow motion shot for as long as necessary to fake the footage from the moon. That’s the point. And as I said above, in that other thread I posted a video of three VFX artists reviewing other footage from Apollo and concluding those shots wouldn’t have been possible before modern CGI. Compare and contrast the Apollo footage with the 2001 film.
As has pointed out above, you can see from the way the dust moves as they walk that they are in a vacuum.

TL;DR - the people who say it was fake are not knowledgeable about cameras, film or special effects.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on June 15, 2022, 08:18:21 AM
I'm not sure the slo-mo excuse works. As has been pointed out over the years, slo-mo would slow down all movements in the frame. As can be seen by, for example, the "falling" compilation, the movements of arms and such to brace amid a fall or after are at normal speed. That wouldn't happen if the whole thing was slo-mo'd.

That's not normal speed. You apparently have never seen someone trip and fall.

Well, they were on the moon with 1/6 gravity.  This is bound to make things take a bit longer to fall.  However, he was talking about the astronauts' arm movements and such.  Not the time falling.

Yes, when you fall your arms tend to shoot out faster than your body falling. Otherwise you would fall on your face.

Their arms would be in slo-mo too. But they are not. We didn't have post-processing rotoscoping back then to isolate the limbs. In other words, slo-mo wouldn't work as it's for the entirety of the images.

Just watch any slo-mo today. Limbs (and other stuff) are slowed down to unnatural speed like the rest of the frame.

https://youtu.be/_bzW8ECTeOY
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2022, 08:51:23 AM
Aye. If you look at the way their limbs are moving this is clearly not slow motion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVNTNeNMH8Q

And as discussed the dust doesn't billow or blow around like it would with an atmosphere.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 15, 2022, 10:58:48 AM
The video with the slow mo soccer players are generally not good examples because it has people falling backwards or on their side doing side saults. But on some of them you will notice that their arms appear to move pretty fast towards the ground, even in slow mo.

When you fall you have incredibly quick reaction time with your arms. They move much faster than under normal conscious conditions.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2022, 11:07:31 AM
When you fall you have incredibly quick reaction time with your arms. They move much faster than under normal conscious conditions.
What if you're wearing a bulky spacesuit? I was looking at the legs in the clips I posted above, that doesn't look like slow motion to me.
And then there's the way the dust moves.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2022, 11:09:33 AM
And then there's the way the dust moves.
How have you established that there's a significant amount of dust to observe in those scenes in the first place?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2022, 11:28:17 AM
And then there's the way the dust moves.
How have you established that there's a significant amount of dust to observe in those scenes in the first place?
You can see them kicking it as they walk. Or, in this clip, as they drive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hqf0HE6Ouww

Now, you can't tell what the granularity is, but if you look at dune buggies on earth you often see the sand billowing more because of the air movement. That doesn't happen in the moon footage.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2022, 12:20:30 PM
Okay, so you just showed us footage of the dust being pushed around... doesn't that have a bit of an impact on your claim that that doesn't happen in moon footage?

I suspect I'm confused by what you're actually trying to say here - could you rephrase for my benefit?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2022, 12:50:19 PM
Okay, so you just showed us footage of the dust being pushed around... doesn't that have a bit of an impact on your claim that that doesn't happen in moon footage?

I suspect I'm confused by what you're actually trying to say here - could you rephrase for my benefit?
Sure.

Of course the dust moves around, as the astronauts walk through the dust or drive through it, the dust gets thrown around. But it's the way it moves I'm getting at. In a vacuum particles of any size will go in parabolas. I'm simplifying a bit, they will of course hit each other. But the point is in an atmosphere small particles will be affected by wind resistance or breezes and billow in a different way. That's what I'm getting at.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2022, 12:54:32 PM
Right, yes, I see what you're saying now. Apologies.

But that assumes a very light dust (how do we assess this if the location of the shot is either entirely inaccessible to us or entirely unknown?) and the presence of a breeze (which is clearly absent in most moon shots, genuine or not - after all, flags never flutter in the wind).

So, to me, it seems like we can conclude that there was no wind in that location, and that the dust was maybe a little grittier than you'd normally expect. It doesn't come across as a smoking gun.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 15, 2022, 01:22:05 PM
So, to me, it seems like we can conclude that there was no wind in that location, and that the dust was maybe a little grittier than you'd normally expect. It doesn't come across as a smoking gun.
I had a look at some dune buggy footage and the way the sand moved at times did look a bit different although I think I'm going to agree it's not that conclusive. Although it's funny you say about the flag not flapping - you're right, but some moon hoaxers claim it does and use that as a "smoking gun". The official line is because of the lack of atmosphere there is a rigid pole horizontally to keep the flag up, so it only "flaps" when they're screwing it in to the ground.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on June 15, 2022, 01:45:51 PM
So, to me, it seems like we can conclude that there was no wind in that location, and that the dust was maybe a little grittier than you'd normally expect. It doesn't come across as a smoking gun.
Are you suggesting that the soil was engineered to provide the desired effect?  Even very coarse soil usually has a sufficient component of dust so that when it is disturbed that dust will suspend in the air for a considerable time.  Wind or no wind.  I guess you could get all that dust out with some effort.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2022, 02:09:14 PM
Are you suggesting that the soil was engineered to provide the desired effect?
No, and it's utterly deranged of you to suggest that any engineering would be necessary.

I had a look at some dune buggy footage and the way the sand moved at times did look a bit different although I think I'm going to agree it's not that conclusive.
Fair. Sounds like we're on the same page. It's still worth noting, for sure, since it could be part of a bigger puzzle; but, in isolation, it's not conclusive.

Although it's funny you say about the flag not flapping - you're right, but some moon hoaxers claim it does and use that as a "smoking gun".
I'm not like other girls.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on June 15, 2022, 02:39:09 PM

Come on. Even if he was correct that no technologies existed at the time which could make the film run in slow motion (which I have some doubts), even in the Moon Hoax scenario NASA clearly employed engineers and rocket scientists who are making things. Apparently according to this narrative Moon Hoax NASA would have sooner ended the project and admit that they couldn't get to the moon than to use their engineers to make a video run in slow motion.


This is fantastic.  You've just done precisely this:



(https://i.imgur.com/cFetUCm.jpg)
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on June 15, 2022, 02:46:28 PM
Are you suggesting that the soil was engineered to provide the desired effect?
No, and it's utterly deranged of you to suggest that any engineering would be necessary.
Nice Pete.  How ad hominem of you.

So, if they did not remove the dust we should see it suspended when the soil gets kicked up.  We don't.

BTW, they do remove dust from soil to make sets for movies about being on the moon or Mars or other airless objects more realistic.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2022, 02:52:27 PM
Nice Pete.  How ad hominem of you.
I'm trying to be nice to you. The next time you try putting words in other people's mouths, it's off to the gutter with you. For now - your suggestion was utterly deranged.

So, if they did not remove the dust we should see it suspended when the soil gets kicked up.
Hard disagree. Perhaps you've spent most of your life in very arid areas, but many of us haven't.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on June 15, 2022, 03:17:13 PM
Quote
I'm trying to be nice to you. The next time you try putting words in other people's mouths, it's off to the gutter with you. For now - your suggestion was utterly deranged.
I honestly was not trying to put words in your mouth.  Sorry for that.  Like I said in my follow-up post, soil is often engineered for just such an effect on movie sets.

Quote
So, if they did not remove the dust we should see it suspended when the soil gets kicked up.
Hard disagree. Perhaps you've spent most of your life in very arid areas, but many of us haven't.
The moon is a very arid place, and the videos presented show soil that is not clumping together like it is moist.  If you wanted to fake a shot of a buggy driving, or man walking, on the moon you would use desiccated and well screened (no clumps) soil.  If you did not want clouds of dust, you need to remove it.  Pete, this is actually done.

Strange thing is, my post was intended to be in support of your position.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2022, 03:25:15 PM
For the sake of transparency, BillO has reached out to reassure me he wasn't trolling. I take his point, admit that I judged him harshly, and apologise.

That said, I'm completely unconvinced that any serious amount of engineering would need to go into this low-res footage. Sure, that's how you'd produce a high quality movie today, but even slightly moist conditions would be enough to match the footage we're actually looking at.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on June 15, 2022, 05:11:44 PM
The video with the slow mo soccer players are generally not good examples because it has people falling backwards or on their side doing side saults. But on some of them you will notice that their arms appear to move pretty fast towards the ground, even in slow mo.

When you fall you have incredibly quick reaction time with your arms. They move much faster than under normal conscious conditions.

What's weird about that, is that the limbs moving about to brace on the moon look at normal speed. So you're saying that the astronauts moved their limbs at more than normal speed in order to create the effect in the slo-mo frames that they were moving at normal speeds?

As well, there were technical limitations to slo-mo. As referenced in the video Jimster posted a couple of pages ago:

At the time of the broadcast, magnetic disk recorders capable of storing slow motion footage could only capture 30 seconds in total, for a playback of 90 seconds of slow motion video. To capture 143 minutes in slow motion, you’d need to record and store 47 minutes of live action, which simply wasn’t possible.

This in reference to the state-of-the-art Ampex HS-200, the largest storage capacity tele-production machine with slo-mo capability on the planet at the time.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2022, 05:21:06 PM
What's weird about that, is that the limbs moving about to brace on the moon look at normal speed. So you're saying that the astronauts moved their limbs at more than normal speed in order to create the effect in the slo-mo frames that they were moving at normal speeds?

When you fall your arms move and react faster than when under conscious conditions, yes. It is an unconscious involuntary reaction to brace yourself when falling.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on June 16, 2022, 05:45:40 PM
The limbs when bracing appear at normal speed in the Apollo footage.

In actual slo-mo. all aspects of the frame, including limbs, are in slo-mo, not appearing at normal speed.

(https://i.imgur.com/UzVg7ws.gif)

Additionally, storage capabilities at the time couldn't come close to handling the length of footage all in slo-mo.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 16, 2022, 05:52:48 PM
They wouldn't move at "normal speeds" under any slow motion condition. The scene you posted goes into super slow motion and the man is almost suspended in mid air, barely moving downwards. This is not the rate of slow motion that would have occurred in the Apollo scenes.

Even so, in your scene we can clearly see that the man is moving his arms down much faster to brace himself than the rate at which he is falling.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: markjo on June 16, 2022, 08:33:36 PM
Not that they're the most reliable authorities, but the MythBusters have tested the slo-mo and 1/6 gravity rigs to see if they match the "real" moon videos.  Turns out that neither look right.  It's not until they tried it in a vomit comet flying 1/6 g parabolas that they finally got the right look.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhkJ0qD42Fo
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: WTF_Yuppie on June 16, 2022, 08:47:05 PM
If Adam and Jamie say it's busted, you really need nothing more.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on June 17, 2022, 12:44:57 AM
Just check out the 1/6 G chair at space camp. Notice how their limbs move at normal speed. Maybe this is how they faked it...

https://youtu.be/OgKWQ59ah18

Not the moon, but from skylab. Slo-mo doesn't cover off on this:

(https://i.imgur.com/PKGD7sd.gif)

(https://i.imgur.com/5QlNGln.gif)

Additionally, storage capabilities at the time couldn't come close to handling the length of footage all in slo-mo.

Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: markjo on June 17, 2022, 01:05:31 AM
Just check out the 1/6 G chair at space camp. Notice how their limbs move at normal speed. Maybe this is how they faked it...
If you watch the MythBusters vid that I posted, you'll notice that the loose stuff on his suit bounces around at normal speed in the rig too, which doesn't happen in real 1/6 g.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 23, 2022, 08:40:32 AM
The basis of the MythBusters argument is that a wire rig only simulated the 1/6th gravity in a vertical direction. On a horizontal direction it does not simulate 1/6th gravity. This is a curious argument, because why should horizontal movements be slowed on the Moon? If you throw a punch why should it be slower on the Moon's surface?

I do think it's possible to slow movement on a horizontal plane, such as with a wire rig that moves with the actor (as opposed to the actor pulling the rig) or with slow motion, but the premise of why the Moon should act to slow horizontal movement needs some explaining.

If Myth Busters was able to use a wire rig to slow vertical movement to 1/6th gravity and found that it was incompatible with the Moon Landing footage because the astronauts also moved slow in their horizontal movements then they clearly negated the validity of the Moon Landing, as opposed to their declaration that the Moon mission must have been real because of the incompatibility.

The fact that this was filmed on a US Naval base and there are American flags everywhere also works against their credibility. One will notice that they tried the wire rig and the slow motion tests separately, declaring that they don't look right, but didn't combine the methods. This was an obvious slip up, and it is clear that they didn't combine the methods for the obvious reasons that slow motion would successfully simulate slow horizontal motion and the wire rig would successfully simulate vertical low gravity.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tron on June 23, 2022, 04:43:50 PM
I suppose they could have held these tests underwater as well... That's frequently used by NASA to simulate low or no gravity conditions anyway. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4514z--Zbfk
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: markjo on June 23, 2022, 10:09:44 PM
The basis of the MythBusters argument is that a wire rig only simulated the 1/6th gravity in a vertical direction. On a horizontal direction it does not simulate 1/6th gravity. This is a curious argument, because why should horizontal movements be slowed on the Moon? If you throw a punch why should it be slower on the Moon's surface?
Yes, it certainly is a curious argument.  I just don't think that it's one that they're making.  First of all, gravity doesn't work in the horizontal direction, so it should be irrelevant.  Secondly, bulky, pressurized space suits will tend to slow down one's movements.  Third, one tends to move a little more slowly and cautiously when dealing with a significant amount of mass in a very low gravity environment.
 
The fact that this was filmed on a US Naval base and there are American flags everywhere also works against their credibility.
???  Why?  I only saw one or two American flags and the low gravity rig was made and operated by a trapeze company.

One will notice that they tried the wire rig and the slow motion tests separately, declaring that they don't look right, but didn't combine the methods. This was an obvious slip up, and it is clear that they didn't combine the methods for the obvious reasons that slow motion would successfully simulate slow horizontal motion and the wire rig would successfully simulate vertical low gravity.
Then feel free to film your own low gravity rig in slow motion and let us know if it looks any better.

By the way, what did you think of the 1/6 g vomit comet results?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tom Bishop on June 26, 2022, 04:15:31 PM
Quote from: markjo
Yes, it certainly is a curious argument.  I just don't think that it's one that they're making.

That's what I got out of it. They kept complaining about how the movements on the rig aren't "smooth" when he's skipping across the floor. That is as far as their technical analysis went.

If you watch the Apollo moon walk videos it certainly does look like they are moving in horizontal slow motion. The slow motion argument has been brought up before; here it is in Wagging the Moondoggie:

http://checktheevidencecom.ipage.com/checktheevidence.com/pdf/Dave%20McGowan%20-%20Wagging%20The%20Moon%20Doggie.pdf


It is curious that the astronauts seem to be moving in slow motion horizontally when moving about the Moon's surface.

Quote from: markjo
???  Why?  I only saw one or two American flags and the low gravity rig was made and operated by a trapeze company.

There were prominent American flags and it was filmed on a US Military base. The show was about proving or disproving the honesty of the US Government. Clear conflict of interest there.

Quote from: markjo
Then feel free to film your own low gravity rig in slow motion and let us know if it looks any better.

By the way, what did you think of the 1/6 g vomit comet results?

I think that segment at the end was forced by the MythBusters actor, personally. His goal was to specifically replicate the astronauts in Moon Landing footage. In 1/6 g you can make yourself look slow motion if you force yourself to, by controlling the forward momentum of your skips, and it would be a lot easier to do that than in 1g.

But you wouldn't naturally move in slow horizontal motion in 1/6 g.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: markjo on June 26, 2022, 05:52:46 PM
It is curious that the astronauts seem to be moving in slow motion horizontally when moving about the Moon's surface.
Not if you understand how low gravity and bulky pressure suits work.

Quote from: markjo
???  Why?  I only saw one or two American flags and the low gravity rig was made and operated by a trapeze company.

There were prominent American flags and it was filmed on a US Military base. The show was about proving or disproving the honesty of the US Government. Clear conflict of interest there.
The Alameda Naval Air Station closed in 1997 and transferred to the city of Alameda more than 10 years before that episode was flilmed.

Quote from: markjo
Then feel free to film your own low gravity rig in slow motion and let us know if it looks any better.

By the way, what did you think of the 1/6 g vomit comet results?

I think that segment at the end was forced by the MythBusters actor, personally. His goal was to specifically replicate the astronauts in Moon Landing footage. In 1/6 g you can make yourself look slow motion if you force yourself to, by controlling the forward momentum of your skips, and it would be a lot easier to do that than in 1g.
But don't you find it interesting that the only way that they could recreate the smoothness of the moon footage was in an actual 1/6 g environment?  If you think that you can do a better job of recreating the moon footage in a 1g environment, then I'm sure that a lot of people would be happy to see it.

But you wouldn't naturally move in slow horizontal motion in 1/6 g.
Wearing a bulky pressure suit in 1/6 g is not a natural environment for humans, so who are you to say what natural movement should look like if you haven't experienced it yourself?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: J-Man on June 27, 2022, 12:43:03 AM
From what I've been told and studied intensively, a sane person can only draw one conclusion, we were spoon fed deceptive analysis of events that could not and did not happen. Links and videos are abundant internet wide.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on June 27, 2022, 08:50:03 AM
From what I've been told and studied intensively, a sane person can only draw one conclusion, we were spoon fed deceptive analysis of events that could not and did not happen. Links and videos are abundant internet wide.

Weird, from what I've been told and studied intensively, a sane person can only draw one conclusion, we landed men on the moon 6 times and brought them home safely. Links and videos are abundant internet wide.

See why that's not really a very convincing or compelling argument?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tumeni on June 27, 2022, 01:28:43 PM
From what I've been told and studied intensively, a sane person can only draw one conclusion, we were spoon fed deceptive analysis of events that could not and did not happen. Links and videos are abundant internet wide.

There are numerous third-party confirmations of the lunar landings. Do you have any convincing rebuttal to them? They're listed on Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: AllAroundTheWorld on June 27, 2022, 02:58:09 PM
From what I've been told and studied intensively, a sane person can only draw one conclusion, we were spoon fed deceptive analysis of events that could not and did not happen. Links and videos are abundant internet wide.

There are numerous third-party confirmations of the lunar landings. Do you have any convincing rebuttal to them? They're listed on Wikipedia;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
I have mentioned Jodrell Bank in the UK who were monitoring both Apollo 11 and USSR craft.
And the Australians who were relaying messages from the moon. Never seen much of a sensible response.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: J-Man on July 18, 2022, 06:58:25 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfThiqDd9FA&t=27s
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: J-Man on July 18, 2022, 07:00:11 PM
We just saw 238,000? miles with naked eye, beetchez
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on July 18, 2022, 07:24:32 PM
Seems like this happens a lot:

https://youtu.be/K_A_QbAXVDg
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tron on July 18, 2022, 07:26:49 PM
I've seen a few videos of this event.  If they are real, how do we see the rocket booster at quarter million miles away?  The moon would have to be MUCH closer.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on July 18, 2022, 07:46:46 PM
I've seen a few videos of this event.  If they are real, how do we see the rocket booster at quarter million miles away?  The moon would have to be MUCH closer.

Here's the catch, they are not real. The originator of the meme: Greg Pietrantonio, After Effects/VFX artist.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tron on July 18, 2022, 07:50:22 PM
I'm talking about the video J-Man posted
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: DuncanDoenitz on July 18, 2022, 08:09:00 PM
We just saw 238,000? miles with naked eye, beetchez
No you didn't.  You saw a VIDEO ffs.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on July 18, 2022, 11:55:48 PM
I've seen a few videos of this event.  If they are real, how do we see the rocket booster at quarter million miles away?  The moon would have to be MUCH closer.
Why?  Your math please.  Give us your assumptions, detail the theory that makes this claim possible and work the math through the model.  I'm excited to see this.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tron on July 19, 2022, 12:22:57 AM
Your asking me why you can't see a rocket booster 230 thousand miles away? 
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on July 19, 2022, 12:54:52 AM
I'm talking about the video J-Man posted


Quick question. TFES Wiki states that "the Flat Earth Society do not lend much credibility to photographic evidence. It is too easily manipulated and altered".

Given the above YouTube photo/video attached by J-Man, why would you lend such to being credible? It could be fake, right?

Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tron on July 19, 2022, 01:00:36 AM
I'm not entirely sure it's real or unaltered, but like I said there's a few videos of this event across the world which look the same...  It's also an event which public officials verified would happen.   TFES has always had an open mind to new ideas.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: stack on July 19, 2022, 01:13:48 AM
I'm talking about the video J-Man posted

I realize that. It's fake. Someone made it like the others I posted. The original that was posted even has the sound of the impact as it hit. Silly fun, that's all.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/rocket-moon/
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on July 19, 2022, 03:34:24 AM
I'm not entirely sure it's real or unaltered, but like I said there's a few videos of this event across the world which look the same...  It's also an event which public officials verified would happen.   TFES has always had an open mind to new ideas.


1) The Moon landing was also an event that public officials from NASA verified would happen. So, do you believe the Moon landing could have therefore happened and not have been a hoax?

2) If "TFES has always had an open mind to new ideas", would TFES be open to the possibility that space travel exists and is not a conspiracy?

Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tron on July 19, 2022, 03:44:35 AM
I personally believe that space travel exists and we have been to the moon.   I can't really speak for others.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on July 19, 2022, 01:34:28 PM
Your asking me why you can't see a rocket booster 230 thousand miles away?
Sure, if that's what you want to answer with your wonderful work.  Or you could explain why it's got to be a rocket booster and not something else like impact ejecta.  Your choice.  But it's really the statement that the moon is much closer to us than previous calculations.  You must have worked it all out.  You have come to the incredible conclusion that all your theory and modeling proves the moon is much closer than it has been determined to be by some of the greatest minds in human history.  That's pretty extraordinary stuff so you must have some pretty extraordinary evidence and theory to debunk the best the world has seen.  I'm sure we'd all like to see how you worked it out.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tron on July 19, 2022, 04:32:41 PM
Billo, I'm sorry man - I don't have the "smoking gun" that your looking for.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on July 19, 2022, 08:17:27 PM
Billo, I'm sorry man - I don't have the "smoking gun" that your looking for.
So, you have no idea why it's way closer than 384,400 km, but your 100% sure it is?

Well, that's how FE theory works, but at least you admit it.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: GoldCashew on July 20, 2022, 01:56:17 AM
Billo, I'm sorry man - I don't have the "smoking gun" that your looking for.
So, you have no idea why it's way closer than 384,400 km, but your 100% sure it is?

Well, that's how FE theory works, but at least you admit it.


To be fair to MetaTron, I don't think he suggested anywhere in this thread that the Moon is closer than 384,400 km away (although it may be something he believes, but he didn't exactly say that)

What I think he was responding to was J-Man's posted YouTube video and asking the question "how do we see the rocket booster at quarter million miles away?  The moon would have to be MUCH closer" which seems like a perfectly logical question anyone would ask. At the end of the day, it has been confirmed as a fake video which would explain the B.S. with being able to see a rocket booster a quarter million miles away... to MetaTron's point.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: Tumeni on July 20, 2022, 08:46:33 PM
We just saw 238,000? miles with naked eye, beetchez

Dunno about you, but I just watched a video. Does the term SFX hold any meaning for you?
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on July 21, 2022, 01:06:14 AM
We just saw 238,000? miles with naked eye, beetchez

Dunno about you, but I just watched a video. Does the term SFX hold any meaning for you?

Ex-reefer addict.  Found Jey'zus, guns and heaps o' nasty, nasty right-wing belligerence.  May Allah (Godin, Ra, Ganesha - whichever gives a fuck) bless his sorry ass and damn-ned soul.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: BillO on July 21, 2022, 02:51:02 AM
To be fair to MetaTron, I don't think he suggested anywhere in this thread that the Moon is closer than 384,400 km away (although it may be something he believes, but he didn't exactly say that)
And I thought you were more astute, dude!  I was being fair.
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: J-Man on July 21, 2022, 09:22:29 PM
My crack pipe came in the mail today from the Biden family....TY
Title: Re: Moon landing hoax question
Post by: jimster on July 22, 2022, 06:56:22 PM
An interesting way to determine the truth of moon landing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_loUDS4c3Cs