So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...
You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.
So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...
You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.
You haven't shown them to be fake.
So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...
You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.
You haven't shown them to be fake.
I wasn't the one making the claim.
So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...
You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.
You haven't shown them to be fake.
I wasn't the one making the claim.
Most people would agree that the burden of proof is on you.
You are the one claiming that a huge organization is lying about everything they do.
You are the one claiming that photo editing software existed long before that technology was known to exist.
Personally, I prefer to have actual evidence before I call something fake or someone a liar.
He offered compelling reasoning why it would have been difficult/impossible to fake. Is it 100% proof? No, of course not. How exactly would you expect him to prove over the internet that something is 100% not faked?
The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.
The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.
That doesn't automatically mean the photos were fake. It'll be like me saying that picture of your mother from that time period was faked because they had the technology to do so.
The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.
That doesn't automatically mean the photos were fake. It'll be like me saying that picture of your mother from that time period was faked because they had the technology to do so.
The OP's argument was that digital manipulation was in its infancy. I'm pointing out that Photoshop is replicating the tools in an art studio, which existed during the time period.
The tools in Photoshop are analogous to the analog tools found in an art studio. There were definitely art studios in the 60's and 70's.
That doesn't automatically mean the photos were fake. It'll be like me saying that picture of your mother from that time period was faked because they had the technology to do so.
The OP's argument was that digital manipulation was in its infancy. I'm pointing out that Photoshop is replicating the tools in an art studio, which existed during the time period.
So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...
You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.
Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.
So your stance is that photo editing software was not publicly available, therefore it didn't exist. That's a cool story. A non sequitur, but still a cool story...
You haven't actually provided any evidence that shows the photos to be legitimate.
You haven't shown them to be fake.
I wasn't the one making the claim.
Most people would agree that the burden of proof is on you.
You are the one claiming that a huge organization is lying about everything they do.
You are the one claiming that photo editing software existed long before that technology was known to exist.
Personally, I prefer to have actual evidence before I call something fake or someone a liar.
He offered compelling reasoning why it would have been difficult/impossible to fake. Is it 100% proof? No, of course not. How exactly would you expect him to prove over the internet that something is 100% not faked?
Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.
He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.
Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.
He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.
Irrelevant.
Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.
He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.
Irrelevant.
Incorrect.
I'm not saying it is impossible, I'm saying it is most likely not CGI
It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?The Soviets were tracking the mission, heck i'm kidding the entire world does. This requires all the country that was tracking it to be in league of NASA or NASA did send an unmanned object to the Moon. Which would brings the question, why wouldn't they send a manned one like they claimed? There were already a speech prepared for them in case they don't make it back to Earth.
Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.
Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.
He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.
Irrelevant.
Incorrect.
No one said it was CGI.
(http://www.imamuseum.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2001_pic2.jpeg)
This is a still from "2001: A Space Odyssey," Circa 1968.
Don't discount what is possible to do for a group of highly motivated individuals. The idea that it would be just too darn hard to pull off, or inconceivable that someone would even try, is basically the first line of defense for every unthinkable thing that has ever been done.
It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?
Yet you will stand on "I saw it with my own eyes." or something similar as your only proof for flat Earth.
How is this not a subjective argument?
What objective evidence has any flat Earth supporter ever produced which proves, beyond a doubt, that Earth is flat?
You can't have it both ways. You can't deny one person's argument, due to subjectivity, when your own arguments are based in subjectivity.
Just less than 2 years was spent on creating 205 special effects shots for this movie, for an average of 100 special effects shots completed per year.
The math is simple.
At an average of 100 effect shots per year it would have taken 142 years to produce 14,233 photos. Even if you increase the average to 200 per year it would still have taken 71 years to complete.
Or NASA had 1,425 people on board whose only job was to produce one photo per year over the course of 10 years.
I'm guessing that you'll go with the second option. Did they each have their own computer to make this happen? Considering the cost of computers during this time, that must have been where all the money allocated to NASA went. They didn't really launch rockets or send people to the moon. They spent all the money on computers so that 1,500 people could produce some fake pictures for a few years. This is the most logical train of thought.
It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?The Soviets were tracking the mission, heck i'm kidding the entire world does. This requires all the country that was tracking it to be in league of NASA or NASA did send an unmanned object to the Moon. Which would brings the question, why wouldn't they send a manned one like they claimed? There were already a speech prepared for them in case they don't make it back to Earth.
We also have the retro reflectors placed on the Moon and brought back Moon rocks, which tasks may seem to be too hard for a machine of that era.
It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?The Soviets were tracking the mission, heck i'm kidding the entire world does. This requires all the country that was tracking it to be in league of NASA or NASA did send an unmanned object to the Moon. Which would brings the question, why wouldn't they send a manned one like they claimed? There were already a speech prepared for them in case they don't make it back to Earth.
We also have the retro reflectors placed on the Moon and brought back Moon rocks, which tasks may seem to be too hard for a machine of that era.
https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+rocks+fake&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 (https://www.google.com/search?q=moon+rocks+fake&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8)
These moon rocks?
Neither NASA, nor the US Astronauts gave that rock to anyone. It was a US ambassador.
All 135 Apollo Moon Rocks that were handed out to nations were very small and massed at 1.1 grams. This fake rock massed 89 grams! It was also glued to a piece of cardboard.
The official Apollo Moon Rocks were encased in plastic globes.
The actual real Apollo moon Rocks are safe at the National Museum in Holland and are still there.
Here's the original story. Make sure you read ALL of it: USA Today Fake Moon Rock 2009. (http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2009-09-14-moon-rock_N.htm)
Yet you will stand on "I saw it with my own eyes." or something similar as your only proof for flat Earth.
How is this not a subjective argument?
What objective evidence has any flat Earth supporter ever produced which proves, beyond a doubt, that Earth is flat?
You can't have it both ways. You can't deny one person's argument, due to subjectivity, when your own arguments are based in subjectivity.
I would legitimately be interested in how you jumped to so many conclusions as to what I think based on this conversation. What subjective argument have I made? You are simply making up things at this point.Just less than 2 years was spent on creating 205 special effects shots for this movie, for an average of 100 special effects shots completed per year.
The math is simple.
At an average of 100 effect shots per year it would have taken 142 years to produce 14,233 photos. Even if you increase the average to 200 per year it would still have taken 71 years to complete.
Or NASA had 1,425 people on board whose only job was to produce one photo per year over the course of 10 years.
I'm guessing that you'll go with the second option. Did they each have their own computer to make this happen? Considering the cost of computers during this time, that must have been where all the money allocated to NASA went. They didn't really launch rockets or send people to the moon. They spent all the money on computers so that 1,500 people could produce some fake pictures for a few years. This is the most logical train of thought.
So your assertion is that the shots made for the movie represent the absolute capacity of what could be achieved? At least the capacity where you could extrapolate some generic figures and apply them outside of the context of making this movie? You'll need to provide some evidence of your position on this one... I will hand it to you round earthers, you have really stepped up your mental gymnastic game.
It is completely reasonable to think that 2001 was at or near the cutting edge of such visual effects, considering it was marveled at as a major cinematic achievement. What reason is there to think these reactions are unreasonable?
Unlike FEers we will not posit a secret conspiracy to keep cutting edge photo manipulation away from the public eye, without evidence.
Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.
Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.
Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.
Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.
Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.
These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Inconsistent_color_and_angle_of_shadows_and_light)
and
Moon Base Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . . have no evidence."
I'd suggest starting at the beginning of this thread, and then point out any claim made by a FE proponent that would put the onus on us...You are a former moderator here, Junker, surely you are familiar with the Wiki? Long before this thread began, and before many of us RE folks arrived here, your wiki made the following claims:
You can't say "We're not making any claims" when you have a whole section of the site devoted to making claims.
Rab, from a quick scan of the debate forum, the majority of the threads are started by Round Earthers making claims and Flat Earthers demanding evidence. There are minimal threads started by FEs, with the exception of Intikam, and they usually end up with REs making counter claims and the FEs again demanding evidence.Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.
Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.
Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.
These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Inconsistent_color_and_angle_of_shadows_and_light)
and
Moon Base Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . . have no evidence."
The only place where FEs make their claims is in the other forums where debate is discouraged.
If you think about it, the whole site is a perfect FE environment as essentially the FEs can make their claims without rebuttal and the REs have to support their claims with evidence that the FEs refuse to accept.
I'm starting to get an inkling that you're not who you say you are... Send us a video of your eyes so we can see if they transform or not.
I doubt that's by design. That's just what naturally happens when one side is completely incapable of supporting their side of the argument. They retreat to a safe place.I wonder how many FEs would comment on a forum dedicated to a round earth?
I have special eyes, and a minor skin condition. (https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnmuDsR7NtN9XWw/giphy.gif)You lied to us, you totesAREreptilian!!
Actually, it is up to you to prove your points 1 and 2. Using subjective phrasing such as "they are too good..." is not proof, which is why I said you haven't provided evidence, because you haven't.
He showed an example of CGI from 1975 that was not remotely close to photo realism. That's a good indicator that photo realism was not available 6 years prior.
Irrelevant.
Incorrect.
No one said it was CGI.
(http://www.imamuseum.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/2001_pic2.jpeg)
This is a still from "2001: A Space Odyssey," Circa 1968.
Don't discount what is possible to do for a group of highly motivated individuals. The idea that it would be just too darn hard to pull off, or inconceivable that someone would even try, is basically the first line of defense for every unthinkable thing that has ever been done.
It was thought to be highly unlikely or impossible to land on the moon in the first place, why would faking it be even harder?
Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.
Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.
Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.
These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Inconsistent_color_and_angle_of_shadows_and_light)
and
Moon Base Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . . have no evidence."
I get that you round earthers don't do logic very well, but please make an attempt. I'd suggest starting at the beginning of this thread, and then point out any claim made by a FE proponent that would put the onus on us. I have faith that you'll realize there were no claims made by us (hint: see the OP). You'll find the only claim that needs supporting evidence was made by the RE side. You'll also see the only thing provided is conjecture.
I really don't understand what's so difficult about this, but I imagine you'll keep dodging like RErs are known to do.
It is completely reasonable to think that 2001 was at or near the cutting edge of such visual effects, considering it was marveled at as a major cinematic achievement. What reason is there to think these reactions are unreasonable?
Unlike FEers we will not posit a secret conspiracy to keep cutting edge photo manipulation away from the public eye, without evidence.
Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.
Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.
RE: Prove me wrong!
FE: You're the one making a claim, the burden lies with you to prove it.
RE: I don't know what you're talking about, prove me wrong!
Lather, rinse, repeat.
RE: Prove me wrong!
FE: You're the one making a claim, the burden lies with you to prove it.
RE: I don't know what you're talking about, prove me wrong!
Lather, rinse, repeat.
In other words you CAN'T prove them to be fake in any way... if all 14,223 photos were fakes you should be able to easily prove it but you can't !
Just like you can't provide a map of the flat earth which shows all continents, countries and oceans in their correct sizes and proportions as they were mapped out by surveyors and sailors (the Australian coastline was mapped in 1810 so we know that it is not the shape on either of your maps!) And providing a flat earth map on a flat piece of paper should be an easy straightforward task if indeed the earth IS flat ! But you can't!
And why on earth can't rabinoz and I see Polaris? Because we live in the southern hemisphere, so explain that!!! But you can't!!
So when faced with difficult questions ... you avoid them, and turn the tables ...
Did you know that 222 individuals have made 379 spaceflights to the ISS ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??
533 people have been to space and have orbited the earth ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??
Who bribed all of the astronomers to lie about the shape of the earth before NASA came into existence ?? You know the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago who knew the earth was a sphere ... and all of the ones listed on this website who died before NASA was created in the late 1950's and all believed the earth was a sphere !!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=famous+astronomers&rlz=1C1CHWL_enAU637AU638&oq=famous+astronomers&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65l3j0l2.3816j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=famous+astronomers&rlz=1C1CHWL_enAU637AU638&oq=famous+astronomers&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65l3j0l2.3816j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
But the thing that I hate the most ... is that all of those thousands of astronomers since 500BC who spent every night for years and years looking at the night sky, collectively spent hundreds of thousands of hours, whole lifetimes spent observing, recording those observations, hypothesising ... and you FE'ers come along and after a couple of hours spent watching YouTube videos think you know more than 2500 years of astronomy, ... because... NASA, or because ... God (or the Bible...whatever)
Yet none of you know as much as Aristarchus did in 200BC !! And he knew then that the earth and other planets went around the sun, and the moon went around the earth, he even knew that the earth was the third planet from the sun, and the correct order of the rest of them which were visible to the naked eye (no telescopes until the 1600's!!). And he knew that the stars were much further away than any of the planets or the sun. He didn't figure all of that out by sitting on his ass in front of a computer ... he went out and looked at the night sky ... probably every night !! He worked all of this out by observing the paths of the sun, moon, stars and planets in the night sky!! Night after night after night !!
But you guys can't do that can you?? Hands up those FE'ers who own a telescope or have even used one??
And yet I bet most of you northerners could not go outside on a cloudless night and actually find Polaris !!! You are an insult to the intelligence, the patience and the sheer determination of all of those astronomers that contributed so much to our knowledge of our beautiful planet, our solar system, our galaxy and our universe, from Aristarchus and Eratosthenes to Hubble and Einstein !!
You give the world nothing !! If any of you had another brain cell you would have a binary system !!
Next time you go to your doctor tell him you don't want him to use the germ theory to treat your infection... tell him you want to be treated using the miasma theory of disease !!
Because if you want to reject the Copernican Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, gravity, space travel, satellites, you may as well reject the rest of what hard working Scientists have given us over the last 2500 years.
Oh and next time you need to use Velcro, or need a Cat scan, or use a cordless drill, or any device which uses a microchip, or have your temperature taken with an ear thermometer, or buy freeze dried food, or use a joystick, or install an LED light globe, or buy a mattress or pillow made of memory foam, or buy scratch resistant lenses, or a new smoke detector, or a water filter, or flame resistant clothing for your children ... thank NASA !!!
Over and out of here ...
RE: Prove me wrong!
FE: You're the one making a claim, the burden lies with you to prove it.
RE: I don't know what you're talking about, prove me wrong!
Lather, rinse, repeat.
In other words you CAN'T prove them to be fake in any way... if all 14,223 photos were fakes you should be able to easily prove it but you can't !
Just like you can't provide a map of the flat earth which shows all continents, countries and oceans in their correct sizes and proportions as they were mapped out by surveyors and sailors (the Australian coastline was mapped in 1810 so we know that it is not the shape on either of your maps!) And providing a flat earth map on a flat piece of paper should be an easy straightforward task if indeed the earth IS flat ! But you can't!
And why on earth can't rabinoz and I see Polaris? Because we live in the southern hemisphere, so explain that!!! But you can't!!
So when faced with difficult questions ... you avoid them, and turn the tables ...
Did you know that 222 individuals have made 379 spaceflights to the ISS ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??
533 people have been to space and have orbited the earth ... are they all dead now? Living a life of luxury on their NASA payouts??
Who bribed all of the astronomers to lie about the shape of the earth before NASA came into existence ?? You know the ancient Greeks 2500 years ago who knew the earth was a sphere ... and all of the ones listed on this website who died before NASA was created in the late 1950's and all believed the earth was a sphere !!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=famous+astronomers&rlz=1C1CHWL_enAU637AU638&oq=famous+astronomers&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65l3j0l2.3816j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.com.au/search?q=famous+astronomers&rlz=1C1CHWL_enAU637AU638&oq=famous+astronomers&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65l3j0l2.3816j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
But the thing that I hate the most ... is that all of those thousands of astronomers since 500BC who spent every night for years and years looking at the night sky, collectively spent hundreds of thousands of hours, whole lifetimes spent observing, recording those observations, hypothesising ... and you FE'ers come along and after a couple of hours spent watching YouTube videos think you know more than 2500 years of astronomy, ... because... NASA, or because ... God (or the Bible...whatever)
Yet none of you know as much as Aristarchus did in 200BC !! And he knew then that the earth and other planets went around the sun, and the moon went around the earth, he even knew that the earth was the third planet from the sun, and the correct order of the rest of them which were visible to the naked eye (no telescopes until the 1600's!!). And he knew that the stars were much further away than any of the planets or the sun. He didn't figure all of that out by sitting on his ass in front of a computer ... he went out and looked at the night sky ... probably every night !! He worked all of this out by observing the paths of the sun, moon, stars and planets in the night sky!! Night after night after night !!
But you guys can't do that can you?? Hands up those FE'ers who own a telescope or have even used one??
And yet I bet most of you northerners could not go outside on a cloudless night and actually find Polaris !!! You are an insult to the intelligence, the patience and the sheer determination of all of those astronomers that contributed so much to our knowledge of our beautiful planet, our solar system, our galaxy and our universe, from Aristarchus and Eratosthenes to Hubble and Einstein !!
You give the world nothing !! If any of you had another brain cell you would have a binary system !!
Next time you go to your doctor tell him you don't want him to use the germ theory to treat your infection... tell him you want to be treated using the miasma theory of disease !!
Because if you want to reject the Copernican Theory, and the Theory of Relativity, gravity, space travel, satellites, you may as well reject the rest of what hard working Scientists have given us over the last 2500 years.
Oh and next time you need to use Velcro, or need a Cat scan, or use a cordless drill, or any device which uses a microchip, or have your temperature taken with an ear thermometer, or buy freeze dried food, or use a joystick, or install an LED light globe, or buy a mattress or pillow made of memory foam, or buy scratch resistant lenses, or a new smoke detector, or a water filter, or flame resistant clothing for your children ... thank NASA !!!
Over and out of here ...
Did anyone in this thread say they were fake? Why would anyone have to prove a claim that hasn't been made? The only person making a claim is you, and you've provided no evidence for it.
I'm not even going to read the rest of the nonsense you've posted. This is a fairly common RE tactic; realize you've been called out for a poor argument, then change the subject all while ignoring reasonable replies to your poor argument. Have fun with that.
Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.
Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.
Since the Flat Earthers (and other deniers of the moon missions) are the accusers the onus is on you (and them) to prove their case, but so often it is simply stated as "it has been accepted that" (or words to that effect), when it most certainly has not been proved!.
These "fake" claims have been answered numerous times. I suppose you have studied:
Examination of Apollo Moon photographs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#Inconsistent_color_and_angle_of_shadows_and_light)
and
Moon Base Clavius (http://www.clavius.org/) and refuted in detail the answers to many of the fake "fake" claims.Until then I think it fair you "admit that you . . . . have no evidence."
I get that you round earthers don't do logic very well, but please make an attempt. I'd suggest starting at the beginning of this thread, and then point out any claim made by a FE proponent that would put the onus on us. I have faith that you'll realize there were no claims made by us (hint: see the OP). You'll find the only claim that needs supporting evidence was made by the RE side. You'll also see the only thing provided is conjecture.
I really don't understand what's so difficult about this, but I imagine you'll keep dodging like RErs are known to do.
It is completely reasonable to think that 2001 was at or near the cutting edge of such visual effects, considering it was marveled at as a major cinematic achievement. What reason is there to think these reactions are unreasonable?
Unlike FEers we will not posit a secret conspiracy to keep cutting edge photo manipulation away from the public eye, without evidence.
Please just admit that you (or OP) have no evidence. Continuing the discussion with phrases like "reasonable to think" doesn't get anywhere. Or just continue to make up things and present them as fact, doesn't really matter at this point.
Who is talking about a conspiracy? You guys have gone off the rails at this point.
I am still waiting for a half decent answer from any FE'er which proves the 14,233 photos from the Apollo missions are fake.
I very much doubt that any of you have even visited the link (after all you don't want to risk having to admit you were wrong by looking at absolutely amazing photos which might convince you that the earth really is a sphere!!)
1. Man DID go to the moon ... in fact SIX of the Apollo missions landed on the moon, and a total of 12 men have walked on the moon !!
AND
2. The earth is a sphere,
The "evidence" that proves 1. and 2. above are the 14,223 photographs taken by the Apollo missions and uploaded to the NASA flickr account.
I believe that we are agreed that no CGI was available at that time (1968-1972), which would have been capable of creating these photographs.
However even I will admit that perhaps some incredibly skilled artists could have drawn or painted some of them, but my view is that these photos are real.
So I am still waiting for you to point out which of these 14,223 photos are faked, and how they are faked.
You might want to especially focus (no pun intended!) on the photos which show the earth either from the Apollo spacecraft or from the moon.
NASA has uploaded these photos to flickr, so are obviously claiming that they are real.
Whereas you (FE'ers) claim they are fake... so the burden of proof is for you to show us how have they been faked... I want links to the exact photos, descriptions of the exact anomalies in the photos and an explanation of how these anomalies prove the photo or photos are faked.
Over to you !!
PS I might remind you that in a court of law a video or photos of a robbery or murder happening or of a person leaving the scene (eg CCTV surveillance) is accepted as proof and thousands and thousands of convictions have been made on the basis of CCTV footage. The burden of proof would be on the defendant's lawyer to prove that the CCTV footage had been tampered with in some way to have it removed from the court case.
The ball is in your court !
How about the sheer number of photographs? Compared to the amount of time supposedly spent on the surface. The math brings the rate of photos being taken at something like one every 50 seconds.Every argument you can think of, we already have explanation of it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#High_number_of_photographs)
How about the sheer number of photographs? Compared to the amount of time supposedly spent on the surface. The math brings the rate of photos being taken at something like one every 50 seconds.Every argument you can think of, we already have explanation of it. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examination_of_Apollo_Moon_photographs#High_number_of_photographs)
And please, if you don't want to refute the existing explanation, simply don't do it. Don't even try an Ad hominem, even if the page "seems" biased.
Mission Objective
The lunar landing site was the Taurus-Littrow highlands and valley area. This site was picked for Apollo 17 as a location where rocks both older and younger than those previously returned from other Apollo missions, as well as from Luna 16 and 20 missions, might be found.
The mission was the final in a series of three J-type missions planned for the Apollo Program. These J-type missions can be distinguished from previous G- and H-series missions by extended hardware capability, larger scientific payload capacity and by the use of the battery-powered Lunar Roving Vehicle, or LRV.
Scientific objectives of the Apollo 17 mission included, geological surveying and sampling of materials and surface features in a preselected area of the Taurus-Littrow region; deploying and activating surface experiments; and conducting in-flight experiments and photographic tasks during lunar orbit and transearth coast. These objectives included deployed experiments, such as the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package, or ALSEP, with a heat flow experiment; lunar seismic profiling, or LSP; lunar surface gravimeter, or LSG; lunar atmospheric composition experiment, or LACE; and lunar ejecta and meteorites, or LEAM. The mission also included lunar sampling and lunar orbital experiments. Biomedical experiments included the Biostack II experiment and the BIOCORE experiment.
As you can see the astronauts are doing many things in the extensive amount of video available from the mission, constantly taking photos is not one of them.
If taking photos was the only mission for the apollo landings, then yes, the amount of photos might make sense.Again
All that was needed to take a picture was to open the shutter. Film winding was automatic.
But there was a ton of other tasks that astronauts were supposed to complete, such as constructing the rovers etc.It was already constructed, they just deploy it:
Deployment of the LRV from the LM's Quadrant 1 bay by the astronauts was achieved with a system of pulleys and braked reels using ropes and cloth tapes. The rover was folded and stored in the bay with the underside of the chassis facing out. One astronaut would climb the egress ladder on the LM and release the rover, which would then be slowly tilted out by the second astronaut on the ground through the use of reels and tapes. As the rover was let down from the bay, most of the deployment was automatic. The rear wheels folded out and locked in place. When they touched the ground, the front of the rover could be unfolded, the wheels deployed, and the entire frame let down to the surface by pulleys.
The rover components locked into place upon opening. Cabling, pins, and tripods would then be removed and the seats and footrests raised. After switching on all the electronics, the vehicle was ready to back away from the LM.
It doesn't add up. Thus, there is cause for doubt. You'd have to be a fool to believe there isn't.Considering the rovers were deployed early, they may have not yet start taking pictures, i'd pick the most simple explanation and an explanation that the landing was fake for something so minor facts should be the least to consider as it's hard to be consistent with the major facts.
"We?" Are you part of some kind of online NASA defense brigade or something?It's my choice of wording, again you should take the complicated explanation as the least to consider.
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
But rocket propulsion is feasible. You but them every Fourth of July.
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
Much, much easier.
Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
But rocket propulsion is feasible. You but them every Fourth of July.
True, but that has nothing to do with your original argument.
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
But rocket propulsion is feasible. You but them every Fourth of July.
True, but that has nothing to do with your original argument.
My original point was if they had this secret technology to doctor pictures then why couldn't they have the same advanced technology to send someone to the moon? Did they spent all of their technology to doctor pictures and not build anti gravity machines?
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
Much, much easier.
Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter
Actually it's more like you pretending I don't understand something because I don't believe it.Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
Much, much easier.
Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter
Your whole attitude since I have seen you posting has been "If TheTruthIsOnHere can't understand it, it is impossible! and MUST be a fake."
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
Much, much easier.
Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter
C: Horizontal escape velocity? Please elaborate. However, calculating delta-V budgets has been possible since the rocket equation was derived in 1903 (and even earlier than that IIRC)
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
Much, much easier.
Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter
C: Horizontal escape velocity? Please elaborate. However, calculating delta-V budgets has been possible since the rocket equation was derived in 1903 (and even earlier than that IIRC)
When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. You need to be going roughly 25,000 mph to escape Earth's gravity, the moon being about 1/5 of the Earth's gravity, you'd have to travel 5,000mph horizontally to escape its gravity. That's why when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.
Anyway guys. Carry on with whatever you want to believe. Deny your own senses and all common sense and logic if that is what truly makes you happy.
Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
But rocket propulsion is feasible. You but them every Fourth of July.
True, but that has nothing to do with your original argument.
My original point was if they had this secret technology to doctor pictures then why couldn't they have the same advanced technology to send someone to the moon? Did they spent all of their technology to doctor pictures and not build anti gravity machines?
This doesn't help
When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.
GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?
When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.
Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists. What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?
When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.
Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists. What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?
Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.
When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.
Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists. What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?
Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.
If I was protecting a worldwide conspiracy with billions on the line (lol) I would not be lazy like that. Just me though.
Since you didn't reply to my post about the Apollo mission, but went on with a reply explaining the effects of so-called social engineering (buzz buzz) and implicitly and effectively ranking yourself smarter than the rest of us, do explain how and when NASA got caught being lazy?When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.
Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists. What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?
Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.
If I was protecting a worldwide conspiracy with billions on the line (lol) I would not be lazy like that. Just me though.
Interesting you say that because even to this day they get caught being lazy all the time. They just know that space travel and the globe earth are so etched into people's minds, even so far that people actually take some kind of personal satisfaction and pride in the achievements, of which they had absolutely no part, that it is VERY easy to dismiss any idea counter to that, regardless of evidence, common sense, logic etc. All they have to do is aim the magic wand that relegates holders of dissenting opinions to the tin foil conspiracy theory hat rack. It is very commonplace and it is a result of social engineering and conditioning.
They realized that through strong psychological willingness to accept the truth as we are told as true, that we will actually, through some Stockholm syndromesque function, reject anything that takes that truth away, no matter how much evidence there to support it. And controlling all mainstream media doesn't hurt.
Some smart guy from the past said something to the effect that "it is easier to fool someone then to convince someone that they have been fooled. "
Since you didn't reply to my post about the Apollo mission, but went on with a reply explaining the effects of so-called social engineering (buzz buzz) and implicitly and effectively ranking yourself smarter than the rest of us, do explain how and when NASA got caught being lazy?
Please explain to me how it is possible for organizations not affiliated with NASA to accomplish some of the feats previously reserved for NASA? Blue Origin, SpaceX (pre-contact), Brazilian, Indian and even North Korean space agencies, and the myriad of smaller private, and even amateur space programs like Copenhagen Suborbitals and Dare who launches solid fuel rockets based on candlelight wax, but none of you ever really talk about these accomplishments and/or how they faked them?
You don't need to escape earth's gravity to go to the moon. The moon obviously haven't.
I think you're confusing the rocket trail expected on earth with the rocket trail created when there's no atmosphere. On the moon, you can go straight to near horizontal for horizontal speed from the get-go because your don't have atmospheric drag.
The lander module did not have to reach escape velocity either, it "Only" had to rendezvous with the command module. The lander module were discarded, while the already in lunar orbit command module returned to earth. Reaching escape velocity from orbit is obviously far cheaper than reaching it from the surface
Edit: The lander did a rendezvous with the command module via a direct ascent IIRC. It didn't get into orbit first.
Since you didn't reply to my post about the Apollo mission, but went on with a reply explaining the effects of so-called social engineering (buzz buzz) and implicitly and effectively ranking yourself smarter than the rest of us, do explain how and when NASA got caught being lazy?
Please explain to me how it is possible for organizations not affiliated with NASA to accomplish some of the feats previously reserved for NASA? Blue Origin, SpaceX (pre-contact), Brazilian, Indian and even North Korean space agencies, and the myriad of smaller private, and even amateur space programs like Copenhagen Suborbitals and Dare who launches solid fuel rockets based on candlelight wax, but none of you ever really talk about these accomplishments and/or how they faked them?
I didn't respond to your post because, besides it being poorly written, was little more than gainsaying without any actual evidence to back it up.
Basically filling the function of a NASA apologist, which I have no doubt if I showed you 10 videos or photos of how obvious mistakes were made (or purposefully inserted) you would just list them off and find any possible way to defend your position, in the face of logic evidence and common sense.
I won't go down that road. If you care look into yourself. If not, it's no sweat off my back.
You don't need to escape earth's gravity to go to the moon. The moon obviously haven't.[/quote]
I think you're confusing the rocket trail expected on earth with the rocket trail created when there's no atmosphere. On the moon, you can go straight to near horizontal for horizontal speed from the get-go because your don't have atmospheric drag.
The lander module did not have to reach escape velocity either, it "Only" had to rendezvous with the command module. The lander module were discarded, while the already in lunar orbit command module returned to earth. Reaching escape velocity from orbit is obviously far cheaper than reaching it from the surface
Edit: The lander did a rendezvous with the command module via a direct ascent IIRC. It didn't get into orbit first.
Since you didn't reply to my post about the Apollo mission, but went on with a reply explaining the effects of so-called social engineering (buzz buzz) and implicitly and effectively ranking yourself smarter than the rest of us, do explain how and when NASA got caught being lazy?
Please explain to me how it is possible for organizations not affiliated with NASA to accomplish some of the feats previously reserved for NASA? Blue Origin, SpaceX (pre-contact), Brazilian, Indian and even North Korean space agencies, and the myriad of smaller private, and even amateur space programs like Copenhagen Suborbitals and Dare who launches solid fuel rockets based on candlelight wax, but none of you ever really talk about these accomplishments and/or how they faked them?
I didn't respond to your post because, besides it being poorly written, was little more than gainsaying without any actual evidence to back it up. Basically filling the function of a NASA apologist, which I have no doubt if I showed you 10 videos or photos of how obvious mistakes were made (or purposefully inserted) you would just list them off and find any possible way to defend your position, in the face of logic evidence and common sense.
I won't go down that road. If you care look into yourself. If not, it's no sweat off my back.
And if you feel that I'm smarter than you for whatever reason then that is an indictment on your own ego.You don't need to escape earth's gravity to go to the moon. The moon obviously haven't.
I think you're confusing the rocket trail expected on earth with the rocket trail created when there's no atmosphere. On the moon, you can go straight to near horizontal for horizontal speed from the get-go because your don't have atmospheric drag.
The lander module did not have to reach escape velocity either, it "Only" had to rendezvous with the command module. The lander module were discarded, while the already in lunar orbit command module returned to earth. Reaching escape velocity from orbit is obviously far cheaper than reaching it from the surface
Edit: The lander did a rendezvous with the command module via a direct ascent IIRC. It didn't get into orbit first.
GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?
GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?
Actually that's a misconception. You can't see the curvature at sea level. You can however see the horizon which is a result of the curvature. You can also see ships sink and if you far enough you can see cities sink many stories below the horizon. But you're right, FE is stupid.
GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?
Actually that's a misconception. You can't see the curvature at sea level. You can however see the horizon which is a result of the curvature. You can also see ships sink and if you far enough you can see cities sink many stories below the horizon. But you're right, FE is stupid.
Calling something stupid when you equivocated airbrushing and doctoring a picture to escaping Earth's atmosphere safely on a rocket in terms of level of ease.
When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.
Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists. What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?
Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.
GUYS SERIOUSLY GET A LIFE. U GUYS JUST LOOK OUT TO SEA AND THE WORLD IS OBVIOUSLY NOT FLAT. UR A BUNCH OF SPETHL PEOPLE. HOW COULD YOU POSSIBLY BELIEVE SOMTHING SO STUPID! I MEAN FOR GOD SAKE LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE. DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT EVERY SCIENTIST IN THE WORLD IS LYING? HOW RETARDED CAN U GET?
Actually that's a misconception. You can't see the curvature at sea level. You can however see the horizon which is a result of the curvature. You can also see ships sink and if you far enough you can see cities sink many stories below the horizon. But you're right, FE is stupid.
Calling something stupid when you equivocated airbrushing and doctoring a picture to escaping Earth's atmosphere safely on a rocket in terms of level of ease.
Pro-Tip: You are a couple of words short of a grammatically correct sentence and you misused the word "equivocate". If you want to be righteous, you have to keep your own nose clean.
When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. ... when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.
Seems to me if they were going to fake the whole thing, they would have made it look the way a non rocket scientist would expect it to look, because the entire watching world is very close to 100% NOT rocket scientists. What possible reason would they have for inventing a new flight profile?
Or maybe, just maybe it was beyond their ability to fake? Your logic would dictate that NASA believed they could pull a fast one on the public simply because 99.9999% wouldn't know what it's supposed to look like.
And the all-seeing, all-knowing TheTruthIsOnHere knows what 99.9999% of the general public doesn't know? Now, just where does that put your self assessed IQ? From what I can see you are claiming an IQ of about 171, WOW (and I suppose if your IQ is that high, have the smarts to self-assess it - ::) or think you have ::)). I thought that I was not all that dull at around 140 ( :( probably lost a bit of grey matter since then :().
In an earlier post you claimed "That's why when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve" - well, no! The "curving over" after launch is simply because almost all launches we see are going into orbit around a spherical earth, and are not trying to "escape earth's gravity".
I don't know which lunar lander launch you have a problem with. This one of Apollo 17 (1972, I believe) looks OK to my admittedly untrained eyes:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obd_jTO66-0
Just remember that it is not trying to escape the moon's gravity, just rendezvous with the command module in a quite low orbit.
When you see the video of the lunar lander jerking upwards, without any of the typical ignition blast sequence style propulsion, how exactly does it reach the escape velocity required to be in "orbit" around the moon. You need to be going roughly 25,000 mph to escape Earth's gravity, the moon being about 1/5 of the Earth's gravity, you'd have to travel 5,000mph horizontally to escape its gravity. That's why when you see a rocket launch on earth, they are on a parabolic curve, and release the payload at the perfect time to jettison it horizontally to technically "free fall" faster than the Earth can spin (orbit). The video doesn't show this style of launch, or anywhere near the amount of speed or angle to achieve this.
Anyway guys. Carry on with whatever you want to believe. Deny your own senses and all common sense and logic if that is what truly makes you happy.
So let's get this. The lunar lander thing jerks straight up, with all the power of 11 bottle tickets some firecrackers, at just the exact right time to precisely lock into the thing in orbit. Not only that, but for some reason, it seems like a disaster waiting to happen when you have an object traveling nearly vertical trying to link with an object traveling nearly 3000mph. Unless of course, the orbiter wasn't exactly orbiting. Maybe it was just floating there with its advanced anti gravity drive.
Oh yeah, then they somehow escaped the moon's gravity and let Earth's gravity pull them back? Not to mention the sun's gravity being
Oh yeah, then they somehow escaped the moon's gravity and let Earth's gravity pull them back? Not to mention the sun's gravity beingDon't forget the Moon orbits the Earth, which is inside of Earth's Hill sphere. The Hill sphere of the Moon (relative to Earth) extends up to 63,000 km which is always inside the Hill sphere of Earth (relative to Sun) that extends up to 1.5 million km.
I didn't respond to your post because, besides it being poorly written, was little more than gainsaying without any actual evidence to back it up. Basically filling the function of a NASA apologist, which I have no doubt if I showed you 10 videos or photos of how obvious mistakes were made (or purposefully inserted) you would just list them off and find any possible way to defend your position, in the face of logic evidence and common sense.
What is a hill sphere? (He asked trepidatiously)Think of it as the point where celestial bodies battles to be the sphere of influence, like the Lagrange points.
OK I'll play along. How did the module reach 5000mph? We have super sonic jet engines to do that on earth. The lunar module had fire crackers.
Keep pushing a false narrative about how I don't understand, you haven't demonstrated that you do either. At this point I don't really give a fuck what any of you think and I advise you to do the same about my opinion. You guys treat this like a job so it definitely makes it hard not to write you off as a shill. You have way way too much of a vested interest here and it's not even veiled hat so ever.
You want to keep questioning my intelligence I have no choice but to question your credibility.
Anyway I'm done with this forum and forums like these. I'm sure you'll get a nice little shill bonus for every person you turn away from open discussion so make sure you collect.
Payloads... weight of lunar
You've got to be an idiot by the way to watch any Apollo video and think it looks real. Either you are delusional or a liar when you pretend it does.
OK I'll play along. How did the module reach 5000mph? We have super sonic jet engines to do that on earth. The lunar module had fire crackers.
Keep pushing a false narrative about how I don't understand, you haven't demonstrated that you do either. At this point I don't really give a fuck what any of you think and I advise you to do the same about my opinion. You guys treat this like a job so it definitely makes it hard not to write you off as a shill. You have way way too much of a vested interest here and it's not even veiled hat so ever.
You want to keep questioning my intelligence I have no choice but to question your credibility.
Anyway I'm done with this forum and forums like these. I'm sure you'll get a nice little shill bonus for every person you turn away from open discussion so make sure you collect.
You've got to be an idiot by the way to watch any Apollo video and think it looks real. Either you are delusional or a liar when you pretend it does.
OK I'll play along. How did the module reach 5000mph? We have super sonic jet engines to do that on earth. The lunar module had fire crackers.
Keep pushing a false narrative about how I don't understand, you haven't demonstrated that you do either. At this point I don't really give a fuck what any of you think and I advise you to do the same about my opinion. You guys treat this like a job so it definitely makes it hard not to write you off as a shill. You have way way too much of a vested interest here and it's not even veiled hat so ever.
You want to keep questioning my intelligence I have no choice but to question your credibility.
Anyway I'm done with this forum and forums like these. I'm sure you'll get a nice little shill bonus for every person you turn away from open discussion so make sure you collect.
You've got to be an idiot by the way to watch any Apollo video and think it looks real. Either you are delusional or a liar when you pretend it does.
OK I'll play along. How did the module reach 5000mph? We have super sonic jet engines to do that on earth. The lunar module had fire crackers.
Keep pushing a false narrative about how I don't understand, you haven't demonstrated that you do either. At this point I don't really give a fuck what any of you think and I advise you to do the same about my opinion. You guys treat this like a job so it definitely makes it hard not to write you off as a shill. You have way way too much of a vested interest here and it's not even veiled hat so ever.
You want to keep questioning my intelligence I have no choice but to question your credibility.
Anyway I'm done with this forum and forums like these. I'm sure you'll get a nice little shill bonus for every person you turn away from open discussion so make sure you collect.
Payloads... weight of lunar
You've got to be an idiot by the way to watch any Apollo video and think it looks real. Either you are delusional or a liar when you pretend it does.
Perhaps the size of the payload of what took off from earth (Saturn V plus fuel plus CMS plus LLM etc) compared to the LLM taking off from the moon (and leaving the landing platform behind) ??
I will be the first to admit that I am no rocket scientist but that was my first thought...
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html (http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA
Go to 0:50
No one did for Apollo 11 (and 12). There's no lunar ascent footage from those missions, but the Apollo missions that brought rovers had cameras mounted on them that were remote controlled from earth.OK I'll play along. How did the module reach 5000mph? We have super sonic jet engines to do that on earth. The lunar module had fire crackers.
Keep pushing a false narrative about how I don't understand, you haven't demonstrated that you do either. At this point I don't really give a fuck what any of you think and I advise you to do the same about my opinion. You guys treat this like a job so it definitely makes it hard not to write you off as a shill. You have way way too much of a vested interest here and it's not even veiled hat so ever.
You want to keep questioning my intelligence I have no choice but to question your credibility.
Anyway I'm done with this forum and forums like these. I'm sure you'll get a nice little shill bonus for every person you turn away from open discussion so make sure you collect.
Payloads... weight of lunar
You've got to be an idiot by the way to watch any Apollo video and think it looks real. Either you are delusional or a liar when you pretend it does.
Perhaps the size of the payload of what took off from earth (Saturn V plus fuel plus CMS plus LLM etc) compared to the LLM taking off from the moon (and leaving the landing platform behind) ??
I will be the first to admit that I am no rocket scientist but that was my first thought...
http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html (http://www.armaghplanet.com/blog/nasas-lunar-module-everything-you-need-to-know.html)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA
Go to 0:50
I believe we went to the moon but I always wondered who took the shot of them leaving.
I know I'm late, but haven't you worked this out yet? I tried months ago to explain it. I guess I failed!Here's something I was wondering about. If they had advance technology to fake the landings, shouldn't they have the technology to actually land on the moon?
Not really. Doctoring photos is much different than rocket propulsion.
Much, much easier.
Can you tell me how me how they calculated A. The gravity of the moon prior to going there B. The rotational speed of the moon C. How much fuel they would need to reach a horizontal escape velocity and D. how they were so perfectly precise to rendezvous with the orbiter
And they calculated the moons gravity how? Because as far as I can tell there is still debate about earths which should be a lot easier to detect because a. Its a lot bigger and b. Were actually on it. Now that wouldn't be too big of a deal if we assume it is a certain level and overcompensate but getting the "command module" to orbit seems a complicated task.I don't see any debate on "there is still debate about earths" gravity. Even TFES says it is 9.8m/s^2. Who's debating?
Its all bullshit you can live in fantasy space land but I'll stay down here in reality.
The launch from earth was far more than "getting the 'command module' to orbit".
You write as though you no idea of what was involved, and I am certainly not going into the details that you look up yourself.
Orbiting is based on the principle of a "free fall" which means a vessel is traveling so fast it effectively falls "over" the horizon. Earth's gravity being 9.8m/s^2 is the way they determined just how fast a vessel would have to be to "orbit" Earth.
Now did someone send a "cavendish" device to the moon? And a scientist check its results after a year? If not, how did we know the density of the moon to be able to create a "command module" that is capable of reaching exactly the right speed to orbit the moon?
I think you are underestimating my perception of the principles of orbit. Maybe it's easier to paint me with the idiot brush but you can't say I'm wholly ignorant of the concepts.