" I would ask you to view the first footage several times over and really absorb what is depicted there and try as hard as you can to imagine the depictions arising merely as a result of low gravity"
The problem is the presumption that low gravity alone will affect the photography in the moon like environment. Vaccum conditions and the sun without an intervening atmosphere can also affect things. In fact, it is really hard to simulate these things on earth.
" That footage is so visually baffling that I think it creates a prima facie presumption that Apollo 16 lunar footage was entirely faked."
Don’t buy it. The footage might look visually baffling if it was compared to equivelent footage on the earth. Please establish that it would be visually baffling compared to what would be expected given the actual conditions on the moon.
Also Clayton, the radiation issue has been addressed. The radiation amount is not deadly, and Van Allen actually himself refuted claims that the Van Allen belt stopped space travel.
While its true that the mirror itself doesn’t by itself prove space travel, there are loads of other sources, independently verified by a bunch of sources.
if youre looking to persuade, this isnt the way to do it. What about “the footage” (a term that could hardly facilitate misunderstanding) is so obvious that I shouldnt need you to explain to me how fake it is?
theyre both plausible, the question is which hypothesis is supported by a coherent interpretation of the evidence. Thats the logic that seems to escape you.
I disagree. Based on your post, the biggest problem you face is your own complete lack of persuasive argument. But you make up for it with arrogance and snide comments about other people’s opinions, right?
They thought about that but they decided to go part of the way in a ship the size of a skyscraper and go the rest of the way in a series of seccessively smaller ships because orbital rendezvous was a lot more feasible than direct ascent, based on 1960s tech. They were still using slide rules at this point, remember.
Why would they abandon the totally awesome propulsion technologies and forget the hyper extra mega advanced camera technologies?
people: do more with less
haters: talk shit because the people have “less”
I imagine it would be possible to fake it in the future too, especially with “super advanced camera technologies.”
That’s what I’m saying, it’s visually baffling even under conditions of low gravity - while you are lighter on the Moon, you are not weightless. With all those packs, I think the effective weight of the astronaut comes to around 70 pounds on Earth. I can’t lift 70 pounds with my pinky and my big toe, but if you look closely at the “downed astronaut” footage, he springs up off the ground mid-section-first, supported only by the toes of one foot and half a hand. I’m pretty sure I couldn’t lift 70 pounds (load-relieved of the rest of my weight) in that way.
Lighting and atmostphere are all irrelevant to this particular problem. And the point of mentioning wire harnesses is simply to note that the effects of low-gravity conditions on human movement are not difficult to reproduce here on Earth… in other words, it’s not difficult at all to visualize what it should have looked like.
Quite possibly. There are a few “scholars” (I can’t really call them that because they aren’t respected among the community) that have said towers and glass building remnants were obscured and that the Astronauts were ‘obviously’ brainwashed post debreifing when they got back.
@eliotn: I don’t think it’s true that the stars wouldn’t be visible because of the Sun. The SOHO satellites look directly at the Sun and still resolve background stars. Many of the lunar photographs are pointed away from the Sun.
those astronauts were in peak physical condition, its quite plausible that they could do one-arm pushups.
as for the sun and the stars, I believe I heard that the sensitivity of the film they had in the 60s is what precludes an image of the sun and nearby stars, as the massive amount of radiation would require an extremely brief exposure, whereas the faintness of the stars would require a longer exposure. I dont have a reference for this but it seems like a technological problem that would be solved eventually.
I have no doubt that James Van Allen could have been persuaded to see the light on this issue. I’ll try to dig up that quote where W. von Braun points out that the radiation is lethal to human beings and also a reference on Van Allen working against the space program in Congress.
@Aristophanes, I believe Richard Hoagland is one of those people. He writes some interesting things but I have a feeling he is a disinfo agent. Call it a hunch.
Clayton, its not as simple as artificially lowering gravity. Vaccum conditions will change how other things appear on camera, how things fall (there is no air resistance to stop people from falling!), how the dust goes into the air and settles, and how flags will move. Merely using harnesses would flag it as a hoax for other scientists, as it wouldn’t replicate vaccum conditions.
@eliotn: I don’t think it’s true that the stars wouldn’t be visible because of the Sun. The SOHO satellites look directly at the Sun and still resolve background stars. Many of the lunar photographs are pointed away from the Sun.
Clayton -
That’s fake. A picture from a satellite wouldn’t look like that. Space isn’t blue.
Barely. IIRC, they estimate that the average gaseous particle on the moon hit four other particles before escaping into space permanently. That’s not an atmosphere. It’s just a very tiny amount of gaseous coming off because of heat and the like.
They said there “might” be “minimal amounts” of water before they admitted that “hey folks, theres water on the moon!”. So youll excuse me if I dont consider estimates like those to be authoritative. I also dont think that estimate is intuitive given luna has on average 1/6 earth gravity, and significant gravitational anomalies. There should be gases sticking to the surface.
Shouldn’t be too hard to do the math on something like that though. They say if you hit a golfball off the moon, it’s possible to achieve escape velocity. So, 1/6th or w/e is still a huge difference from earth. Solar wind alone would be scouring the moon of any possible gases.
whenever a conspiracy like this 911 vaccines come along i find it easy just to demise out of hand.think of all the people needed to pull it off.surely if such a conspiracy was endeavored the conspirers would need to be real sure they could pull it off.so why do so many people then believe in the conspiracy when the evidence should be hard to find?. the answers is simple believing you are seeing the world for what it really is confirms in people they have a higher capacity of reasoning above all those sheep they feel real good .when arguing against such conspiracies using knowledge of technology means methods ect you fall into a trap where by the believer will probably have far more information in support of their claim.so if the believer recognizes he knows more than you about the topic(think of how much time people spend watching docos and going to web sites aboout conspiracies)they will interpret it as their own greatness once again confirming their belief about themselves (the real route of the problem).think about it does a muslim knowing more about the koran mean he right?.
Conversely, does one person having more information about something than you make it more likely that he is right or that you are right about that specific thing?
(Ie, one person is an applefarmer and apple theory hobbyist; and you’ve eaten an apple once, who is more likely to know more about apples. )
