I believe NASA DID go to the moon!

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by hokuspokus

Key phrase in your post "knows a thing or two" and why should i take you seriously when clearly ,from your post, you know it all. I have met people with more arrogance than what you have displayed with your post. But i cant remember when.

Okay. So prove me stupid. Find something in the Apollo record that proves the missions were faked. Bonus points if you find some "anomaly" we haven't heard of a million times. Double bonus if you find something I've never heard of and have to look up.

[ianw]

Originally Posted by truegroup

You don't have a god damm clue what THEY know. You have been given a 13 point rebuttal to why it isn't a meteorite, strangely you have no answer. Given the crap you posted about hydrous minerals, demonstrating once again your grasp of drivel, it is no wonder.

I said

All the geologists know is that they have never seen that type of sand before, If nasa said it was retrieved from a asteroid, they would not say ''bull its from the moon'' unfamiliar with the sand they would say it was from an asteroid.

No where did i mention a meteorite.
I was demonstrating that a geologist dealing with things out of his personal knowledge would agree with nasa. There is no bench mark for a geologist to possibly know wtf a moon rock should be.

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by ianw

I said

No where did i mention a meteorite.
I was demonstrating that a geologist dealing with things out of his personal knowledge would agree with nasa. There is no bench mark for a geologist to possibly know wtf a moon rock should be.

Sure there are. You just don't know what they are, despite a list of basic features being posted here about once a week for the last year on any of 3 or 4 threads.

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by ianw

I said

No where did i mention a meteorite.

Magic-asteroid-outer-space-retrieval-system noted My god you people are just so full of crap.

I was demonstrating that a geologist dealing with things out of his personal knowledge would agree with nasa.

You were doing nothing of the sort. As always you were demonstrating that you know less than nothing about the subject.

There is no bench mark for a geologist to possibly know wtf a moon rock should be.

And this you know from perusing the numerus geology reports, major websites and being well versed in the subject matter? Of course not! You're just making up shit yet again because you are a useless HB with no proof and no legitimate way to account for the evidence. There really is an awful lot of it around these parts, sounds like a conspiracy to make HBs sound like numpties. Too late, that's already been shown

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm

[thirdwave]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

That's really the best you can do? Really? And you form a complete worldview based on such limited knowledge and experience?

wow. The hoax believers here have really run out of steam.

lol, what do you mean the best I can do? I have not done anything you plank! lol

a very realistic none gravity effect was used in a movie using wires and slow mo... you asked me to prove it.. I have already described the scenes .. and now posted the way they done it..

The non gravity and vacuum effect could have easily been created... using slow mo, wires, and choreography.. simple as that.

[apollo_gnomon]

So the dust, sand and gravel flung about by boots and wheels, falling to the ground all at the same velocity with out regard to particle surface area, that would be done with what, then? Wires? Or slow motion?

[brucel]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

So the dust, sand and gravel flung about by boots and wheels, falling to the ground all at the same velocity with out regard to particle surface area, that would be done with what, then? Wires? Or slow motion?

was this meant to be a trick question or a rhetorical one

is the dust, sand particles etc.. not moving at the same speed as the slowed down footage ?

[stelios]

Originally Posted by thirdwave

Gravity and vacuum effects had been used in movies at that time, the only ? is how they would use it with out wires being visible or a problem..

Well arranged movement and choreography, slow motion, and wires only used when needed would have worked.. very thin dark wires would have also been able to remain hidden as the thicker and white antenna did allot of the time.. and most of the time the wires just had a black back ground..

objects could have been suspended easily..

A more obvious way is to simply overlay one film on top of another.
It was quite a common technique in sci-fi shows in the sixties.
Watch this video and you can see one image on top of another clearly:

NASA Faked Apollo Moon Landings - YouTube

NASA Faked Apollo Moon Landings - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyvaVWHaBiI

[apollo_gnomon]

Originally Posted by brucel

was this meant to be a trick question or a rhetorical one

is the dust, sand particles etc.. not moving at the same speed as the slowed down footage ?

Because your question is vaguely on topic, I won't bother reporting it this time. But I prefer to discuss 9/11 in the 9/11 threads, not in the Apollo threads. Try, please, to show just the teensiest bit of thread discipline, could you?

So look at the speed of descent of the building in the clip you show. Massive argument threads have been written about the speed at which it falls, but I think even you can see that the dust is not accelerating towards the ground at 32'/second ^2. The reason the dust takes longer to settle is because friction with the atmosphere (and, to a much lesser degree, some amount of "buoyancy" effect from the weight of atmosphere displace by the object) is acting against the force of gravity. In other words, dust "floats" in the air.

On the moon there is no atmosphere. On the moon the finest dust accelerates toward the ground at exactly the same speed as the largest gravel, because gravity is the only force acting on the particles. Dust doesn't float on the moon because there is no air.

[hokuspokus]

Originally Posted by truegroup

They aren't, there is a ghosting effect caused by the internal reflections in the camera.

http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html
http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html

Sorry. No dice. Try again. Howabout its a 1969 version of photoshop?

And if there is no water on the moon how are the astronauts leaving footprints.? Heres an idea . Put on a pair of heavy industrial boots. Go to a beach where the sand has dried out. And see if you can leave any footprints.
Guess what? You cant.

[moving finger]

Originally Posted by hokuspokus

Sorry. No dice. Try again. Howabout its a 1969 version of photoshop?

No such thing. Computers were not capable of handling graphics, there was no graphic format for computers to handle.

And if there is no water on the moon how are the astronauts leaving footprints.? Heres an idea . Put on a pair of heavy industrial boots. Go to a beach where the sand has dried out. And see if you can leave any footprints.
Guess what? You cant.

You can't form a sharp image of a footprint in dry sand. You can, however, form a sharp footprint in material where there are lots of sharp edges because it has never experienced any kind of erosion (aeolian, water, or as a result of saltation) and where the interstitial spaces have no air, which means that any kind of compression will force those particles to lock together. The fact that there are footprints, and the behaviour of the lunar dust clearly indicates that it is not wet, kind of shoots your argument down from the start.

[moving finger]

Third party evidence still an issue?

OK, how about the eye witness account of a pilot seeing the re-entry of the Apollo craft.

Here's a newspaper report:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?ni...g=4491,4342944

Here's a report from one of the passengers:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A...apollo&f=false

Here's the souvenir they were given:

http://painoil.multiply.com/photos/photo/10/43

and towards the end of this video, you can hear the pilot describing it:

http://www.frequency.com/topic/digital+media?cid=5-6598

[philthy53]

Originally Posted by hokuspokus

Sorry. No dice. Try again. Howabout its a 1969 version of photoshop?

So, it was impossible for Apollo to land on the moon in 1969, but there was a time macine available to go to the future and pick up a copy of the first version of Photoshop that wasn't released until 1990? Really? That's your story?

http://creativebits.org/the_first_version_of_photoshop/

Originally Posted by hokuspokus

And if there is no water on the moon how are the astronauts leaving footprints.? Heres an idea . Put on a pair of heavy industrial boots. Go to a beach where the sand has dried out. And see if you can leave any footprints.

Water has nothing to do with the footprints left on the moon by the astronaunts. It has to do with the lunar "soil," formally known as regolith. Since regolith has never been exposed to weathering, such as found on earth, it has very sharp edges that "hook" to each other, which is why there are such sharply defined foot prints in the lunar regolith.

Originally Posted by hokuspokus

Guess what? You cant.

Nor should there be any expectation too.

Phil

[truegroup]

Originally Posted by hokuspokus

Sorry. No dice. Try again. Howabout its a 1969 version of photoshop?

I can't argue with this level of ignorance. The page even proves it by showing correlation with the movement and the object on the opposite point of the lens. As for a 1969 version of photoshop?? What a stupid suggestion, how much wrong can someone get in a short post! For one it is a video, second photoshop wasn't even bloody close to being invented and why would they add shit that makes it worse.

And if there is no water on the moon how are the astronauts leaving footprints.? Heres an idea . Put on a pair of heavy industrial boots. Go to a beach where the sand has dried out. And see if you can leave any footprints.
Guess what? You cant.

You have the research abilities of a goldfish. Here, let me list some reasons and watch you say "no dice"

1. It is a vacuum, there is no air between the particles so when they compress there is no counter force to push them apart. Without air they can bind closer together.

2. There is 1.6th Earth gravity, so there is less force pulling downwards. Minor reason.

3. The particles are extremely odd shapes and jagged. This enables them to be compacted and locked really easy.


What possible point is there for you to be in this debate? Anybody who thinks the photos are models, doesn't understand simple ghosting in video and asks such questions without googling, deserves to wallow in HB ignorance!

http://www.space.com/16305-moon-soil...stronauts.html

Mythbusters managed this with a simple test...

Mythbusters Moon Hoax Footprint - YouTube

Mythbusters Moon Hoax Footprint - YouTube

[thirdwave]

Originally Posted by moving finger

No such thing. Computers were not capable of handling graphics, there was no graphic format for computers to handle.

Well there were ways of editing back then as you could see it done on the Kennedy assassination video..

But for me I don't care if the public had no access to computers as we do today, As what the secret military had, I don't know.

NASA ignore the flying craft that has been zooping all over the place since ww2, denying such technology is there, so what else might they also not be talking about..

I believe whats made available to us is usually about 30 odd years behind what they have already had.

we see this in how they market things. You buy a computer and 5 years later it has a hard time loading the software as its too slow. You really think they did not have the computer 5 years ago to do what one does today?, of course they did, but this way they can sell more stuff and keep people spending and luring them into the next best thing.

[thirdwave]

Originally Posted by stelios

A more obvious way is to simply overlay one film on top of another.
It was quite a common technique in sci-fi shows in the sixties.
Watch this video and you can see one image on top of another clearly:

NASA Faked Apollo Moon Landings - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EyvaVWHaBiI

True, it does look very fishy, and probably another method used..

[thirdwave]

Originally Posted by apollo_gnomon

So the dust, sand and gravel flung about by boots and wheels, falling to the ground all at the same velocity with out regard to particle surface area, that would be done with what, then? Wires? Or slow motion?

What dust flung about?, seeing as the dust would have been even lighter than it is on earth there should have been much more, the dust was like talcon powder, and it should of lingered and raised allot more..

As for what we see in there vids, yes slow motion could have easily produced the effect we see as all it is is sand that looks like its being pushed up but slightly slower..

[thirdwave]

Originally Posted by truegroup

Mythbusters managed this with a simple test...

Were you there when they tested?

Mythbusters have a claim to our trust for what reason? We can rest assure they are not bias foe what reason?, because they are a well funded mainstream TV program?

[hokuspokus]

Originally Posted by moving finger

No such thing. Computers were not capable of handling graphics, there was no graphic format for computers to handle.



You can't form a sharp image of a footprint in dry sand. You can, however, form a sharp footprint in material where there are lots of sharp edges because it has never experienced any kind of erosion (aeolian, water, or as a result of saltation) and where the interstitial spaces have no air, which means that any kind of compression will force those particles to lock together. The fact that there are footprints, and the behaviour of the lunar dust clearly indicates that it is not wet, kind of shoots your argument down from the start.

Not really. You have just come up with a load of mumbo jumbo that you cannot prove . What type of bone dry sharp material with lots of sharp edges do you have in mind as an example?
So, howabout those pics of the moonbuggy that have left NO marks whatsoever? How do you square this circle of your theory.?

[hokuspokus]

Originally Posted by truegroup

I can't argue with this level of ignorance. The page even proves it by showing correlation with the movement and the object on the opposite point of the lens. As for a 1969 version of photoshop?? What a stupid suggestion, how much wrong can someone get in a short post! For one it is a video, second photoshop wasn't even bloody close to being invented and why would they add shit that makes it worse.



You have the research abilities of a goldfish. Here, let me list some reasons and watch you say "no dice"

1. It is a vacuum, there is no air between the particles so when they compress there is no counter force to push them apart. Without air they can bind closer together.

2. There is 1.6th Earth gravity, so there is less force pulling downwards. Minor reason.

3. The particles are extremely odd shapes and jagged. This enables them to be compacted and locked really easy.


What possible point is there for you to be in this debate? Anybody who thinks the photos are models, doesn't understand simple ghosting in video and asks such questions without googling, deserves to wallow in HB ignorance!

http://www.space.com/16305-moon-soil...stronauts.html

Mythbusters managed this with a simple test...

Mythbusters Moon Hoax Footprint - YouTube

So , Prof Brainiac, what about the pictures of the moonbuggy and astronauts that have left no visible prints. Care to explain using your above oh so clever knowledge