(June 14, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: In that event I'd probably be buggered. That doesn't exactly overcome the physical and technological impossibilities required for pulling off a fake, though, at least the way the Hoax Believers are trying to sell it. Like Alice, I'm prepared to believe three impossible things before breakfast but there's impossible and then there's just plain taking the piss.

American Congress doesn't do "buggered". Again, you *must* plan ahead for failure in the event you cannot broadcast the actual landing.

How hard could it be to set up a lunar stage in a warehouse for black and white televisions?



Awkward... but not impossible?

(June 14, 2014 at 11:31 am)LostLocke Wrote:

(June 14, 2014 at 11:21 am)Stimbo Wrote: I can't comment on this, other than to say if any of this is true there ought to be media articles about it. That plus check out the hi-res scans of the original Apollo photographs freely available (sorry, can't give the link right now. Can anyone help?)

Ah, this one....
The Apollo broadcast camera was limited to using the Apollo's radio transmitter as the signal, and hence was limited to a very low bandwidth. They had to go with 10fps @ 320x240, which had to be upscaled for TV broadcast with 30fps @ 525x394.
It seems the easiest and quickest way to do that at the time was to just broadcast off the live monitors.

Yes, and Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong lied about it for 50 years, and yet with the conspiracy of silence, NASA was still unable to get Buzz to stop talking about little green men.

(June 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: How hard could it be to set up a lunar stage in a warehouse for black and white televisions?

For a static effects shot like that one, not very hard at all.

For an accurate simulation of the lunar surface, good enough to stand up to expert scrutiny, large enough to give the correct depth of field yet easy enough to light with a single light source simulating the Sun, with the correct level of vacuum achievable only in decompression chambers, thus requiring one to be built large enough to accomodate the set and thus requiring technology far in advance of boring old spaceflight (and incidentally as impossible in the sixties/seventies as it is today), and capable of being fitted into an aircraft larger than any ever built so as to achieve the correct one-sixth gravity, as the Vomit Comet is able to do for about fifteen second bursts, and to be able to keep even one person from blabbing about any part of this for forty years and counting - well, you tell me. At this stage, even Goddidit is a more plausible answer.

Here's a film expert speaking on the plausibility of video faking the landings.

(June 14, 2014 at 5:14 pm)Brakeman Wrote: Here's a film expert speaking on the plausibility of video faking the landings.

(June 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Welsh cake Wrote:

(June 14, 2014 at 2:03 pm)Stimbo Wrote: In that event I'd probably be buggered. That doesn't exactly overcome the physical and technological impossibilities required for pulling off a fake, though, at least the way the Hoax Believers are trying to sell it. Like Alice, I'm prepared to believe three impossible things before breakfast but there's impossible and then there's just plain taking the piss.

American Congress doesn't do "buggered". Again, you *must* plan ahead for failure in the event you cannot broadcast the actual landing.

How hard could it be to set up a lunar stage in a warehouse for black and white televisions?



Awkward... but not impossible?

Is "welsh" synonymous with "fruit"?

(June 14, 2014 at 3:49 pm)Welsh cake Wrote: American Congress doesn't do "buggered". Again, you *must* plan ahead for failure in the event you cannot broadcast the actual landing.

How hard could it be to set up a lunar stage in a warehouse for black and white televisions?



Awkward... but not impossible?

A civilian, at least a semi-educated one in astronomy even in those days, would likely have known that was a fake.
The Soviet scientists would have had zero issue realizing that was fake.
Remember, they wouldn't just be faking it for Joe Blow American citizen, they'd be faking it for the whole world, including those educated in astronomy.

On a side note, that pic is from 1950. By 1969 we had learned a lot more about the moon.
The ideas of the moon that you see in those cheesy 40s and 50s sci-fi films that Mike/Joel and the Bots riffed on, were outdated by the time we got to the moon in 69.

No, I don't know if they have any photos.

There are plenty of before and after on the internet. The same internet that you use to find your bullshittery, you can use to find legitimate answers.

I think the first moon landing wasn't real, it was all too simple.

(June 14, 2014 at 7:17 pm)psychoslice Wrote: I think the first moon landing wasn't real, it was all too simple.

No, it wasn't simple. It was decades of work. It required thousands of talented people.

Also, after the vaccine discussions, no one wants to hear your opinion of conspiratorial shit.