The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Why would NASA spend millions of dollars to "fake" missions in a studio?

 

Indeed. I can't resist reposting this, for those with a sense of humour...
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw[/ame]

 

Only to somebody biased, uninformed and with no idea about motion in micro gravity.

Video 1:-

From the user arcangel4myke, a man so convinced of his case, he blocks all comments and replies on his films and channel. He has numerous videos that suggest Disney directed the Apollo footage, with Mickey Mouse showing up in them!

Clip 1 from that video suggests the astronaut breathing is a release of a single bubble. From a self contained system? The "bubble" is simply a small piece of space debris.

Clip 2 he announces a quote of "It's like the ocean (pool water) poured in the SLP". Facepalm! He is talking about the Spacelab Logistics Pallet and the word he says is MOTION not ocean.

Clip 3 he says the light is from refraction in water, opinion. He says the communication sounds like a diver helmet, opinion. He alleges the Sun is a big light in the vast Russian swimming pool, opinion. He then lies by referring to actual footage as being a simulation, thus creating the illusion that he is comparing the two, when in reality he is showing two different clips. Finally another piece of space debris is a "bubble". Truly pathetic. If anybody watches that and is taken in by it, they deserve to stay in ignorance.

Video 2:-

From the same person. More space debris, almost certainly ejected from the craft. It actually flickers visibly and disappears as it catches the Sun and spins sideways on. It is probably a piece of heat insulation. I cannot fathom what level of gullibility is needed to believe this footage is hoaxed.

Link doesn't work - same post from years gone by.

This is the actual footage:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJGkb2oLlf4"]‪Apollo 9 - Scott and Schweikert EVA‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Are you seriously suggesting that was faked? It is the most obvious spacewalk you could get, there is no way you could fake the Earth with such clarity in the late 60s. He has a much less bulky suit than ISS or shuttle astronauts and it is an umbilical fed system rather than self contained.

The statement about non linear paths of objects in zero-g is just plain stupid. Objects in micro gravity follow paths that relate to their inertia and centre of gravity(COG). Anything with mass, albeit small, at either end of a line could easily rotate about its COG, a curved path resulting, is also perfectly feasible.

An example here:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coX1u2_KBsQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=53s

Maybe you need to confine your wonder to things you understand! The idea that it is feasible to fake spacewalks in the totally obvious underwater environment beggars belief. The effort needed to do this in water and cover it up, plus keep all the participants, film crew, divers etc. quiet, as opposed to just opening the hatch is an example of conspiracy theory going even more bonkers.

It should be noted, that the video maker has taken a small clip from a large continuous piece of footage showing all sorts of views of the Earth rotating, and the ISS orbiting it. This is deliberate subterfuge. Bunkum.

Circular argument and a credibility test from the hard of understanding.

China did not fake their spacewalk, as shown in my analysis:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

He discusses the photograph in Collins' book where he used a training photograph to show what his spacewalk would look like. He is implying that the photograph has been deliberately manipulated with intent to deceive, and attempts to pigeon hole this with Apollo photographs. The actual photograph was rendered to represent space for his book.

From that book, the quote:-

"One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk. [...] All we had was the film from one movie camera, [...] which recorded an uninterrupted sequence of black sky [...] I was really feeling sorry for myself, unable to produce graphic documentation for my grandchildren of my brief sally as a human satellite [...]”

Hardly shows intent to deceive does it!! Deliberate subterfuge, a common theme amongst conspiracy theorists, cherry picking little pieces of information, whilst deliberately omitting other information that clearly refute the claim being made.

He compares different missions where the suits have different pressures. His primary observation is the suits aren't ballooned, and neither are the gloves. Since the outer suit is not pressurised this is just a daft observation. It comes from Ralph Rene and his idiotic pressurised glove "demonstration"! Bunkum.

JW's example of ballooning is from a video where the astronaut uses an umbilical air feed, which is totally different to the self contained suits used and developed for Apollo. He is either being deceptive, or is very ignorant. I tend to believe it was probably both of those!

The premise being that because their visors are up, the IR and UV from the Sun is going to cause damage, therefore it must be "faked". I expect he got that from "Armageddon" the Hollywood movie!

This is where I advise the film maker to go back to school and learn how these two electromagnetic waves actually impact on astronauts. The Apollo pressure helmet and the protective visor are made of lexan, a material almost completely opaque to UV. Does JW think UV penetrates the helmet enough to give even a mild tan??

Infrared is also not an issue, since these suits have self contained life support systems, with sublimating heat exchangers.

Maybe soon, one of these youtubers will start quoting figures and exposure rates, and equate them to the known protection of the spacesuits used by Apollo. I somehow doubt it!

Circular argument. They didn't fake the Moon missions or the spacewalks, and they did not fake the Mars missions. I am simply not going to waste any of my time debunking a non-sequitur argument steeped in ignorance. I offer the quote on the first video which to me says it all:-

"What I learned from this video: Space probes can never have their paint job changed between photo shoots and launch. Promotional videos never get details wrong. Lens flare does not exist, and a screw? looks like a sort of white streak, also, you can pick a screw out of some dust without disturbing it at all or leaving a mark. Newspapers never make mistakes ever."

 

So one couldn't fake Earth in a film in the '60s, however, travelling to the moon is believable?

The technology wasn't advanced enough for a little bit of trick photography, but it was advanced enough to send men to the moon and back?

LOL

 

A little bit of trick photography?

Have a look at the ground breaking film Marooned to see what they could actually do in that era. They idea of creating an Earth with such clarity and consistency, matching the orbital speed and attitude, seemlessly and supposedly in a swimming pool? Seriously? Bigger LOL.

Film making is nothing whatsoever to do with building machinery, the video technology was simply not up to the job of doing such complex backgrounds.

Watch this video, debunking the mad claim that Kubrick was a genius with backgrounds:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVFjBU7zIEU"]‪Moon Hoax Theory Lies: Front Projection by Stanley Kubrick‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Travelling to low Earth orbit was achieved many times during that decade, getting to the Moon was actually really easy after that. A matter of firing the engine to escape velocity and using a wide eliptical orbit to intersect the Moon.

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

 

Exactly!

That's my point! LOL

Video technology was not that advanced, yet technology to send a man to the moon and back was? LOL

We couldn't make convincing films, yet we could send a rocket to the moon and back with no problems? You actually believe that?

You've got to be kidding me?

 

He is not kidding you and your incredulous reaction does not even come close to refuting the mountain of evidence which BETAMAX has posted.

Sorry but pointing out your opinion that there is a contradiction is not evidence.

Ever see science fiction films of the late 60s or early 70s? They are nothing like the super special effects CGI movies of today in fact they are nothing like the original Star Wars movie which was made in the late seventies and cost a fortune and took months to produce.

Having higher technology in one area ( rocket science ) compared to other areas such as film is not unusual it is normal.

Not all technology advances at the same pace.

 

Which is exactly why man has never been to the moon.

White flag accepted.

 

OK, so now you are agreeing with me that video technology was not that advanced. Ergo, the space walk was not faked, the point of that post.

As Soup Nazi pointed out, building machines to do a specific function does not compare to being able to produce fake video.

It is actually more evidence that Apollo was real, since the technology to do this was simply not available.

How on Earth was this faked?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3OVh0gm5vtc"]‪Moon Hoax? Apollo 15 Rover Traverse‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

I really don't care whether you believe anything or not. Each to their own.

 

He has and you are the one surrendering.

Notice how you ignore all the evidence which proves you wrong and uneducated.

One need not have ALL technology advance at the same rate to travel to the moon.

 

Nice try sparky, nice try.

White flag still accepted.


(say hello to Elvis next time you see him)

 

And I really don't care that you are as gullible as a 4 year old school girl.

Each to their own.



(man on the moon - LOL)

 

Not an attempt but a fact and you are still running in cowardice from the evidence.

Explain how film making technology would have to advance at the same pace as other technology in order for the moon landings to be real.

Be specific or you admit you are wrong

 

A 4 year old hates to admit when they are wrong they merely hold their breathe or something which is what you are doing.

After all you know you are wrong and we landed men on the moon you just wish to maintain the facade of being an intelligent person.

 

Breathing free and easy here. How you doin'?

No man (or woman) has been on the moon.

I don't care what people think of my intellect: I'm only interested in the truth.

 

No you are ignoring the truth and quite deliberately in order to save face.

the truth is we sent men to the moon.

Now address the evidence and answer the questions.

 

What questions?

 

I asked you to explain why film making technology and space travel/rocket technology would have to be equally advanced in order for the lunar landings to be possible and be specific.

 

They wouldn't.

Film making technology was far more advanced in the '60s.

That's why videos of the "moon landings" look real.

Any other questions?

 

No it was not far more advanced in fact.

Provide some evidence for your claim.

I already pointed out the vast improvements which have occurred since that era and in fact film making technology was rather primitive compared to today.

We did however have more than adequate technology to make it to the moon which you may have learned had you bothered to read Betamax's many posts proving this point.

 

Hmmm, I must have been busy having a life when that happened.

Is there a newsletter?

 

No you were just being too lazy to bother addressing the evidence before posting some childish denial of reality.

 

Ah, ok.

I hope that's in the newsletter too.

I need to catch up.

 

Still running from the truth.

 

No.

I know that nobody has been on the moon.

I accept the truth.