Ian R: I am sorry to disappoint, but I am neither confused nor hardcore, so I do not fit either of your convenient boxes. I am not a US citizen, and I have nothing against their form of Government. Nor am I brainwashed by Internet or loony television documentaries.
Rather, as a professional journalist and filmmaker (and free-thinker), I am not interested in scientific gobbledegook, but hard fact. Once I have the facts - I can then make up my own mind. You too can do the same. Being opened minded - can be a virtue. Ofcourse it would be very foolish to argue against established fact. EG: The law of gravity, but, where there is doubt, it is wise to ponder. That is what pushes men forwards.
So I am governed by one question: Which was easier? To pyhsically land on the moon - or to fake it for propaganda purposes? Only you need to answer that for yourself.
Here is a fact.
It only takes one bullet to kill, so below I link you to that bullet.
http://rapidshare.de/files/12687223/lem.ram.html
If you do not see what is wrong here – I will explain in full later.
Watch carefully, as this proves beyond doubt, man did not land on the moon.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Here is a fact.
It only takes one bullet to kill, so below I link you to that bullet.
http://rapidshare.de/files/12687223/lem.ram.html
If you do not see what is wrong here – I will explain in full later.
Watch carefully, as this proves beyond doubt, man did not land on the moon.
[/QUOTE]
To badly paraphrase Newton, for every claim there is an equal and opposite re-claim:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html
6. CLAIM When the top half of the LEM took off to return the astronauts to the command module, leaving the lower half sitting there on the moon's surface, there was no "blast" flame like we see on earth. The LEM just seems to leap off the base like it was yanked up by cables.
ANSWER First of all, you can clearly see in the film footage of the launch, that there IS quite a blast as dust and other particles go flying, even one piece right toward the camera. Second, there is no air on the moon, so there can be no blast "flame" like there is on earth. This is why rocket engines in space have to carry their own oxygen (in liquid form). Unlike jet engines that suck in air, rockets carry all the chemicals they need and mix them at the time the "burn" is required. And "burn" is not quite the right term, since it implies a "flame" should be present. In space there can be no flame because there is no oxygen to fuel a flame tail coming out of the rocket nozzle. All that is happening is that chemicals being stored in separate containers are being released together to cause a reaction, the energy from which flows out rapidly through a nozzle, after which Newton's law of "equal and opposite reaction" takes over.1
1 More serious was a statement I made in the June issue about a Fox
television program claiming that the moon landing was faked. I said
that the lunar lander rocket showed no exhaust because there is no
oxygen-rich atmosphere on the moon. I was partially wrong. The lack
of an atmosphere plays a minor role; the main reason is that the
lander's engine used hypergolic propellants that burn very cleanly. In
both instances, readers were kind enough to provide constructive
criticism. Excerpted from Michael Shermer's column appearing in
the October 2001 edition of Scientific American.
Here is a fact.
It only takes one bullet to kill, so below I link you to that bullet.
http://rapidshare.de/files/12687223/lem.ram.html
If you do not see what is wrong here – I will explain in full later.
Watch carefully, as this proves beyond doubt, man did not land on the moon.
[/QUOTE]
To badly paraphrase Newton, for every claim there is an equal and opposite re-claim:
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html
6. CLAIM When the top half of the LEM took off to return the astronauts to the command module, leaving the lower half sitting there on the moon's surface, there was no "blast" flame like we see on earth. The LEM just seems to leap off the base like it was yanked up by cables.
ANSWER First of all, you can clearly see in the film footage of the launch, that there IS quite a blast as dust and other particles go flying, even one piece right toward the camera. Second, there is no air on the moon, so there can be no blast "flame" like there is on earth. This is why rocket engines in space have to carry their own oxygen (in liquid form). Unlike jet engines that suck in air, rockets carry all the chemicals they need and mix them at the time the "burn" is required. And "burn" is not quite the right term, since it implies a "flame" should be present. In space there can be no flame because there is no oxygen to fuel a flame tail coming out of the rocket nozzle. All that is happening is that chemicals being stored in separate containers are being released together to cause a reaction, the energy from which flows out rapidly through a nozzle, after which Newton's law of "equal and opposite reaction" takes over.1
1 More serious was a statement I made in the June issue about a Fox
television program claiming that the moon landing was faked. I said
that the lunar lander rocket showed no exhaust because there is no
oxygen-rich atmosphere on the moon. I was partially wrong. The lack
of an atmosphere plays a minor role; the main reason is that the
lander's engine used hypergolic propellants that burn very cleanly. In
both instances, readers were kind enough to provide constructive
criticism. Excerpted from Michael Shermer's column appearing in
the October 2001 edition of Scientific American.
Zeni: Good response - but that was not on my mind at all - I was refering more to the film-making, both physically and technically - it still contains fundamental problems.
As to the blast or "In space there can be no flame because there is no oxygen to fuel a flame tail coming out of the rocket nozzle" in a vacuum, that is beyond my knowledge.
This is exactly what I mean by being blinded by science - the answer is before you, and is far, far simpler.
As to the blast or "In space there can be no flame because there is no oxygen to fuel a flame tail coming out of the rocket nozzle" in a vacuum, that is beyond my knowledge.
This is exactly what I mean by being blinded by science - the answer is before you, and is far, far simpler.
Talkin about Conspiration Theories... The Moon... The landing...
Uh, guys.... We DID land on the moon. More than once.
Apparently some of you are still there!!!
Maybe it's time to return "Capricorn One" the movie rental store.
Maybe this internet thing is just one big conspiracy. I heard it's some guy named Joe with a supercomputer fooling us all.
Apparently some of you are still there!!!
Maybe it's time to return "Capricorn One" the movie rental store.
Maybe this internet thing is just one big conspiracy. I heard it's some guy named Joe with a supercomputer fooling us all.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
This is exactly what I mean by being blinded by science - the answer is before you, and is far, far simpler.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I see what you are getting at now, John.
But isn't the easist answer actually believing what NASA says?
It seems to me that every conspiracy theory, whether September 11, JFK's assassination, or the moon landing, actually involve creating a detailed set of explanations as to why something occurred the way it did.
In this case, the idea that the moon landing was staged seems easy to understand (especially when we factor in the science that most of us cannot fathom), but it actually involves explaining away all of the various bits of evidence. It creates a convoluted set of answers to a much easier solution: We simply did travel to the moon.
This is exactly what I mean by being blinded by science - the answer is before you, and is far, far simpler.[/QUOTE]
Ok, I see what you are getting at now, John.
But isn't the easist answer actually believing what NASA says?
It seems to me that every conspiracy theory, whether September 11, JFK's assassination, or the moon landing, actually involve creating a detailed set of explanations as to why something occurred the way it did.
In this case, the idea that the moon landing was staged seems easy to understand (especially when we factor in the science that most of us cannot fathom), but it actually involves explaining away all of the various bits of evidence. It creates a convoluted set of answers to a much easier solution: We simply did travel to the moon.
Zeni: Here is a simple filmmaking analysis. This does not rely on scientific gobbledegook or concepts understood only by the earth’s leading scientists or philosophers. Just think this through - then tell me I am talking shit.
It all depends on the camera. This is why the film cannot be real. Just consider:
All photographic or video images – must first be recorded on a camera.
At present we basically have only three types of camera. (In 1969, they only had two main types of camera).
Cartridge cameras: Basically these cameras depend upon a roll of film (or video) inside the body. These films are developed later and have long been used by Hollywood since their birth. Home video is the same. It depends on an internal video tape (whatever the format), which is then reviewed later. These cameras, by their very nature, obviously CANNOT transmit live material. So we know for a surety (fact if you like) this kind of camera could not have relayed the live film of the LEM leaving the lunar surface. (Furthermore, if not live but developed later, the unknown cameraman who took the footage was left behind on the moon!)
Umbilical cameras: Favoured by television companies. Although they contain no cartridge to record the image, they are connected by a large umbilical to either the companies recording equipment, or, like the traditional studio based news or magazine programmes, can be utilised to transmit live images. (Ironically, these types of camera are also the favoured staple of Outside Broadcasting Units). Unless connected by a chord thousands of miles long, it too is a fact that this camera could not be used to relay live footage from the moon to earth. (Again, the poor unknown cameraman who took the footage was left behind on the moon!) So far, both these facts are indisputable.
Portable ENG (Electronic News gathering) cameras: This camera is lightweight, and is neither dependant on a cartridge or an umbilical chord. Rather it transmits a radio signal directly to a relay sub-station (usually within a given range eg: a news van), which amplifies the signal, before the sub-station relays that signal to the mother station. This is the type of camera used by news crews throughout the world. This is the only camera, which COULD have been used to transmit the images of the LEM leaving the moon.
Unfortunately, ENG cameras in 1969 were still in their infancy and development stage, and could NOT transmit more than a few hundred yards at BEST (the same priciple is used today for mobile telephones. How far could your 'phone transmit without a mother cell?) – certainly NOT the distances required between the earth and the moon - that unfortunately is also a FACT.
(In fact footage from the Vietnamese conflict was still being sent back to the US on large film reels). It was not until the early to mid 1970’s at the end of the Vietnam conflict ENG cameras came to be.
Do not take my word for it do your own research, but these cameras were NOT available for the Apollo missions.
http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-15/h4.html
Even today in 2006, if we need to transmit a live news event, or even the ‘Superbowl’ across the globe, the ENG images would need a team of experts working banks of specialists’ equipment, transmitting to huge ‘mother’ consoles, beaming over the earth via large satellite dishes. In deed, satellite television itself cannot exist (even in a relatively low orbit) UNLESS the signal transmitted is powerfully amplified on the way back to earth. This strength of equipment was not available in 1969 – even today; to broadcast from the moon would be impossible without a string of high orbit satellites to relay the signal. If the ENG is not powerful enough to transmit to earth, where did the images come from?
Even the images are flawed. If the camera and tripod were unmanned, (unless again, the poor unknown cameraman who took the footage was left behind on the moon!) how is the camera able to zoom and tilt, and foll
It all depends on the camera. This is why the film cannot be real. Just consider:
All photographic or video images – must first be recorded on a camera.
At present we basically have only three types of camera. (In 1969, they only had two main types of camera).
Cartridge cameras: Basically these cameras depend upon a roll of film (or video) inside the body. These films are developed later and have long been used by Hollywood since their birth. Home video is the same. It depends on an internal video tape (whatever the format), which is then reviewed later. These cameras, by their very nature, obviously CANNOT transmit live material. So we know for a surety (fact if you like) this kind of camera could not have relayed the live film of the LEM leaving the lunar surface. (Furthermore, if not live but developed later, the unknown cameraman who took the footage was left behind on the moon!)
Umbilical cameras: Favoured by television companies. Although they contain no cartridge to record the image, they are connected by a large umbilical to either the companies recording equipment, or, like the traditional studio based news or magazine programmes, can be utilised to transmit live images. (Ironically, these types of camera are also the favoured staple of Outside Broadcasting Units). Unless connected by a chord thousands of miles long, it too is a fact that this camera could not be used to relay live footage from the moon to earth. (Again, the poor unknown cameraman who took the footage was left behind on the moon!) So far, both these facts are indisputable.
Portable ENG (Electronic News gathering) cameras: This camera is lightweight, and is neither dependant on a cartridge or an umbilical chord. Rather it transmits a radio signal directly to a relay sub-station (usually within a given range eg: a news van), which amplifies the signal, before the sub-station relays that signal to the mother station. This is the type of camera used by news crews throughout the world. This is the only camera, which COULD have been used to transmit the images of the LEM leaving the moon.
Unfortunately, ENG cameras in 1969 were still in their infancy and development stage, and could NOT transmit more than a few hundred yards at BEST (the same priciple is used today for mobile telephones. How far could your 'phone transmit without a mother cell?) – certainly NOT the distances required between the earth and the moon - that unfortunately is also a FACT.
(In fact footage from the Vietnamese conflict was still being sent back to the US on large film reels). It was not until the early to mid 1970’s at the end of the Vietnam conflict ENG cameras came to be.
Do not take my word for it do your own research, but these cameras were NOT available for the Apollo missions.
http://www.sony.net/Fun/SH/1-15/h4.html
Even today in 2006, if we need to transmit a live news event, or even the ‘Superbowl’ across the globe, the ENG images would need a team of experts working banks of specialists’ equipment, transmitting to huge ‘mother’ consoles, beaming over the earth via large satellite dishes. In deed, satellite television itself cannot exist (even in a relatively low orbit) UNLESS the signal transmitted is powerfully amplified on the way back to earth. This strength of equipment was not available in 1969 – even today; to broadcast from the moon would be impossible without a string of high orbit satellites to relay the signal. If the ENG is not powerful enough to transmit to earth, where did the images come from?
Even the images are flawed. If the camera and tripod were unmanned, (unless again, the poor unknown cameraman who took the footage was left behind on the moon!) how is the camera able to zoom and tilt, and foll
I saw this documentary months ago. Still find everything about that day facinating.
I have to say, Im very sceptical. Ill keep an open mind, but there are a lot of things that you cant help but wonder about!
I have to say, Im very sceptical. Ill keep an open mind, but there are a lot of things that you cant help but wonder about!
I can't view that Rapid Share.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Zeni: Here is a simple filmmaking analysis. This does not rely on scientific gobbledegook or concepts understood only by the earth’s leading scientists or philosophers. Just think this through - then tell me I am talking shit.
It all depends on the camera. This is why the film cannot be real. Just consider:
All photographic or video images – must first be recorded on a camera.
[/QUOTE]
Here's the best I can come up with in a short period of time:
http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html
"The Apollo 11 television picture from the lunar surface was sent over the lunar module's much smaller antenna. The lunar module was powered by batteries, meaning that it was best to make do with the minum electrical power necessary."
Reading through that link (yes, more science gobbledegook) provides what appears to be reasonable answers to your questions. Simple answer - Technology was available, yet rudimentary at best.
Pictures on the website seem to be of the same quality of your LEM clip. Also, it is difficult to answer questions about that clip directly since we do not have the proper information as to whether it is from Apollo 11 or one of the later Apollo moon landings.
Again, it seems that disproving something existed is much more difficult and convoluted than proving that it did.
It all depends on the camera. This is why the film cannot be real. Just consider:
All photographic or video images – must first be recorded on a camera.
[/QUOTE]
Here's the best I can come up with in a short period of time:
http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html
"The Apollo 11 television picture from the lunar surface was sent over the lunar module's much smaller antenna. The lunar module was powered by batteries, meaning that it was best to make do with the minum electrical power necessary."
Reading through that link (yes, more science gobbledegook) provides what appears to be reasonable answers to your questions. Simple answer - Technology was available, yet rudimentary at best.
Pictures on the website seem to be of the same quality of your LEM clip. Also, it is difficult to answer questions about that clip directly since we do not have the proper information as to whether it is from Apollo 11 or one of the later Apollo moon landings.
Again, it seems that disproving something existed is much more difficult and convoluted than proving that it did.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Zeni wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Zeni: Here is a simple filmmaking analysis. This does not rely on scientific gobbledegook or concepts understood only by the earth’s leading scientists or philosophers. Just think this through - then tell me I am talking shit.
It all depends on the camera. This is why the film cannot be real. Just consider:
All photographic or video images – must first be recorded on a camera.
[/QUOTE]
Here's the best I can come up with in a short period of time:
http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html
"The Apollo 11 television picture from the lunar surface was sent over the lunar module's much smaller antenna. The lunar module was powered by batteries, meaning that it was best to make do with the minum electrical power necessary."
Reading through that link (yes, more science gobbledegook) provides what appears to be reasonable answers to your questions. Simple answer - Technology was available, yet rudimentary at best.
Pictures on the website seem to be of the same quality of your LEM clip. Also, it is difficult to answer questions about that clip directly since we do not have the proper information as to whether it is from Apollo 11 or one of the later Apollo moon landings.
Again, it seems that disproving something existed is much more difficult and convoluted than proving that it did. [/QUOTE]
This is a good example of complicating the subject to disguise the point. It is NOT possible to transmit such distances - even today in 2001. Try reading up on how satellite television works.
Broadcasting on S-Band or C-Band is a blind. It does not address the real problem of distance - or how the clip of film posted could be so maticulously taken.
Have you watched it?
It all depends on the camera. This is why the film cannot be real. Just consider:
All photographic or video images – must first be recorded on a camera.
[/QUOTE]
Here's the best I can come up with in a short period of time:
http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html
"The Apollo 11 television picture from the lunar surface was sent over the lunar module's much smaller antenna. The lunar module was powered by batteries, meaning that it was best to make do with the minum electrical power necessary."
Reading through that link (yes, more science gobbledegook) provides what appears to be reasonable answers to your questions. Simple answer - Technology was available, yet rudimentary at best.
Pictures on the website seem to be of the same quality of your LEM clip. Also, it is difficult to answer questions about that clip directly since we do not have the proper information as to whether it is from Apollo 11 or one of the later Apollo moon landings.
Again, it seems that disproving something existed is much more difficult and convoluted than proving that it did. [/QUOTE]
This is a good example of complicating the subject to disguise the point. It is NOT possible to transmit such distances - even today in 2001. Try reading up on how satellite television works.
Broadcasting on S-Band or C-Band is a blind. It does not address the real problem of distance - or how the clip of film posted could be so maticulously taken.
Have you watched it?
I'm so happy this thread has turned to science and space exploration, something I absolutely love!
John I thought you were joking! :-). You're free to believe in anything you like, of course. Just thought it was a bit odd coming from you.
A part from all the scientific evidence, do you really think so many people involved in the Apollo missions would be willing to lie and keep lying for decades just for the sake of some obscure government plan? It's very hard for me to believe this, especially considering that there were I think 6 Apollo missions.
John I thought you were joking! :-). You're free to believe in anything you like, of course. Just thought it was a bit odd coming from you.
A part from all the scientific evidence, do you really think so many people involved in the Apollo missions would be willing to lie and keep lying for decades just for the sake of some obscure government plan? It's very hard for me to believe this, especially considering that there were I think 6 Apollo missions.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]John S Stuart wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
This is a good example of complicating the subject to disguise the point. It is NOT possible to transmit such distances - even today in 2001. Try reading up on how satellite television works.
Broadcasting on S-Band or C-Band is a blind. It does not address the real problem of distance - or how the clip of film posted could be so maticulously taken.
Have you watched it?[/QUOTE]
Watched the clip? Yes.
So, in effect, you are saying that no images could be broadcast from the moon because broadcasting from that distance is impossible?
Would it surpise you that others have brought up that same point, in which NASA supporters have a retort available?
http://www.clavius.org/techcomm.html
Now, I'll admit I know little about this type of technology.
And again, I'll get back to your original point. It seems to me that a considerable amount of effort is expended by those who chose not to believe. Disproving something takes more time than proving it.
(And how did the camera pan as the LEM went up? I don't know, but I could hazard a guess. Perhaps it was a bit of perspective and a slight pan - we know it had battaries. It's a simple answer, I know, but sometimes those are the best)
This is a good example of complicating the subject to disguise the point. It is NOT possible to transmit such distances - even today in 2001. Try reading up on how satellite television works.
Broadcasting on S-Band or C-Band is a blind. It does not address the real problem of distance - or how the clip of film posted could be so maticulously taken.
Have you watched it?[/QUOTE]
Watched the clip? Yes.
So, in effect, you are saying that no images could be broadcast from the moon because broadcasting from that distance is impossible?
Would it surpise you that others have brought up that same point, in which NASA supporters have a retort available?
http://www.clavius.org/techcomm.html
Now, I'll admit I know little about this type of technology.
And again, I'll get back to your original point. It seems to me that a considerable amount of effort is expended by those who chose not to believe. Disproving something takes more time than proving it.
(And how did the camera pan as the LEM went up? I don't know, but I could hazard a guess. Perhaps it was a bit of perspective and a slight pan - we know it had battaries. It's a simple answer, I know, but sometimes those are the best)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Fairy wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
A part from all the scientific evidence, do you really think so many people involved in the Apollo missions would be willing to lie and keep lying for decades just for the sake of some obscure government plan? It's very hard for me to believe this, especially considering that there were I think 6 Apollo missions. [/QUOTE]
G. Gordon Liddy said that three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead. I may not know much about science, but I know plenty about human nature. To expect that hundreds of NASA employees would keep a secret as big as this is a bit of a stretch.
A part from all the scientific evidence, do you really think so many people involved in the Apollo missions would be willing to lie and keep lying for decades just for the sake of some obscure government plan? It's very hard for me to believe this, especially considering that there were I think 6 Apollo missions. [/QUOTE]
G. Gordon Liddy said that three men can keep a secret if two of them are dead. I may not know much about science, but I know plenty about human nature. To expect that hundreds of NASA employees would keep a secret as big as this is a bit of a stretch.
It really pains me to have to say what I am going say, John, as I have a great deal of respect for your intelligence, humour and knowledge about Queen and their history. However, let me put it bluntly - I am as much an expert on the Apollo manned lunar missions as you are on the history of Queen. Perhaps even more so.
Not only have I corresponded with Edgar Mitchell, LMP for Apollo 14, but I have discussed various issues with Stanley Lebar, the designer of the Westinghouse TV camera that operated on Apollos 7-11. Also, I have spoken to Bill Woods, an engineer who worked at Goldstone during the missions and who recently written a detailed article on the science behind receiving TV signals from the Moon. In addition, Mike Dinn and John Saxon, who both worked at Honeysuckle Creek in Australia (ever seen The Dish?) have also made their knowledge and experience known to enthuisasts at a forum I regularly attend. So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, but I am in contact with people WHO MADE THE EQUIPMENT WORK. Their knowledge and expertise is unquestionable.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/20/1090089159409.html?from=storylhs
In 1997, I was completely ignorant about Apollo and the missions to the Moon. In fact, I belived the hoax believers completely at the time. However, a great deal of research since that time has left me in no doubt that the missions occurred more or less as NASA claimed they did. You must accept the fact, John, that countless scientists and engineers; experts on rocks and radiation have all concluded that the evidentary record stands up to scruitiny. The rocks came from the Moon, the TV footage and DAC footage was clearly filmed in a 1/6th G vacuum environment (impossible to reproduce on Earth).
So, there is no reliable, scientific or logical evidence that the Apollo missions were falsified in any way. I will answer your points one-by-one in a new thread to prevent clogging-up this one:
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=715264
Regards,
Ian.
Not only have I corresponded with Edgar Mitchell, LMP for Apollo 14, but I have discussed various issues with Stanley Lebar, the designer of the Westinghouse TV camera that operated on Apollos 7-11. Also, I have spoken to Bill Woods, an engineer who worked at Goldstone during the missions and who recently written a detailed article on the science behind receiving TV signals from the Moon. In addition, Mike Dinn and John Saxon, who both worked at Honeysuckle Creek in Australia (ever seen The Dish?) have also made their knowledge and experience known to enthuisasts at a forum I regularly attend. So, not only do I know what I'm talking about, but I am in contact with people WHO MADE THE EQUIPMENT WORK. Their knowledge and expertise is unquestionable.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/20/1090089159409.html?from=storylhs
In 1997, I was completely ignorant about Apollo and the missions to the Moon. In fact, I belived the hoax believers completely at the time. However, a great deal of research since that time has left me in no doubt that the missions occurred more or less as NASA claimed they did. You must accept the fact, John, that countless scientists and engineers; experts on rocks and radiation have all concluded that the evidentary record stands up to scruitiny. The rocks came from the Moon, the TV footage and DAC footage was clearly filmed in a 1/6th G vacuum environment (impossible to reproduce on Earth).
So, there is no reliable, scientific or logical evidence that the Apollo missions were falsified in any way. I will answer your points one-by-one in a new thread to prevent clogging-up this one:
http://www.queenzone.com/queenzone/forumnew/forum_topic_view.aspx?Q=715264
Regards,
Ian.