A film makers take on why the Moon landings were impossible to fake

[mapuc]

As written before I truly believe, but it have had it's moment were I have had a very little doubt.

Here's one of them and it's from a danish science program called "Viden Om" = About Science.

This time it was about sending human to Mars

Here is what she said: (I can almost remember every word)

"Before we send the humans to Mars, we have to solve the problem getting through the Van Allen Belt, we haven't solved that problem yet"
Then she talked about this radiations in this belt.

When she said those words my brain started to boil(not literally of course)

From what I know you have to pass this belt, if you want to put a man on the Moon.

I came to this result. The people behind this program haven't done it's research or this belt is further out in space.

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by Rhodes

That's a fake! Every one knows that in 1969 there were no Photoshop!

No foot prints around the astronaut either.

[mako88sb]

Originally Posted by mapuc

As written before I truly believe, but it have had it's moment were I have had a very little doubt.

Here's one of them and it's from a danish science program called "Viden Om" = About Science.

This time it was about sending human to Mars

Here is what she said: (I can almost remember every word)

"Before we send the humans to Mars, we have to solve the problem getting through the Van Allen Belt, we haven't solved that problem yet"
Then she talked about this radiations in this belt.

When she said those words my brain started to boil(not literally of course)

From what I know you have to pass this belt, if you want to put a man on the Moon.

I came to this result. The people behind this program haven't done it's research or this belt is further out in space.

Markus

Every mission to the moon involved going through the belts but despite what some "experts" claim, this is not as difficult as they would like you to believe. I don't know all the details but from what I've read, the design of the capsule was perfectly adequate to shield them from the worst of any radiation hazard. Also, the amount of time spent in the actual belts was a fraction of the time required to cause any lasting harm.

[mako88sb]

Originally Posted by danasan

This documentation prooves the fact that the USA was on the moon... a bit late...

I never did see that. So how many V-2's did it take to get them to the moon?

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

The first television camera they set up on the moon was burned out when they inadvertently turned it toward the sun.

I am pretty sure that happened on Apollo 12. When Bean accidentally pointed the Westinghouse color TV camera at the sun while repositioning it after about 40 minutes of use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera

Moon landing hoaxers are nothing more than those that are colossally ignorant of basic tenets of science and physics.

These individuals are bleating fools, curdled staggering mutant dwarves smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying their alleged birth into this world; insensate, blinking calves, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts that sired them and then killed themselves in recognition of what they had done.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as they. Lepers cross the street to avoid these individuals. They are vile, worthless, less than nothing. If they aren't actually idiots, they've made a world-class effort to simulate such.

What snail-skulled little rabbits they are. Would that a hawk pick them up, drive its beak into their brains, and upon finding it rancid set them loose to fly briefly before spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pink shame of their ignoble blood. May they choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea of their own trite, foolish beliefs.

Monkeys look down on them and even sheep won't have sex with them. They are unreservedly pathetic, starved for attention, and lost in a land that reality forgot. What possible meaning do they expect regarding their delusionally self-important statements of unknowing, inexperienced opinions? What fantasy do they hold that they would believe that their tiny-fisted tantrums carry greater importance than that of a blind and depraved leprous desert rat, spinning rabidly in a circle - shrieking wildly in horror - awaiting for the bite of the pit-viper?

I cannot believe how incredibly stupid the hoaxers are. And I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. They're meta-stupid having surpassed trans-stupid stupid and transcending stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid that has gotten so dense that no enlightenment can escape to the degree of sub-singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. More stupid is emitted in one second by a single one of these individuals than the entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid.

I'd be apoplectic at discovering anything our universe that can really be equivalently stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know.

I'm sorry. I can't go on. I just simply don't have enough strength left to sufficiently deride their ignorant questions, half baked comments, or any of the rest of their drivel.

[Platapus]

You do have a way with words.

But how do you really feel?

[u crank]

@Wxman.

I think we get your drift. Then again....

[August]

Originally Posted by Platapus

You do have a way with words.

But how do you really feel?

Judging by the amount of hits when you google various passages i'd say as least someone had a way with words.

[Penguin]

Thanks, mako88sb for sharing this, 2 great vids.

Two things were very interesting:
in the first video, how the author pointed out how often people who want to believe, slide into "magic" explainations.
I had a similar discussion during the weekend about cryptology. My two friends, who are no hoaxers, but not very computer savy, speculated about how the authorities have supercomputers who would not be available to the public. I tried to point out that even the best computers can't beat the laws of exponentiality, though they couldn't really wrap their heads around this. Even tried the old ricecorn on a chessboard example, but it didn't help.
Point is, it is not easy to explain technology and especially its limitations. Therefore big kudos to SG Collins for trying to explain it to the layman, I think he did a great job.

The second video exposes much about how those troofers work: Google some keywords, take one of the first 10 links and quote some random stuff= proof. Nice and comfy from your home computer, why go out and ask people who know their stuff.

The book about the moon broadcast Collins' held into the camera looks also pretty interesting. For anyone who's interested in the technical aspect of the TV broadcast, I can also recommend this site: http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/

Originally Posted by Rhodes

I also laugh when during the reply video,the person that had made the refute for the first video says that 16mm film is used in TV and 35mm in cinema.

To be fair, this is the only thing I saw Collins' didn't get 100% right. Many TV movies/series have been shot on 16mm, though I think it wasn't very common untill super 16 came out.
In ENG, 16mm (reverse film due to time constraints) stayed popular untill the mid 70s, untill U-Matic became popular and affordable. However this makes Collins' quality remark still valid.
The hoax guy should just have gone to any film set on the world and ask the camera assistant what the hell they are doing after every take when they check the cam for fuzz which might have landed on the film during seconds of shooting.
That's why I loved this sentence: "If you're thinking of shooting 16mm at double speed with a 2300 foot load: Don't!" True words, dat!

[Rhodes]

Originally Posted by Penguin

To be fair, this is the only thing I saw Collins' didn't get 100% right. Many TV movies/series have been shot on 16mm, though I think it wasn't very common untill super 16 came out.
In ENG, 16mm (reverse film due to time constraints) stayed popular untill the mid 70s, untill U-Matic became popular and affordable. However this makes Collins' quality remark still valid.
The hoax guy should just have gone to any film set on the world and ask the camera assistant what the hell they are doing after every take when they check the cam for fuzz which might have landed on the film during seconds of shooting.
That's why I loved this sentence: "If you're thinking of shooting 16mm at double speed with a 2300 foot load: Don't!" True words, dat!

Yes, I know. The remark may induce error in saying that 35mm is use for TV, but it's not only 35mm. As you said, 16mm was also used. I learn that when reading about and then seeing (on dvd, one can see better) Monty Python FC. They use 35mm for studio scenes and on the street shootings, one can see the lesser quality of the 16mm that was used.
And so, many other TV series would had done the same!

And film format knowledge is also need : 35mm is possibly (writing from memory) the largest "miniature" format film. When going smaller, films tends to "be more grainier" when enlarged.

Originally Posted by Penguin

...My two friends, who are no hoaxers, but not very computer savy, speculated about how the authorities have supercomputers who would not be available to the public. I tried to point out that even the best computers can't beat the laws of exponentiality, though they couldn't really wrap their heads around this. Even tried the old ricecorn on a chessboard example, but it didn't help...

I couldn't resist responding to this but it emminently is a digression to TOP.

The number of grains of rice on the first half of the chessboard is 1 + 2 + 4 + 8... + 2,147,483,648, for a total of 4,294,967,295 (2^32 − 1) grains of rice, or about 100,000 kg of rice (assuming 25 mg each).

The number of grains of rice on the first square of the second half of the chessboard is 2^32, or one grain less than the sum total of all the squares before it.

India's annual production of rice amounts to 0.57 of the number of grains placed on the 21st square in the second half alone.

On the entire chessboard there would be 2^64 − 1 grains = 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 weighing 461,168,602,000 metric tons, which would be a heap of rice larger than Mount Everest and in excess of 1,000 times the global production of rice in 2010.

The probability that Jesus of Nazareth as being the single arbitrary random man in all of history that fulfilled a mere eight of the 60 major prophecies - and the associated 270 ramifications of such - contained in Scripture would be 1 in 10^17. Calculation yields that 10^17 silver dollars are of sufficient quantity to cover the face of the entire state of Texas (if piled to a depth of two feet). Texas is a very big state. Anybody that's driven through it knows how long it takes to get from one side to the other. 1 in 10^17 odds is equivalent to a blind man heading out of Dallas by foot in any direction, and for as long as he desires to do so, and then be able, on his very first attempt, to pick up one specifically marked silver dollar.

If one increases the fullfilled prophecies to 48 out of the 60 (including associated 270 ramifications), the odds are 1 in 10^157. Mathematicians generally agree that, statistically, any odds beyond 1 in 10^50 have a zero probability of ever happening by random chance. This is Borel's law in action which was derived by mathematician Emil Borel. But this happens all the time in evolution, odds worse than the number of electrons in the universe 10^120 absoutely happen all the time. I think I digress.

The physical analogy is that instead of silver dollars, you'll need electrons to cover the State of Texas, but to a depth of eight feet deep. This number is in excess of the total number of molecules in the universe (10^80), and more than all the electrons in the universe (10^120).

To get a brain around how big 10^157 is, I'm not going to randomly choose on electron out of that pile, I'm going to search through each one using the NUDT Tianhe-2 supercomputer - 16,000 computer nodes, each comprising two Intel Ivy Bridge Xeon processors and three Xeon Phi chips for a total of 3,120,000 cores - rated at 33.86 PFLOPS, i.e., 33.86 x 10^15 ticks per second. It would take no longer than 2.95 x 10^140 seconds to find the specially marked electron.

[Penguin]

Originally Posted by Rhodes

I learn that when reading about and then seeing (on dvd, one can see better) Monty Python FC. They use 35mm for studio scenes and on the street shootings, one can see the lesser quality of the 16mm that was used.
And so, many other TV series would had done the same!

Never watched the extras from my FC box, will do that now!
So the trade-off for BBC's pea-counters was more expensive material for the indoor shots, but less lighting costs - and less roasting of the actors
Another thing which comes to my mind is, that film back then didn't have the sensitity of nowadays material.
First, as you mentioned 16mm is more grainy per se, second, you need more sensitive film in 16 under the same light conditions. As more sensitive also basically means bigger grain, using 16mm over 35 to fake the moon landing, would have made even less sense.

Another aspect is the depth of field. Many directors/DOP's always hated the "video look", which was also a reason film was used so long. Due to smaller exposure areas (tubes/ccds), compared to 16 or 35mm, video always had this look which even amateurs notice: the "mile-long-focus". Which has always been a quite strange work for techs to compensate it when working on staged stuff: first make it crisp, then do everything possible to make it not look so sharp, haha.
So that's another thing which people would have noticed when the landing would have been shot on film: the much lesser depth of field.

[TLAM Strike]

The biggest issue I have with these Hoaxers is that to truly fake it NASA would have to not just launch a rocket, but actually fly the spacecraft to the moon and back because anyone with a telescope could see the spacecraft. They could actually see things like fuel being vented by the spacecraft and even the cloud of O2 from the explosion aboard 13. Passengers aboard airliners even saw the command module entering the atmosphere with nothing but the naked eye.

If NASA could build a spacecraft that could fly to the moon and back to fake the Apollo mission, and had previously landed unmanned spacecraft there we have to assume they actually did have the capability to land people on the moon!

Here is a nice little web page about the telescope observations of Apollo including some photos:
http://astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

[August]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

The biggest issue I have with these Hoaxers is that to truly fake it NASA would have to not just launch a rocket, but actually fly the spacecraft to the moon and back because anyone with a telescope could see the spacecraft. They could actually see things like fuel being vented by the spacecraft and even the cloud of O2 from the explosion aboard 13. Passengers aboard airliners even saw the command module entering the atmosphere with nothing but the naked eye.

If NASA could build a spacecraft that could fly to the moon and back to fake the Apollo mission, and had previously landed unmanned spacecraft there we have to assume they actually did have the capability to land people on the moon!

Here is a nice little web page about the telescope observations of Apollo including some photos:
http://astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

Exactly.

The one I always liked is how any ham operator with a direction finder could easily tell that Neil Armstrong was broadcasting from the moon. You can't fake the origin of a radio signal.