Smeggy's Forums

Forums where you CAN vent!

Skip to content

Apollo 17 - will we ever return?

Forum for NASA and all other Space Exploration and Observation

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

We still haven't had an explanation to why the hammer and feather experiment could have been faked either.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120406
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Right, I've watched that youtube clip where some anonymous bearded person talks about wires.

In all honesty, there is nothing there that supports his claims about the use of wires.

The Apollo 14 "glint" as he calls it is not wires. It is obvious what it is to anyone who has any knowledge of photography. It is lens flare caused by the sunlight reflecting off the astronauts helmet. How anyone can claim this is reflection off wires is beyond belief because if wires were used, they would be as thin as possible (ie, just a couple of millimeters) and would never cause an effect like that. Their claim really is a total non-issue and a load of cock.

The Apollo 16 "glint" I couldn't even see what he was talking about. I did see a sort of speck right at the top of the frame like a dirt speck but nothing remotely related to wires. How wires are meant to have caused this is something they don't explain because thin wires wont cause a speck to appear on a frame like that. Again, this is just a total rubbish claim from the bearded wonder.

The leaping saluting astronaut can easily be proved through simple maths for objects falling in a gravity field. They don't bother to do this for some reason and just state that "it looks like the weight is taken off him". Well of course it is taken off him. That is exactly what happens when you leap up and fall down and in 1/6g is takes longer and you go higher. Again, Mr. Beard just states something as fact, claiming it to be wires but doesn't do the obvious thing and do the maths and actually prove whether it had to have been done with wires.

The astronaut getting up off the ground - again, I just don't know what he is talking about here. The astronauts weighed 1/6 on the moon and the other astronaut clearly helps him get up. What am I meant to be seeing here that indicates wires?

The leaping astronaut - again, I just don't know what Mr. Facialhair is talking about. He proudly says they calculated it needed to be slowed down by half speed. Wow! I am impressed! What I am not impressed about is exactly what he is trying to show in that clip because it completely lost me. He just shows the clip at two different speeds and doesn't tell us what we are meant to be looking at. What is wrong with it? I don't know and I didn't see anything odd. If el Fuzzface has something to tell us, why doesn't he do that?

And what the hell was all that flying through a vortex stuff about? Interesting that the biggest clip they showed was that section - nice way of filling time. Whatever it was about, the technology didn't exist back in the late 60s and we've all seen the best Hollywood could do with wires or rear screen projection in many films of the time - and the effect is blindly obvious. Even in modern films like Aliens, they still hadn't perfected movement over rear screen projection so you get that telltale floating effect. What would have been more interesting from a technical viewpoint is for that vortex sequence to show someone walking on a hard surface, like the moon. That would be far more difficult to do than falling down a spiral of computer graphics where there is no contact between person and surroundings.

I'm afraid all that was pretty typical of all moon hoax films I've seen. A lot of claims based on clear misunderstanding of what really happens or claims made without backing them up or examples shown without even telling us what we are meant to be seeing. And never do they bother bringing in someone with a more analyitcal approach to tell them why their claims are false (because obviously, that wouldn't make such "compelling" television).

Sorry, totally unconvinced here. If anything, that sort of program does a disservice to the hoaxers because it shows what obviously thin ground they are walking on. Confusing lens flare for wires is such a basic error, it is totally embarassing (and quite funny).

LN



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

It was always going to be a hoax if the presenter had a beard!!


Only joking. nothing against beards!!! I had half a beard not so long ago. I didn't shave for a couple of weeks and Ms Smeggy got increasingly angry. In the end I shaved half of it of along a vertical axis and went around with half a beard for a few days.

Which means that any moon theory I had was half correct. :)


Sorry Annie, but while I have no problem believing 911 was a false flag because of the overwhelming motivations and the very dodgy behaviour and silly evidence offered up by the Establishment, I cannot believe the moon landings were faked. I do understand a possible motivation for faking them in respect to the Kennedy promise that America would land a man on the moon before the end of the decade ( 1960s ) and if they didn't manage it in time they could have saved face by faking at least Apollo 11 and 12. but while that's possible I find it highly unlikely given the evidence showing otherwise. 911 = False Flag, Moon landings = real IMHO :)

Is suppose this is proof it was faked. Here's Buzz and Neil ....

Image

:dog:

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120406
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

And there is Annie in his top pocket, studiously writing down notes for later! ;)

Yes, you can certainly see the wires in this one!

Of course, the Clangers did a brilliant moon landing episode which is well worth looking for on youtube - really funny :)

LN



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

It's the whistling that gets me every time!!! :rofl:

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120406
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

sweee hooo whee hoo.

Can't find the one I want, but this one has an astronaut -



Never forget the iron law of unintended consequences

User avatar
Nutter!!
Posts: 9732
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:42 am
Location: Fylde Coast
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: less tired than I was

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

diablo wrote:sweee hooo whee hoo.

Can't find the one I want, but this one has an astronaut -




I think that is real footage. I can't see any wires. The pics of Buzz Aldrin on the moon and his tin foil covered craft look so fake in comparison to that.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120406
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

annie27 wrote:Great init :) ......its a mans world .....ask for proof and then all go off line ...god forbid a woman has a brain eh perish the thought :rofl:


Tut tut, Annie goes offline when we get really seriously serious. Typical woman, can't stand the pace and goes into wimpish 'sleep' mode. ;)

Never forget the iron law of unintended consequences

User avatar
Nutter!!
Posts: 9732
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:42 am
Location: Fylde Coast
How Hot Are You?: Frosty Weekend in Rhyl
Current Mood: less tired than I was

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

I think the undeniable proof of the Clangers scared her off! Those anti-eater noses are awfully convincing!!!

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120406
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

How the Americans can claim to be first to the moon is beyond me when it is obvious from the Clangers that the Vikings got there first!

Now, serious question folks. Is there anyone here who can honestly put their hand up (ooo-eeer missus!) and say they've never impersonated the soup dragon or the clangers in their life?

LN



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

whistle-whistle-whistle-whistle-whistle-whistle-whistle-whistle-

Absolutely. I just did!!! Great fun :)

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120406
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

And here is a well known page where the Clangers help to prove that the moon landings were fake...

http://www.stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_l ... ndings.htm

Now we know.

LN



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

smeggypants wrote:
annie27 wrote:[

I guess you are not a fan of David Blaine then ....this proves nothing ....there is footage of the wires attached to the leaping astronauts glinting a hammer would be a chump change challenge ....
they lie about war they lie about weather they lie about swine flu ....they just lie ...
I think there is far more going on on the moon than we will ever know .....
so I guess this has to be over ....I have moved on to the the next level of my existance ....
I dont believe in God ...and I dont believe in Darwin either ....... :)


how did they get a feather to fall atthe same time as a hammer in an atmosphere?


why do you presume they did ....are you saying they could not fix this with a bit of fishing line ??? :D
when did you start believing everything you are shown ??? :D
Jesus I saw David Copperfield make a Jumbo Jet disappear on the telly ...but I did not think he really did !! :rofl:




Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

LordNibbler wrote:Right, I've watched that youtube clip where some anonymous bearded person talks about wires.

In all honesty, there is nothing there that supports his claims about the use of wires.

The Apollo 14 "glint" as he calls it is not wires. It is obvious what it is to anyone who has any knowledge of photography. It is lens flare caused by the sunlight reflecting off the astronauts helmet. How anyone can claim this is reflection off wires is beyond belief because if wires were used, they would be as thin as possible (ie, just a couple of millimeters) and would never cause an effect like that. Their claim really is a total non-issue and a load of cock.

The Apollo 16 "glint" I couldn't even see what he was talking about. I did see a sort of speck right at the top of the frame like a dirt speck but nothing remotely related to wires. How wires are meant to have caused this is something they don't explain because thin wires wont cause a speck to appear on a frame like that. Again, this is just a total rubbish claim from the bearded wonder.

The leaping saluting astronaut can easily be proved through simple maths for objects falling in a gravity field. They don't bother to do this for some reason and just state that "it looks like the weight is taken off him". Well of course it is taken off him. That is exactly what happens when you leap up and fall down and in 1/6g is takes longer and you go higher. Again, Mr. Beard just states something as fact, claiming it to be wires but doesn't do the obvious thing and do the maths and actually prove whether it had to have been done with wires.

The astronaut getting up off the ground - again, I just don't know what he is talking about here. The astronauts weighed 1/6 on the moon and the other astronaut clearly helps him get up. What am I meant to be seeing here that indicates wires?

The leaping astronaut - again, I just don't know what Mr. Facialhair is talking about. He proudly says they calculated it needed to be slowed down by half speed. Wow! I am impressed! What I am not impressed about is exactly what he is trying to show in that clip because it completely lost me. He just shows the clip at two different speeds and doesn't tell us what we are meant to be looking at. What is wrong with it? I don't know and I didn't see anything odd. If el Fuzzface has something to tell us, why doesn't he do that?

And what the hell was all that flying through a vortex stuff about? Interesting that the biggest clip they showed was that section - nice way of filling time. Whatever it was about, the technology didn't exist back in the late 60s and we've all seen the best Hollywood could do with wires or rear screen projection in many films of the time - and the effect is blindly obvious. Even in modern films like Aliens, they still hadn't perfected movement over rear screen projection so you get that telltale floating effect. What would have been more interesting from a technical viewpoint is for that vortex sequence to show someone walking on a hard surface, like the moon. That would be far more difficult to do than falling down a spiral of computer graphics where there is no contact between person and surroundings.

I'm afraid all that was pretty typical of all moon hoax films I've seen. A lot of claims based on clear misunderstanding of what really happens or claims made without backing them up or examples shown without even telling us what we are meant to be seeing. And never do they bother bringing in someone with a more analyitcal approach to tell them why their claims are false (because obviously, that wouldn't make such "compelling" television).

Sorry, totally unconvinced here. If anything, that sort of program does a disservice to the hoaxers because it shows what obviously thin ground they are walking on. Confusing lens flare for wires is such a basic error, it is totally embarassing (and quite funny).

LN


My Goodness ....so your final analysis is ....you know much more than this man who makes special effects programmes for a living and he is wrong because he has a beard ???? did I get that right ? :howl:




Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      



User avatar
Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:03 am
Location: Edinburgh
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Electric!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

annie27 wrote:My Goodness ....so your final analysis is ....you know much more than this man who makes special effects programmes for a living and he is wrong because he has a beard ???? did I get that right ? :howl:


In this particular case, yes, that is a perfectly fair assessment. It doesn't matter whether you believe me or not Annie, the simple fact is that guy is wrong on those so-called points he hopes to make. You claim to have an open mind so be open to the possibility that he is spouting a load of crap because I can assure you, he is.

Surely you can ask yourself, how it is remotely possible for two thin wires to create great big splodges of light like that? Light needs a surface to reflect off - thin wires do not have sufficient surface area to generate that type of reflection. It just isn't possible. And it's lens flare as I said.

And let me ask you, do you believe all that he said in that segment? I'd really like to know on this point please because I want to understand how you decide whether to trust him.

LN



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

annie27 wrote:from under my feet and make me a sceptic - and I'll take it if the facts are there.

LN


why does he feel the need to disprove the truth as you see it ...and as I once saw it[/quote]

There's no wires. The clip of a man flying through a Vomputer animated tunnel on a wire to implant the notion of wires on th astronauts was crass.

And a cartoon hand pointing at lens flare was bollocks as well. Annie, being a photographer you oughta know Lens Flare when you see it.

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120406
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

So what about the Van Allen Belt between Earth and the moon? The intense radiation would prevent any human from passing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt


User avatar
Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1418
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:03 am
Location: Edinburgh
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Electric!

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

LektroiD wrote:So what about the Van Allen Belt between Earth and the moon? The intense radiation would prevent any human from passing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt


I'll leave LordNibbler to explain that one as I'm not sure of the physics, but I believe it wasn't as bad as once thought ( or something liek that anyway )

-----|0| None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. |0|-----

"Capitalism profits from War - Humanity profits from Peace."

User avatar
Aliens Ate My Chicken!
Posts: 120406
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 8:32 am
Location: Smegland
How Hot Are You?: The Big Bang!!
Current Mood: Won Tons Mons

Top Forum Index Page New Posts

Posted on

      

Well, I've already commented on the Van Allen Belt in an earlier post in this thread but I certainly don't mind admitting that radiation is not one of my pet subjects!

At least we know the Van Allen Belts didn't kill the astronauts because they came back alive! I think you'll find that the radiation dose received on the trip was at the sort of level which might cause cancers in later life but certainly nothing dangerous in the short-term. Various reasons can contribute towards this with the two main ones being:

1. They travelled through the belts quickly. As with any form of radiation, its danger is proportional to how long you are exposed.

2. The command module provided shielding (and was built with this in mind because the danger of the belts was well known before man even went into space). Again, with any form of radiation, its danger is proportional to its intensity so if you can shield against it, the better.

Additionally, I think these points are relevant:

1. The belts are not uniform so have dense/less-dense zones. I'm certain I read somewhere that the trajectory to the moon took the craft through a less-dense zone.

2. I think there is also a particular property of the belts which is a directional affect with the radiation. As the craft was constantly moving, its relative angle was constantly changing which meant the angle of incidence of the charged particles would become less effective or more effective depending on angle it hit the craft. I expect that a charged particle is more likely to penetrate the craft and hit an astronaut if it hits the craft dead on, ie perpendicular to the craft surface.

I'd strongly advise further reading rather than taking what I've said as 100% because this is one area where my knowledge is less than ideal. In saying this, I am taking the approach which the hoax-proponents never do - I encourage you to do additional research and form your own opinion!

LN



User avatar
Really Loves Smeggy's
Posts: 1878
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 3:41 am

PreviousNext

Return to NASA - Space

Similar topics

  • Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
    Top of Page

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests