Oh I didn't know that about them losing the data. Still they'd be able to build new lunar rockets if they had the same budget that they did back then.
The footage isn't obviously fake. Yeah I've heard they lost the original footage and what we have now has been converted into another format, and that is a tragedy, but there's no way it's to hide the fact that it's fake. If it was fake then reducing the quality a little wouldn't have been enough to hide that fact. Every detail of every frame of that footage has been scrutinised obsessively by thousands of people, desperate to find something wrong with it, and every possible flaw they have found has been debunked. Do you know how many mistakes are discovered in movies by fans, no matter how careful the director tries to be? This footage has been studied by professional forensic video analysts.
Communicating via radio was no big deal back then. Space is empty, so the signal quality wouldn't degrade over that vast distance. The phone was just connected to the radio then for the president to talk to them. It's different when your reputation in front of the entire world is at stake, you're gonna make sure to get it right. They don't care if someone in the mountains is disgruntled because they can't get wireless cell phone reception.
They used pure oxygen because it's much more efficient to bring pure oxygen with them rather than just normal air. Air is only 21% oxygen, so the other 79% would be a waste. And they had to cut down on waste as much as possible. If they wanted to get rid of him, then why not simply fire him? They could've just told him his attitude towards the mission is disrespectful and bad for NASA's image, and let him go. Or even poisoned him to make him sick so that he'd be unable to continue. Those astronauts' deaths severely hurt NASA's image, why would they do that to themselves?
Same reason they faked the challenger explosion, they have to fail once in a while.
Look, I can't prove that anything is fake, especially if you don't want to believe it anyway but you can't prove a negative. Atheists can't prove god doesn't exist, but they can choose not to believe in god because of the lack of evidence proving he exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anything god is credited with can also be credited to chance or forces of nature, or stories that people made up. The church is the one claiming god exists, so they're the ones that atheists expect proof from
The same thing goes for space travel. I don't have absolute proof, like some mainstream media outlet coming out with proof of it being faked (which would never happen) to show you. On the other hand, they're the ones making ridiculous claims about performing maneuvers at insane speeds that nobody was really around to see, and things that can't be reproduced by models like rockets launching and landing themselves on boats. They I'm a skeptical person, I say prove it. I don't see any proof, just pictures and videos which absolutely could have been created outside of space. Why can't they launch and land falcon rockets on a small model scale? It's a huge jump between a guided missile and a rocket that can land itself.
Seeing a video doesn't prove they went to space to make the video, just like they don't go to space to make star wars. Add that to the bubbles floating by in space walk footage and green screen glitches of astronauts inside the space station, and the whole thing looks pretty fake to me. I don't think it holds much water.
Just because both religion and NASA are claiming something to have happened, rather than not to have happened, doesn't mean the burden of proof is on them. The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. Conspiracy theorists (like religious people) have made an extraordinary claim so the burden of proof is on them. Also (like religious people) all of their former proofs have been debunked. And there's an overwhelming amount of undeniable evidence in favour of the moon landing (just like there is for certain things that contradict the religious texts).
Also in space it doesn't matter how fast you're travelling when you perform a maneuvre. Because there's no air resistance, and because there's nothing near for you to judge by how fast you're moving, it'll seem like you're not moving at all. So it wouldn't be much different than if you weren't moving at all and were just floating in space.
I'm not familiar with rockets, but I do know that physics changes when you scale things up or down. So I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's impossible to perform certain things on a model rocket that you could with a full-size rocket, and vice versa.
As for things like 'bubbles' and 'green screen glitches', that's just embarrassing to use those as evidence. They're obviously just standard video glitches that paranoid conspiracy theorists jump on and use to spread their nonsense.
Conspiracy Theorists
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
Oh I didn't know that about them losing the data. Still they'd be able to build new lunar rockets if they had the same budget that they did back then.
The footage isn't obviously fake. Yeah I've heard they lost the original footage and what we have now has been converted into another format, and that is a tragedy, but there's no way it's to hide the fact that it's fake. If it was fake then reducing the quality a little wouldn't have been enough to hide that fact. Every detail of every frame of that footage has been scrutinised obsessively by thousands of people, desperate to find something wrong with it, and every possible flaw they have found has been debunked. Do you know how many mistakes are discovered in movies by fans, no matter how careful the director tries to be? This footage has been studied by professional forensic video analysts.
Communicating via radio was no big deal back then. Space is empty, so the signal quality wouldn't degrade over that vast distance. The phone was just connected to the radio then for the president to talk to them. It's different when your reputation in front of the entire world is at stake, you're gonna make sure to get it right. They don't care if someone in the mountains is disgruntled because they can't get wireless cell phone reception.
They used pure oxygen because it's much more efficient to bring pure oxygen with them rather than just normal air. Air is only 21% oxygen, so the other 79% would be a waste. And they had to cut down on waste as much as possible. If they wanted to get rid of him, then why not simply fire him? They could've just told him his attitude towards the mission is disrespectful and bad for NASA's image, and let him go. Or even poisoned him to make him sick so that he'd be unable to continue. Those astronauts' deaths severely hurt NASA's image, why would they do that to themselves?
--
SmokeEverything
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Same reason they faked the challenger explosion, they have to fail once in a while.
Look, I can't prove that anything is fake, especially if you don't want to believe it anyway but you can't prove a negative. Atheists can't prove god doesn't exist, but they can choose not to believe in god because of the lack of evidence proving he exists beyond a shadow of a doubt. Anything god is credited with can also be credited to chance or forces of nature, or stories that people made up. The church is the one claiming god exists, so they're the ones that atheists expect proof from
The same thing goes for space travel. I don't have absolute proof, like some mainstream media outlet coming out with proof of it being faked (which would never happen) to show you. On the other hand, they're the ones making ridiculous claims about performing maneuvers at insane speeds that nobody was really around to see, and things that can't be reproduced by models like rockets launching and landing themselves on boats. They I'm a skeptical person, I say prove it. I don't see any proof, just pictures and videos which absolutely could have been created outside of space. Why can't they launch and land falcon rockets on a small model scale? It's a huge jump between a guided missile and a rocket that can land itself.
Seeing a video doesn't prove they went to space to make the video, just like they don't go to space to make star wars. Add that to the bubbles floating by in space walk footage and green screen glitches of astronauts inside the space station, and the whole thing looks pretty fake to me. I don't think it holds much water.
--
JellyBeanBandit
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Just because both religion and NASA are claiming something to have happened, rather than not to have happened, doesn't mean the burden of proof is on them. The burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. Conspiracy theorists (like religious people) have made an extraordinary claim so the burden of proof is on them. Also (like religious people) all of their former proofs have been debunked. And there's an overwhelming amount of undeniable evidence in favour of the moon landing (just like there is for certain things that contradict the religious texts).
Also in space it doesn't matter how fast you're travelling when you perform a maneuvre. Because there's no air resistance, and because there's nothing near for you to judge by how fast you're moving, it'll seem like you're not moving at all. So it wouldn't be much different than if you weren't moving at all and were just floating in space.
I'm not familiar with rockets, but I do know that physics changes when you scale things up or down. So I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's impossible to perform certain things on a model rocket that you could with a full-size rocket, and vice versa.
As for things like 'bubbles' and 'green screen glitches', that's just embarrassing to use those as evidence. They're obviously just standard video glitches that paranoid conspiracy theorists jump on and use to spread their nonsense.
--
[Old Memory]
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I like your common sense responses. We're on the same page. Thanks.
--
JellyBeanBandit
3 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Cool, thank you.