|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Author
|
Topic: Weird spam e-mail about the Apollo 11 landings
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 11-29-2003 04:47 AM
A message landed (excuse the pun) in my inbox this morning, from a German address and containing the following text:
quote: The Lunar Lander's guidance system was not even as powerful as calculator built in 1980 None of the following astronauts can be contacted for a " official " interview The Flag that was planted in the lunar surface can not be seen by the most powerful earth telescope as well as the Hubble Space telescope
Nasa cannot provide a video of astronauts in total weightlessness for over a period of 1 minute " The maximum total time a aircraft can free fall out of the Earths atmosphere simulating weightlessness " this is how these films are made with weightlessness.
The " Live " video feed that was fed back to earth was impossible for the " compression " technology of the time. The " 3 meter " dish would of required a far more advanced and powerful signal generation. As well the computer buffer couldn't even buffer the amount of data even necessary for the most reduced black and white video signal at extremely low frame rate.
The shadowing off every picture in Nasa's database shows that their are too many light sources there should be only one " The Earth reflecting light" Its impossible to be sitting on the sunny part of the moon as it would melt the 3 astronauts above. During 1969 a project called " Above Black " was started cost of which was approximately that of the Apollo 11 mission approx $25 billion utilizing the money which was intended for the Apollo 11 mission. In order to research space travel what better way to get the funding to do it than fake a " Mission to the Moon " then use the money to actually figure out a way to achieve space travel. Better to send up a billion dollar decoy and say 24 billion for research then kill men failing to atempt it.
Why haven't we been back since? If it was done in 1969 surely its not beyond our abilities now * We still cant do it * The USA was in a race for space with Russia and faked the mission to help save face with the Russian superiority regarding space travel.
You can see the studio reflection in the gold foil of the studio where it was filmed. Flags don't sway in space see the Videos and you can clearly see the choppy editing of the poor film editing of 1969 where the Astronauts didn't jump up and down to show there weightlessness live for the world to see. The reason they didn't do that is that it was beyond the Producing ability of 1969 film editing to show weightlessness. As well in 1969 no Airplanes had the ability to reach the high altitudes necessary to simulate weightlessness Aprox, 40,000 - 50,000 feet ( clarification that the video did not show weightlessness meaning in 1969 they just moved still frames to create the illusion as well as the slow moving effect which is very un-matrix like overall a poorly done video).
Astronauts replied instantly to Mission Control in Houston. However radio waves and s-band signals travel at roughly 189,000 miles per second, this means Mission Control couldn't of replied faster than 3 seconds since the moon is over 380,000 miles from the Earth even at its closest apex. Total trip for the message 1.5 seconds there reply and then 1.5 seconds back. There would be this great of a delay for the sound/image to come back, so altogether you would see a 1.5 second delay after a question was asked and this is if Nasa Astronauts are replying instantly to a questions without even thinking about the question.
Nothing particularly remarkable about this conspiracy theory BS (what has film editing got to do with the ability to depict weightlessness?!), I hear you say. But the message was 89k, and the Mailwasher window indicated no attachment or HTML content.
Has anybody had one of these? Is it a virus of some description which can hide the presence of its payload from Mailwasher? Thanks...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aaron Sisemore
Flaming Ribs beat Reeses Peanut Butter Cups any day!
Posts: 3061
From: Rockwall TX USA
Registered: Sep 1999
|
posted 11-29-2003 04:45 PM
I know I am preaching to the choir here, but bear with me:
Nasa cannot provide a video of astronauts in total weightlessness for over a period of 1 minute " The maximum total time a aircraft can free fall out of the Earths atmosphere simulating weightlessness " this is how these films are made with weightlessness.
1. An aircraft can do a freefall dive that lasts far more than one minute.
2. I guess this guy can't explain the shuttle program (or is that all a big hoax too?) to prove that weightlessness exists in space... :roilleyes:
None of the following astronauts can be contacted for a (sic) " official " interview...
The last time one of these 'moon hoaxers' approached an astronaut with their 'official' interview questions, the interviewee got cold-cocked by the astronaut for even suggesting that he did not go to the moon.
The 'live' video.....compression of its day...
As mentioned above by Bruce, it was ANALOG, DUH... Any hardware that could do 'digital video compression' in 1969 was probably still in Bell Labs and was far too large (like several rooms of equipment) to been have placed into any spacecraft.
Its impossible to be sitting on the sunny part of the moon as it would melt the 3 astronauts above.
This is one of the more ludicrous things I have heard yet in defense of a moon hoax! HELLO!! SPACE SUITS?!?!? The space suits were designed to handle extremes far in excess of those found on the lunar surface...
Why haven't we been back since? If it was done in 1969 surely its not beyond our abilities now? * We still cant do it *
1. The entire lunar surface has been charted, and from the data we have gathered, it has been determined that there is no apparent (read: strategically important) valuable resources on the moon, and there have been enough advances in technology that it is now far less expensive to use satellites and other space-based technologies to do the lunar exploration rather than manned missions.
2. We still can't do it? We probably still can, but as I mentioned before, it is just too costly to try anymore, for what there would be to gain.
The reason they didn't do that ['live' footage of astronauts on the moon] is that it was beyond the Producing ability of 1969 film editing to show weightlessness.
Stanley Kubrick seemed to do it rather convincingly in 1968 for '2001:A Space Odyssey'...
As well in 1969 no Airplanes had the ability to reach the high altitudes necessary to simulate weightlessness (Aprox(sic), 40,000 - 50,000 feet) ( clarification that the video did not show weightlessness meaning in 1969 they just moved still frames to create the illusion as well as the slow moving effect which is very un-matrix like overall a poorly done video).
I don't think aircraft made today (not even a C-5A or the Russian equivalent which is actually a bit bigger) can a: accomodate a full studio crew and b: accomplish the filming while in a dive from 40-50K feet. Slow Motion has been posible since the beginning of film. The images were 'un-Matrix-Like' because they were live analog feeds from 1969, not 2000's CGI imagery. WAKE UP, IDIOT!!
You can see the studio reflection in the gold foil of the studio where it was filmed
AHH! So you have visited MoonTruth.com ? And, if you watch that video long enough, you can see the lighting rig falling to the ground and the 'director' calling out 'CUT!'
Hey, you imbicile, 'moontruth.com' is a parody of the 'moon hoaxers', You are so stupid that you actually thought that the video on Moontruth was 'genuine smuggled out of NASA hoax footage'???
Sometimes I wonder...
-Aaron
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|