What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

[⚞⛇⚟]

Free Energy?
View attachment 6446277

Short Form Media = Retarded Controlled Opposition

 

[Screamer_2]

Faking the early moon mission footage and having it match later real moon landing footage is probably more impossible than just going to the moon for all those missions. I don't think people who think the moon landings were fake know much at all about the space program, haven't seen much footage or just don't pay attention to detail.

Is there some belief that even in the 60s if you gave unlimited money to Hollywood they could produce perfect visual effects, when even today with large budgets Hollywood can't do that? There's just countless layers of needing to be completely ignorant on most things to think its fake.

 

[big pauper]

Is there some belief that even in the 60s if you gave unlimited money to Hollywood they could produce perfect visual effects, when even today with large budgets Hollywood can't do that? There's just countless layers of needing to be completely ignorant on most things to think its fake.

draw the line at the apollo 11 footage and it makes a bit more sense. hollywood had already done more sophisticated space things by the time this happened

 

[byron]

the idea that they had to use a slow scan black and white camera on apollo 11 to save on bandwidth if they were literally already using the fancy color camera on apollo 10.

The two details you're missing are: (1) the difference between the LEM transmitting directly to earth (apollo 11 on the ground) vs. the CSM transmitting with its larger, higher bandwidth antenna.

And (2) the difference between getting out of the LEM and setting up and aligning a larger antenna vs. having a camera mounted on a swing arm with just one purpose - to record the first step on the moon.

Do you get what I'm saying? If you tell an engineer in 1965, "I need to be able to record video on the moon" - that engineer will give you one type of solution to that problem. If you tell an engineer in 1965, "I need to be able to broadcast live video from the CSM which has this much bandwidth available" - that engineer will give you a different solution. And if you tell an engineer in 1965, "I need you to mount a camera on the outside of the LEM and rig it so that it swings down into position and records the first steps, and I need that to be broadcast directly from the LEM to earth so that we get a live video (regardless of the low quality) of the first steps" - you get a third and different solution.

But more importantly if you're in a conference room planning to fake a moon landing and someone says, "hey! We should also fake some video!!" you would definitely, 100% tell that person to STFU and not make the conspiracy more complicated than it needs to be.

People were perfectly satisfied to celebrate all the other achievements of that era without live video. Nobody needed a camera on sputnik. Nobody expected a camera in Yuri Gagarin's capsule or John Glen's capsule. Nobody expected a live TV camera on top of Everest when Edmund Hillary climbed it. Nobody expected a live camera feed from the Trieste when it reached the Challenger Deep, or from inside the X-1 when it broke the sound barrier.

It wasn't expected. It wasn't a requirement, but the Apollo engineers said, "hey, we can maybe stretch a little and mount this low-quality camera on the outside of the LEM and capture the actual first step!" That was like extra credit on a project.

 

[Meriasek]

Not to mention that to record the first step they couldn't go out and align some larger antenna first.
And they probably wanted to have the most reliable tech for the very first steps, since it was a huge publicity moment and they really needed it to work. So drop the video quality in favour of having the most reliable option for recording and transmitting the very first steps on the Moon.

 

[big pauper]

The two details you're missing are: (1) the difference between the LEM transmitting directly to earth (apollo 11 on the ground) vs. the CSM transmitting with its larger, higher bandwidth antenna. And (2) the difference between getting out of the LEM and setting up and aligning a larger antenna vs. having a camera mounted on a swing arm with just one purpose - to record the first step on the moon.

this makes sense and explains why they did what they did.

It wasn't expected. It wasn't a requirement, but the Apollo engineers said, "hey, we can maybe stretch a little and mount this low-quality camera on the outside of the LEM and capture the actual first step!" That was like extra credit on a project.

except they already came up with the plan for what they were going to do before 1965 and it always included having a live television feed of astronauts on the moon. it was always part of the plan. this is kind of what i mean about the constant march of bullshit explanations - i know you aren't being deceptive but there's this constant march of characterizing the moon landing in a certain way for narrative convenience that always ends up rubbing against its own history and intentions

 

[byron]

they already came up with the plan for what they were going to do before 1965 and it always included having a live television feed of astronauts on the moon.

What makes you think that?

Also, are you conscious of the fact that you're mixing up two very different things that I tried to explain above? Specifically, a "live television feed of astronauts on the moon" is a different thing from "a camera on a swing arm that is turned on inside the LEM and captures the first step"

Not to mention that to record the first step they couldn't go out and align some larger antenna first.
And they probably wanted to have the most reliable tech for the very first steps, since it was a huge publicity moment and they really needed it to work. So drop the video quality in favour of having the most reliable option for recording and transmitting the very first steps on the Moon.

Exactly! The camera used to capture the first steps was mounted on the outside of the LEM for the whole trip there, then it had to be deployed remotely, then it had to transmit via the limited bandwidth available. And, as you said, they wanted it to be bulletproof.

Wikipedia says it used 500 kHz of bandwidth and recorded 10fps.

The one they used after they exited the LEM used 2 MHz of bandwidth and recorded 30 fps.

 

[big pauper]

What makes you think that?

because the plans they drafted in 1962 had a live television camera of astronauts on the moon, if not earlier

 

[Meriasek]

because the plans they drafted in 1962 had a live television camera of astronauts on the moon, if not earlier

Well yeah, it was part of the Apollo program. I think there was a bit of a miscommunication here.
Byron didn't say that the camera was an addition made for Apollo 11 spontaneously, but that the camera was planned right from the start. It wasn't necessarily expected by the public, but they wanted to do it. And then they went to develop the different solutions for each application, the high bandwidth color cameras, the low bandwidth lander camera for the first steps, the recording cameras and so on.
They were all considered from the start and all had their reasons for being the way they were.

 

[indomitable snowman]

If the moon landing was faked, I believe the Soviet Union would've done all they could to expose and discredit it. It would have been a huge propaganda victory for them globally.
Instead, the Soviet Union just reported on it and hid their own failure of a moon landing program.

 

[Bonesjones]

Sure. Sure. And there are no stars in this photo for the same reason: football is obviously fake (and gay) and if they added stars you could "independently verify" them.

Ok now show me a photo that's not exposed for a football game that contains stars.

It's definitely not because this is just how cameras work. Oh no, that can't be it.

Or it's an excuse to cover for the fact they didn't take any photos of the stars from inside any of the spacecraft. You know the command module orbited the moon while the lunar module was on the moon. Why didn't they take a nice photo from the dark side of the moon?

Then later, when multiple countries sent probes to orbit the moon and they took photos of the hardware, conspiracy believers say, "That doesn't prove humans went - it could have been unmanned missions!"

Why do they have to throw giant labels on the photos to tell you what you are seeing? Shouldn't it be self evident?

There's literally no evidence you'll accept.

"Just trust the science" Nah, give me evidence that can be independently verified.

what are you going to do? Are you going to say, "hmm, good point, the lack of stars is not evidence that it's fake" or are you just going to ignore this? Spoiler: you'll ignore it. It cracks me up.

I didn't, I refuted your garbage propagandist argument with ease. So cry more retard.

The third things is how you believe things that are mutually exclusive. I'll give an example if anyone cares.

I'm glad you think you can tell me what I believe. It really shows your intellectual dishonesty.

And (2) the difference between getting out of the LEM and setting up and aligning a larger antenna vs. having a camera mounted on a swing arm with just one purpose - to record the first step on the moon.

So where is the swing arm?

If the moon landing was faked, I believe the Soviet Union would've done all they could to expose and discredit it. It would have been a huge propaganda victory for them globally.
Instead, the Soviet Union just reported on it and hid their own failure of a moon landing program.

According to US sources, the Soviet Union said everything we did was true!"
Try talking to Russian citizens sometime, they'll tell you they all think it was fake.

 

[Marc]

Well, if Russian citizens say so.

 

[byron]

Ok now show me a photo that's not exposed for a football game that contains stars.

Why? The football field is bright, just like the lunar surface is bright. THAT IS THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF ME SHOWING YOU A PHOTO OF A FOOTBALL GAME

Why didn't they take a nice photo from the dark side of the moon?

It's funny that you think the issue is being on a particular side of the moon, even though everyone is telling you that the issue is having something (anything) very bright in the frame.

How can anyone reason with you when you can't follow these simple concepts??

If the shutter speed is high, you cannot capture stars in photos. If there's something bright in the frame, then the shutter speed has to be high so as not to overexpose it.

This just seems so simple to me. I honestly don't get which part is confusing for you.

Why do they have to throw giant labels on the photos to tell you what you are seeing?

They don't ...for me. The labels are for you.

"Just trust the science"

I didn't say "trust the science." I said (and I'm right) that there is no evidence you will accept. In order to rebut this claim, you must provide a specific description of evidence that you would accept.

In my opinion, if you yourself could go to the moon you would still say the landings were faked. You'd say, "all this hardware was sent here unmanned - these footprints were made by robots with human boots"

You think the Earth is flat too, right? If you went high enough to see the curve, you still wouldn't believe it's round. You'd make up some story about how they tricked you. And if you did realize Earth is round, after seeing it with your own eyes, nobody else who thinks it's flat would believe you!

Nah, give me evidence that can be independently verified.

Photos are evidence. Eye witness reports are evidence (we put people in jail based on less evidence). If you want more, then make a reasonable and specific request.

So where is the swing arm?

Do you need me to label it too? The camera was mounted in the Modularized Equipment Stowage Assembly (MESA). The best picture I can find is of a scale model. Here it is showing the MESA folded up:


And here it is deployed ...you might say "having swung open" lol.


I thought it looked different than this - but I haven't been into this stuff in years.

 

[Marc]

What if the cause for debate is the US having faked the fake moon landing?

 

[Catch The Rainbow]

How can anyone reason with you when you can't follow these simple concepts??

fyi this guy is a retard. he will insist that black is white no matter what source you bring to prove otherwise

The Soviet Union would have nothing to lose by claiming that the Americans faked the moon landing

 

[Bonesjones]

Why? The football field is bright, just like the lunar surface is bright. THAT IS THE ENTIRE FUCKING POINT OF ME SHOWING YOU A PHOTO OF A FOOTBALL GAME

To show you have no logical argument except to argue with yourself about what you think I am saying instead of what I am actually saying.

How can anyone reason with you when you can't follow these simple concepts??

You obviously are too dumb to understand what I am saying despite it being very simple.

If the shutter speed is high, you cannot capture stars in photos. If there's something bright in the frame, then the shutter speed has to be high so as not to overexpose it.

So if you take a photo on the dark side of the moon of the stars, there's nothing to over expose the photograph. Jesus you are a fucking retard.

This just seems so simple to me. I honestly don't get which part is confusing for you.

The only thing simple is how your brain works.

They don't ...for me. The labels are for you.

This blurred smudge is definitely something.

I didn't say "trust the science." I said (and I'm right) that there is no evidence you will accept. In order to rebut this claim, you must provide a specific description of evidence that you would accept.

Yes you did. I said independently verifiable information 5 times you fucking genius. If you can't prove something exists without the context of NASA or any other government agency providing you with it. It's not independently verifiable.

In my opinion, if you yourself could go to the moon you would still say the landings were faked. You'd say, "all this hardware was sent here unmanned - these footprints were made by robots with human boots"

Your opinion isn't worth anything. So stop trying to speak for me.

You think the Earth is flat too, right? If you went high enough to see the curve, you still wouldn't believe it's round. You'd make up some story about how they tricked you. And if you did realize Earth is round, after seeing it with your own eyes, nobody else who thinks it's flat would believe you!

If I went to space I would do something to prove beyond any doubt that I did.

Photos are evidence. Eye witness reports are evidence (we put people in jail based on less evidence). If you want more, then make a reasonable and specific request.

Things that can be verified are evidence which includes photos, eye witness reports, etc. If they can't be verified they aren't anything.

I thought it looked different than this - but I haven't been into this stuff in years.

So your big reveal is a box that can't possibly show the video from the angle it's at? Good job.

fyi this guy is a retard. he will insist that black is white no matter what source you bring to prove otherwise

The Soviet Union would have nothing to lose by claiming that the Americans faked the moon landing

Go suck some more baby dicks you worthless sewer goblin. You can't tell the truth because of your innate schizophrenia.

The Soviet Union can and would say it and it would be dismissed as sour grapes. Despite the Soviet Union winning at every stage of the space race, suddenly and magically the USA pulls the most complicated space mission in history out of their ass and it goes off without a hitch. Then they do it several more times with one minor hickup.

 

[byron]

there is no evidence you will accept. In order to rebut this claim, you must provide a specific description of evidence that you would accept.

 

[Bonesjones]

In order to rebut this claim, you must provide a specific description of evidence that you would accept.

Repeating yourself isn't an argument nor rebuttal.

 

[byron]

Repeating yourself isn't an argument nor rebuttal.

That is correct.

I repeat myself not as a form of argument, but to highlight your failure.

there is no evidence you will accept. In order to rebut this claim, you must provide a specific description of evidence that you would accept.

You cannot do that because you are not a reasonable or rational person.

I said independently verifiable information 5 times

That is not a specific description. That is vague category that includes evidence you already reject. For example, witness testimony is evidence, and corroboration by other witnesses is verification.

So I will repeat ...because it's actually quite fun to rub your nose in this: there is no evidence you will accept.

 

[AnOminous]

The Soviet Union would have nothing to lose by claiming that the Americans faked the moon landing

Even Soviet propagandists didn't like looking like absolute mental retards because it would reduce their ability to deliver propaganda even more.

You never saw any official sources defending Lysenkoism after Stalin died.