Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

When this thread becomes heated, then the popcorn would be much more enjoyable. Flame away! 😉

Ahhh so you're a warmonger, eh? Dirty bastard.... 🤣

carlostex wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

When this thread becomes heated, then the popcorn would be much more enjoyable. Flame away! 😉

Ahhh so you're a warmonger, eh? Dirty bastard.... 🤣

Anyway, am I the only one who thinks that Vogons should have this following smiley?

*runs away*

OK back on topic.

A pretty girl made this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdfSoWb6W54

It's getting a high count of views, so i wonder when Jarrah White is gonna make his video response...

carlostex wrote:

I watched Star Trek, i watched 2001 and it looks nothing the the Lunar EVA's. Don't you see the difference between 2001 and lunar EVA's footage? Do you understand that it was impossible for Kubrick to replicate what was seen on Apollo missions? The technology wasn't there.

How do you know what technology was available at that time?

So from what you are saying, you believe that the technology existed for man to land on the moon but not for creating a few camera tricks?

carlostex wrote:

And Star Trek looks silly in comparison. There was even Space: 1999 which was 1975 to 1977, and you see the problems of trying to replicate the moon on earth, dust clouds, earth gravity, earth atmosphere. Don't you see that you can't overcome these constraints easily today let alone from 1969 to 1972?

I for one am not totally convinced by your argument...wouldn't the act of actually landing on the moon in 1969 to 1972 (and even today) most likely present much more overwhelming and challenging "constraints" than the ones you have listed above?

Obviously, not really.

retrofanatic wrote:

How do you know what technology was available at that time?

So from what you are saying, you believe that the technology existed for man to land on the moon but not for creating a few camera tricks?

The technology needed to actually put man on the moon is mostly rocket technology. The biggest problem is to get out of earth. How much money and expertise do you need to build a rocket that can overcome the forces that rule planet earth? It's 2014 and i haven't seen any amateur rocket getting out of earth.
Then you need navigational technology and although the Apollo Guidance Computer was quite simple, it was enough for the mission constraints.

You couldn't fake the moon landing just creating "a few camera tricks". And they had to create special cameras for the missions, because regular cameras would consume too much power, were too heavy and wouldn't work. The technology used was quite documented.

ANd then comes the biggest problem. Faking the thing on earth would require it to be perfect. You can put wires on people to simulate low gravity, but you can't put wires on dust. How can you walk on dust on earth and have no dust clouds? I haven't seen a movie where they solved that problem, unless the whole thing is done in CGI.

To better understand why video technology was so primitive in the 1960's take a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

retrofanatic wrote:

I for one am not totally convinced by your argument...wouldn't the act of actually landing on the moon in 1969 to 1972 (and even today) most likely present much more overwhelming and challenging "constraints" than the ones you have listed above?

Going to the moon, or just getting out of earth is certainly a challenge and a risk, but we've had that technology since the 50's. It certainly is difficult, but is definitely easier than making earth gravity 1/6th or have a vacuum on earth.

OK build a vacuum chamber the size of a film studio. And then move a film studio inside the chamber. Ship enourmous amounts of moon dust simulant into the chamber. That would mean tons of it. But you are still on earth, so we need to put astronauts on wires and have high speed video cameras. There are no such video cameras in 1969 so they have to build one, except the electronics were not there. Unless they do it on film of course. But doing it on film, would create problems to make this 1:40 long movie fakeryl. Humm, they put wires on astronauts but the damn dust particles will still fall at much higher rate than the astronauts because you can't put wires on dust to slow it down... How are we gonna deal with that?

I could keep on with this forever. It was easier to go to the moon because you cannot change the laws of physics. NASA is a powerful government agency, but they are not God.

carlostex wrote:

The technology needed to actually put man on the moon is mostly rocket technology. The biggest problem is to get out of earth. How much money and expertise do you need to build a rocket that can overcome the forces that rule planet earth? It's 2014 and i haven't seen any amateur rocket getting out of earth.
Then you need navigational technology and although the Apollo Guidance Computer was quite simple, it was enough for the mission constraints.

Good point, but the way you describe how simple everything is, I have to say is most likely contradictory to the complexity of avionics, astrophysics, logistics and aeronautical engineering books and training manuals that pertain to the Moon landing mission 🤣 but I'm not sure because I am not an astronaut (but if I was I would want to be like the one in the AXE body spray commercials 🤣)

...Anyways...as you mention, you can go on forever about why you think the moon landing is not a hoax and others like me can also go on forever trying to dispute what you are saying.

carlostex wrote:

You couldn't fake the moon landing just creating "a few camera tricks".

I didn't say that that is all it would take...I'm sure it probably would take more...I just mentioned "camera tricks" because that was just one of the things that was being discussed.

carlostex wrote:

And they had to create special cameras for the missions, because regular cameras would consume too much power, were too heavy and wouldn't work. The technology used was quite documented.

You are certainly not wrong here...yes I know, I have read about that in my childhood about the cameras. I can go on forever how I may think that the "documented proof" can easily be manipulated...but that can be a whole other topic of discussion...I'm not willing to go there because it would make for a long post and a lot of banter and back and forth about a whole other issue

By questioning some of the points made earlier I just want to get the point accross that it is (or that at least it should be) OK IMHO to question things, yes even the moon landing, because (I think I mentioned this earlier), all we know about the moon landing is what we have seen in the media (and that sometimes is just not always good enough for me), I don't think anyone on Vogons really knows what happened exactly (whether it was a hoax or not, so why all the arrogance? and not just from carlostex---Actually I have to say, I think that at least your responses seem to be well thought out and at least you are trying to argue your point instead of giving short, vague, abrupt and absolute responses.

As Albert Einstein said, "The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

BTW, I question David Blaine and David Copperfield all the time..I wonder how they do all those magic tricks...everything they do looks so real, but I know it's not...it's amazing what illusions some people can create...I am conviced that those two could team up and make a moon landing on earth look real...🤣....just some food for thought.

carlostex wrote:

ANd then comes the biggest problem. Faking the thing on earth would require it to be perfect. You can put wires on people to sim […]
Show full quote

ANd then comes the biggest problem. Faking the thing on earth would require it to be perfect. You can put wires on people to simulate low gravity, but you can't put wires on dust. How can you walk on dust on earth and have no dust clouds? I haven't seen a movie where they solved that problem, unless the whole thing is done in CGI.

To better understand why video technology was so primitive in the 1960's take a look at this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU

Going to the moon, or just getting out of earth is certainly a challenge and a risk, but we've had that technology since the 50's. It certainly is difficult, but is definitely easier than making earth gravity 1/6th or have a vacuum on earth.

OK build a vacuum chamber the size of a film studio. And then move a film studio inside the chamber. Ship enourmous amounts of moon dust simulant into the chamber. That would mean tons of it. But you are still on earth, so we need to put astronauts on wires and have high speed video cameras. There are no such video cameras in 1969 so they have to build one, except the electronics were not there. Unless they do it on film of course. But doing it on film, would create problems to make this 1:40 long movie fakeryl. Humm, they put wires on astronauts but the damn dust particles will still fall at much higher rate than the astronauts because you can't put wires on dust to slow it down... How are we gonna deal with that?

In the end it really doesn't matter what I think anyways because I myself don't truly know a lot about the moon landing....like the Socratic Paradox saying goes, "I know that I know nothing." I am trying not to ramble on too much, but I just want to point out that comments like the ones above are just based on assumptions. Assumptions that to fake the moon landing that you would put "wires on people", things would have to "be perfect", you would have to "put wires on dust", that CGI would be the only way to make things like this happen, video technology was too primitive (it was primitive by todays standards for sure, but was it too primitive to do what had to be done? I don't know), "we've had that technology since the 50's", and my favorite assumptions 🤣 - "certainly is difficult, but is definitely easier than making earth gravity 1/6th or have a vacuum on earth", and "build a vacuum chamber the size of a film studio"

,,,,I personally never said any of these things to support the moon landing as a hoax, maybe others have, but all you are doing is compiling all these assumptions to create your own scenario to make it appear impossible.

All of what you are stating are assumptions wheather you made them up or if someone else did. Much of what is being said to advocate and dispute the moon landing are assumptionsl, but there is some proof out there for both sides and just because someone is questioning the landing because there seems to be some discreptancies and maybe they don't trust everything they see on TV doesn't make them wrong...what makes someone 'wrong' is ignorance and ignorance (as I'm sure everyone knows) is based on people not actually knowing something and not having true knowledge of that something but claiming they do.

Anyways...it really is an interesting topic and yes, it may not be totally relevant to Vogons, but it does at least generate some interest with some of us including myself of course (cuz I'm a nerd)...I wouldn't be responding if I wasn't interested in this topic...I do have to say that I always wanted to be an astronaut when I was a kid, and as a kid I would have never questioned if the moon landing actually happened, so what the heck happened to me? 🤣 getting old I guess 🤣

carlostex wrote:

I could keep on with this forever. It was easier to go to the moon because you cannot change the laws of physics. NASA is a powerful government agency, but they are not God.

That's true and neither is anyone on Vogons 🤣....as Albert Einstein also said, "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

My post, I've yet to hear explained by someone willing to toy with conspiracy theories. Where do you draw the line?
Re: The stupidity of the moon hoax theory

Do you really need to add these images to your posts retrofanatic ? They attribute nothing to the discussion and imho only waste bandwidth and storage space.

Stiletto wrote:

My post, I've yet to hear explained by someone willing to toy with conspiracy theories. Where do you draw the line?
Re: The stupidity of the moon hoax theory

Your post raises excellent points, and remembers me the reason i created this thread was also to discuss the motives why and how these people recyle their thoughts to keep their theory alive.

@retrofanatic

Although i agree that i may sound arrogant by throwing points that may sound as absolute assumptions i at the same understand why people find it so hard to believe it was actually more difficult to go to the moon.

I'm gonna quote the video i posted:

"The later you are born the more all powerful movie magic seems..."

It's ok for people to believe it was a hoax because they don't understand the technology involved, the same happened to me, but when people keep insisting 2 + 2 = 5 after being proved otherwise, and cover their ears singing "la,la,la" that is just plain stupidity.

Let me give an example:
One of the theories is that Kubrick faked the whole thing using mainly front projection technique, which he used so effectively on 2001. It's a simple case where people open their mouths without even thinking for a while. I advise anyone interested in cinema, front projection or the 2001 movie to watch the following video:

http://vimeo.com/93519262

Qbix wrote:

Do you really need to add these images to your posts retrofanatic ? They attribute nothing to the discussion and imho only waste bandwidth and storage space.

No, you're right, the post doesn't need photos...sorry about that...I will delete the photos. Cheers.

Very interesting stunt/feature here by NVIDIA, as they're showcasing their new GeForce Maxwell 980/970 series.

Debunking Lunar Landing Conspiracies with Maxwell and VXGI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9y_AVYMEUs

if you want to skip the blahblahs and go straight to the interesting simulations, go to these points:
1:37,
4:00 through 4:33,
7:05 (what the exposure would look like if you were to see the stars through the camera -- effectively the visual version of what carlostex said before, quoted below -- not that that's too hard to imagine, but not everyone's into photography so...),
8:10, 8:20 through 8:50, 9:07 ... or really just spend the full 9-10 minutes. 😀

carlostex wrote:

dude the lunar eva's were early morning on the moon, the sun is very very bright and the lunar rigolith is very reflective. Not to mention that astronauts had the darkest sunglasses in the world. The camera exposure was set to daylight and if it was set to see the stars you would see nothing but light ln yhe ground.

Also don't forget to check out the comments if just to amuse yourself. 😜

Also, IF Kubrick really did fake all that, then he's one helluva scienticinematographer! *salute/worship smiley here* 😁

Very cool video, the 3D models are almost perfect. We are reaching a point where 3D graphics are close to become photorealistic.

Oh yeah, i wasn't expecting nothing different from that idiot. That kid is so freakin' obnoxious it makes me wanna punch my computer screen.

carlostex wrote:

Really! Yes it's a French mockumentary made in 2002: […]
Show full quote

Really! Yes it's a French mockumentary made in 2002:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the … Moon_%28film%29

The problem with your clip is that it is edited, so it seems serious. And that's how consparacies are made.

So what if someone brings a thread from the dead? If someone has relevant information to add according to topic then it should be revived. It's better than creating 100 threads on the same subject. Isn't this how forums work?

And you were trolling all this time? Or is it just a "save face" attempt argument?

Relevant information to an irrelevant topic? Why do you keep reviving it?

Let me ask you this, though. Since nobody had ever been to the moon previously, nobody knew what an actual moon landing would look like. How hard is it to fake something that nobody has ever seen before? You can put anything on film and say "This is what moon landing looks like" and nobody would know the difference, not even so called "experts".

Even if the Russians called it out as a hoax, the government would just deal it like they always had, by pronouncing it communist propaganda and whipping the people into an anti-communist frenzy.

sliderider wrote:

Relevant information to an irrelevant topic? Why do you keep reviving it?

How is the topic irrelevant? If it is to you why do you bother coming back? Had you looked more carefully you would realize that this time i didn't revive the thread, archsan did it. Instead of him creating a new thread he simply revived this one as not only he had relevant information to the topic but the information involves computer technology. How is this topic irrelevant again? If it is, how irrelevant are other topics about dream interpretation, or life after death, spiritism and whatnot that you seemed keen to participate in?

With all due respect it seems to me that you are "butt-hurt" about being debunked several times on this thread.

sliderider wrote:

Let me ask you this, though. Since nobody had ever been to the moon previously, nobody knew what an actual moon landing would look like. How hard is it to fake something that nobody has ever seen before? You can put anything on film and say "This is what moon landing looks like" and nobody would know the difference, not even so called "experts".

I see your point but you are quite wrong. If you want your faked evidence to survive the test of time you can't simply fake it. Remember Alien Autopsy? That crap was sold to numerous TV Networks. When it was broadcast in Portugal they had a panel of experts that immediately noticed several flaws and branded the footage as a ridiculously faked film. Still 75% of people that watched the film and participated in a poll thought it was real. Later the producer Ray Santilli admited it was faked.

Just because no one had ever seen how the moon looked like doesn't mean its easier to fake it. Scientists knew the lunar grivaty is much lower than on earth, they knew there would be no atmosphere and so many other things that they could predict and noticed if the footage had been faked.

sliderider wrote:

Just for the sake of argument explain then, why in all the moon walk footage you can't see any stars in the sky?

Because its day time, can you see stars during the day ???

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

This is a computer game forum and we're having debate about moon hoax? At least when I debated ADDiCT and dh4rm4 into oblivion, crushed their arguments, saw them driven before me, and heard the lamentation of their.... er, never mind. Anyway, the debates were about computer games.

Alright, whatever rocks your boat, people! *grabs popcorn*

Aaah those where the "good old days" 😉 *grabs his own popcorn* *throws a pack of smokes to KAN*

WolverineDK wrote:

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

This is a computer game forum and we're having debate about moon hoax? At least when I debated ADDiCT and dh4rm4 into oblivion, crushed their arguments, saw them driven before me, and heard the lamentation of their.... er, never mind. Anyway, the debates were about computer games.

Alright, whatever rocks your boat, people! *grabs popcorn*

Aaah those where the "good old days" 😉 *grabs his own popcorn* *throws a pack of smokes to KAN*

Thanks, buddy! *lights a piece* Puff puff..

archsan wrote:

Also don't forget to check out the comments if just to amuse yourself. 😜

I knew this was just a matter of time. Look how ridiculous that obnoxious kid looks trying to prove the moon landing was fake by placing a box painted black on the inside covering a luner lander model. Not only his box obviously covers the reflected light that would bounce everywhere off the ground doesn't he know that tarmac albedo varies from road to road? New sticky tarmac obviously reflects less light than worn tarmac.