Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Space Exploration & the Cosmos
Laura Murray Cicco sues NASA over vial of moon dust
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="nickrulercreator" data-source="post: 174739" data-attributes="member: 10256"><p>I do, yes. Rockets have to have multiple stages as a result of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation" target="_blank">Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation</a>, basically.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Apples and Oranges (also, they didn't have to make tight descending spirals, <a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Aa77_dc_flight_path.jpg" target="_blank">this</a> was the final maneuver before impact of Flight 11, a VERY wide right-hand turnwhile Flight 175 was more straight-on with a slight bank at the end. They also <a href="http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html" target="_blank">knew how to fly prop planes</a>, as well as larger planes. The pilot hijackers trained here in the US and studied each aircraft extensively, they weren't idiots. A Boeing 767's controls are also similar to a cessna. I wanted to be a pilot before moving on elsewhere, and the controls for both planes were similar, and simple. Boeings aren't capable of MANY tight descending corkscrew spirals, but none were made, so that doesn't have to be worried about.)</p><p></p><p>But again, apples and oranges. There are a LOT of details going into faking a moon landing that are just impossible to recreate on Earth, without the aid of modern CGI technology (AKA, 1969). To fake it you'd need to be able to do what I listed above: ensure that hundreds or thousands of people could keep a secret for 50 years, despite the fact that much smaller government secrets get out in record time (Watergate: dozen people; Clinton sex scandal: like 2 people, etc; the NSA eavesdropping scandal uncovered by Snowden: IDK how many people; Tuskegee syphilis experiment: Several hundred people; MKUltra: unknown; Teapot Dome Scandal: Couple dozen people); simulate 1/6 Earth gravity, not just for the astronauts, but EVERYTHING, including the dust (which is impossible to rig to wires); have perfectly equal lighting over a wide terrain with no evidence of multiple sources of light, like multiple shadows; have parallax in the background if you use a backdrop, which is impossible for a 2D backdrop; not show a single heatwave if the landings were filmed outside, as just a single heatwave would show that it was filmed in an atmospheric environment; hide a giant spacecraft that would be orbiting earth instead of heading to the moon, a spacecraft that would be the most visible man-made object in the night sky, easily seen by anyone from the ground, etc; fake transmissions from the moon captured by independent observers with no affiliation with NASA whatsoever; fake the moon rocks, all of them, perfectly, and ensure they have no evidence of terrestrial weathering by wind or water, ensure there is no evidence of them being manmade, ensure that some are older than the oldest rocks found on Earth, create fake <a href="http://www.meteorite-times.com/micro-visions/crystalline-lunar-spherules/" target="_blank">glass spherules</a> in the rocks despite the fact that they can only be created in volcanic activity, or meteorite impacts, and nearly all spherules vaporize almost instantly in volcanoes; ensure that the moon rocks could stand up to thousands upon thousands upon thousands of tests done on them by independent scientists around the world; ensure the soviets don't spoil the whole thing and claim the US isn't actually at the moon; fool independent photographers <a href="http://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html" target="_blank">taking photos of the TLI burns</a> that actually put the spacecraft on a lunar trajectory; and more. The list goes on, and on, and on. The amount of things required to do that would have been impossible at the time is huge. There are <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU" target="_blank">impossibilities</a> in the filming technique at the time as well. Sorry, but faking it just couldn't have been done.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Good luck. Simulations can only take you so far. No training sim got past the actual landing. You'd also have to have astronauts talking in real time with mission control, meaning there was no script, as mission control could have said anything to the astronauts and they'd have to respond accordingly. That increases the chance of error by a LOT. You could reduce this by having both mission control and the astronauts in on it, but then you'd have more people involved in the conspiracy of course. For Apollos 15-17, where the camera could be controlled from Houston, you'd need to be filming all 3 EVAS (3 for each mission lasting from 4.75 hours to 7.5 hours, so 9 total) in real time, or else the camera operator would know that something is up as he tried moving the camera, and the camera wouldn't move accordingly. The camera controlled could be in on it as well I guess, but that's another person involved. You also need to consider the people who write the simulations, if that's how you go at it. Someone needs to create the algorithm that processes the data. Then you need someone to feed the simulation into the computers as well. </p><p></p><p>You still need tons more people. You need the president, the people organizing the faking of the landing (and frankly anything filmed in space), the people creating the sets, people creating the props, people on the set as they filmed it including, but not limited to, set designers, director, camera men, lighting assistants, wire workers, caterers for the crew when they get hungry, etc etc etc. Think about how many people it takes to produce a 2 hour movie, then think even larger. You'd need people for each mission and for each EVA (that lasted up to 7 hours. The shortest was Apollo 11's only EVA at 2.5 hours).</p><p></p><p>THEN you have the people who fake the images. The people involved had to create the mini, or real-sized props, set up lighting, create the sets, take the photos, and develop the film perfectly. This isn't a simple 2-man job. This would take dozens of people to do at the rate the landings occurred.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="nickrulercreator, post: 174739, member: 10256"] I do, yes. Rockets have to have multiple stages as a result of the [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation']Tsiolkovsky Rocket Equation[/URL], basically. Apples and Oranges (also, they didn't have to make tight descending spirals, [URL='https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Aa77_dc_flight_path.jpg']this[/URL] was the final maneuver before impact of Flight 11, a VERY wide right-hand turnwhile Flight 175 was more straight-on with a slight bank at the end. They also [URL='http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html']knew how to fly prop planes[/URL], as well as larger planes. The pilot hijackers trained here in the US and studied each aircraft extensively, they weren't idiots. A Boeing 767's controls are also similar to a cessna. I wanted to be a pilot before moving on elsewhere, and the controls for both planes were similar, and simple. Boeings aren't capable of MANY tight descending corkscrew spirals, but none were made, so that doesn't have to be worried about.) But again, apples and oranges. There are a LOT of details going into faking a moon landing that are just impossible to recreate on Earth, without the aid of modern CGI technology (AKA, 1969). To fake it you'd need to be able to do what I listed above: ensure that hundreds or thousands of people could keep a secret for 50 years, despite the fact that much smaller government secrets get out in record time (Watergate: dozen people; Clinton sex scandal: like 2 people, etc; the NSA eavesdropping scandal uncovered by Snowden: IDK how many people; Tuskegee syphilis experiment: Several hundred people; MKUltra: unknown; Teapot Dome Scandal: Couple dozen people); simulate 1/6 Earth gravity, not just for the astronauts, but EVERYTHING, including the dust (which is impossible to rig to wires); have perfectly equal lighting over a wide terrain with no evidence of multiple sources of light, like multiple shadows; have parallax in the background if you use a backdrop, which is impossible for a 2D backdrop; not show a single heatwave if the landings were filmed outside, as just a single heatwave would show that it was filmed in an atmospheric environment; hide a giant spacecraft that would be orbiting earth instead of heading to the moon, a spacecraft that would be the most visible man-made object in the night sky, easily seen by anyone from the ground, etc; fake transmissions from the moon captured by independent observers with no affiliation with NASA whatsoever; fake the moon rocks, all of them, perfectly, and ensure they have no evidence of terrestrial weathering by wind or water, ensure there is no evidence of them being manmade, ensure that some are older than the oldest rocks found on Earth, create fake [URL='http://www.meteorite-times.com/micro-visions/crystalline-lunar-spherules/']glass spherules[/URL] in the rocks despite the fact that they can only be created in volcanic activity, or meteorite impacts, and nearly all spherules vaporize almost instantly in volcanoes; ensure that the moon rocks could stand up to thousands upon thousands upon thousands of tests done on them by independent scientists around the world; ensure the soviets don't spoil the whole thing and claim the US isn't actually at the moon; fool independent photographers [URL='http://pages.astronomy.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html']taking photos of the TLI burns[/URL] that actually put the spacecraft on a lunar trajectory; and more. The list goes on, and on, and on. The amount of things required to do that would have been impossible at the time is huge. There are [URL='https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGXTF6bs1IU']impossibilities[/URL] in the filming technique at the time as well. Sorry, but faking it just couldn't have been done. Good luck. Simulations can only take you so far. No training sim got past the actual landing. You'd also have to have astronauts talking in real time with mission control, meaning there was no script, as mission control could have said anything to the astronauts and they'd have to respond accordingly. That increases the chance of error by a LOT. You could reduce this by having both mission control and the astronauts in on it, but then you'd have more people involved in the conspiracy of course. For Apollos 15-17, where the camera could be controlled from Houston, you'd need to be filming all 3 EVAS (3 for each mission lasting from 4.75 hours to 7.5 hours, so 9 total) in real time, or else the camera operator would know that something is up as he tried moving the camera, and the camera wouldn't move accordingly. The camera controlled could be in on it as well I guess, but that's another person involved. You also need to consider the people who write the simulations, if that's how you go at it. Someone needs to create the algorithm that processes the data. Then you need someone to feed the simulation into the computers as well. You still need tons more people. You need the president, the people organizing the faking of the landing (and frankly anything filmed in space), the people creating the sets, people creating the props, people on the set as they filmed it including, but not limited to, set designers, director, camera men, lighting assistants, wire workers, caterers for the crew when they get hungry, etc etc etc. Think about how many people it takes to produce a 2 hour movie, then think even larger. You'd need people for each mission and for each EVA (that lasted up to 7 hours. The shortest was Apollo 11's only EVA at 2.5 hours). THEN you have the people who fake the images. The people involved had to create the mini, or real-sized props, set up lighting, create the sets, take the photos, and develop the film perfectly. This isn't a simple 2-man job. This would take dozens of people to do at the rate the landings occurred. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Space Exploration & the Cosmos
Laura Murray Cicco sues NASA over vial of moon dust
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top