A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To The Moon

[Gifter]

[video=youtube;JchQh3-Bma8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JchQh3-Bma8[/video]

Compelling.

No doubt quite alot on here will want to ridicule the video, or me.

Now I have no problem with the ridicule, but, please watch it first and explain the atomically dated fake crescent footage because that is just insane.

 

[billyiddo]

Gifter, i don't care what anyone says - i love the mental nonsense you post, keep it coming bro

 

[southstand1882]

Which minute should I forward to Mike?

 

[Gifter]

Which minute should I forward to Mike?

My name's Rich, watch the last 12minutes (when they start showing the footage of earth), but then you should go back and watch it all.

I've got the follow up coming tomorrow, it's a cracker!

 

[Gifter]

Follow up documentary;

[video=youtube;_tWqh7OuLWE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tWqh7OuLWE[/video]

 

[braineclipse]

[video=youtube;JchQh3-Bma8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JchQh3-Bma8[/video]

Compelling.

No doubt quite alot on here will want to ridicule the video, or me.

Now I have no problem with the ridicule, but, please watch it first and explain the atomically dated fake crescent footage because that is just insane.

Compelling? How compelling? Compelling enough to look at what the other side has to say and compare, or just compelling enough to watch and accept?

A quick google search, on your term "atomically dated fake crescent footage" gave me a link to this forum thread: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread795906/pg1 Seems that there are some people in there giving pretty good counterarguments.

On the first page of that discussion there is even this video, with the instructions to fast forward to around 6:20. Here you see quite clearly similar footage as from the documentary posted, but with a bit of light on you see the frame of the window as well.

[video=youtube;b2QmdVd27q0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2QmdVd27q0&feature=player_embedded[/video]

As you can see the window is not round, and they are not in any way at the other side of the craft filming it. That was the only hand-waving explanation they gave in the documentary and the entire basis for their 8-10 minutes of speculation and ranting.

So, end of discussion? No, I don't think so. That ridiculously annoying woman and/or whoever wrote her script just lost a lot of credibility. You think that on their anomaly hunting quest they didn't see this? You think they don't know that they are spouting stuff that is completely invalid. Come on, I looked at just a couple of quick excerpts of the earlier parts of the vid you posted and the entire, way too long, 8 minute excerpt posted at that abovetopsecret post. These people are giving out information that has been argued against repeatedly, they know it has, they ignore those arguments and present their points as if nothing happened. They are dishonest. Maybe outright lying, I would not be surprised, but possibly they are just intellectually dishonest and avoiding information that doesn't suit them.

I don't understand why this stuff is compelling to you and I really don't understand how you can give these people any credit at all, however I feel no need to ridicule you. I will only suggest trying a different approach to how you think about these things if you care about your beliefs being true and matching reality.

 

[Gifter]

Compelling? How compelling? Compelling enough to look at what the other side has to say and compare, or just compelling enough to watch and accept?

A quick google search, on your term "atomically dated fake crescent footage" gave me a link to this forum thread: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread795906/pg1 Seems that there are some people in there giving pretty good counterarguments.

On the first page of that discussion there is even this video, with the instructions to fast forward to around 6:20. Here you see quite clearly similar footage as from the documentary posted, but with a bit of light on you see the frame of the window as well.

[video=youtube;b2QmdVd27q0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2QmdVd27q0&feature=player_embedded[/video]

As you can see the window is not round, and they are not in any way at the other side of the craft filming it. That was the only hand-waving explanation they gave in the documentary and the entire basis for their 8-10 minutes of speculation and ranting.

So, end of discussion? No, I don't think so. That ridiculously annoying woman and/or whoever wrote her script just lost a lot of credibility. You think that on their anomaly hunting quest they didn't see this? You think they don't know that they are spouting stuff that is completely invalid. Come on, I looked at just a couple of quick excerpts of the earlier parts of the vid you posted and the entire, way too long, 8 minute excerpt posted at that abovetopsecret post. These people are giving out information that has been argued against repeatedly, they know it has, they ignore those arguments and present their points as if nothing happened. They are dishonest. Maybe outright lying, I would not be surprised, but possibly they are just intellectually dishonest and avoiding information that doesn't suit them.

I don't understand why this stuff is compelling to you and I really don't understand how you can give these people any credit at all, however I feel no need to ridicule you. I will only suggest trying a different approach to how you think about these things if you care about your beliefs being true and matching reality.

That is clearly a different shot;

View attachment 660

Note, round window. You have skipped from one set of film to another, why?

Because IMO your perception does not match reality, so you found no real cogent counter to the portion of film being discussed and flipped to another completely. Hence, you are doing here, exactly what your post claims the film makers did, 'intellectually dishonest and avoiding information that doesn't suit you'...

You watched it, and saw with your own eyes the light from the other window come up to show they were filming from the back of the cabin whilst communicating they were filming against the window (in that passage of tape).

I'm posting because I got wound up by QI bashing moon hoax believers, saying in the UK 25% of people believe it was fake, then go ahead and 'debunk' the silliest parts of the reason people don't believe it.

Buzz Aldrin cracks the guy though doesn't he! Not sure why Armstrong won't swear on the bible when offered $5K for charity to do so, but that part is more sensationalism, the contradictions in the second video are interesting to me.

 

[spasm]

they met the nazis?

 

[ArcspacE]

Thanks for posting, Gifter. Really enjoyed it

Saw a different documentary back in the day, can't recall the name but there were some interesting points raised. Will try and find a link if I remember

 

[braineclipse]

That is clearly a different shot;

View attachment 660

Note, round window. You have skipped from one set of film to another, why?

Because IMO your perception does not match reality, so you found no real cogent counter to the portion of film being discussed and flipped to another completely. Hence, you are doing here, exactly what your post claims the film makers did, 'intellectually dishonest and avoiding information that doesn't suit you'...

You watched it, and saw with your own eyes the light from the other window come up to show they were filming from the back of the cabin whilst communicating they were filming against the window (in that passage of tape).

I'm posting because I got wound up by QI bashing moon hoax believers, saying in the UK 25% of people believe it was fake, then go ahead and 'debunk' the silliest parts of the reason people don't believe it.

Buzz Aldrin cracks the guy though doesn't he! Not sure why Armstrong won't swear on the bible when offered $5K for charity to do so, but that part is more sensationalism, the contradictions in the second video are interesting to me.

Not sure what the picture of the round window is supposed prove? I didn't say there weren't round windows there, just that the shot I linked to clearly wasn't filmed out of one.

I did not flip to another portion or argument. From where I'm standing this argument stems from the documentary makers claiming that the only way these shots could be made was by filming the earth from the back of the cabin through a round window. The video I linked to is a different shot, but it shows very clearly that shots like these were made without being at the back of the cabin and while filming through a square window that was in frame at the time. That is relevant to their claim, in fact it makes their claim look wrong - to me at least.

"As they perfected the shot, a crescent shaped piece of black material was inset slightly into the window to create the illusion of the earth's terminator line dividing night and day." That is a direct quote from what I now want to call "the so called documentary". They are just making this stuff up! There is no actual evidence in any way shape or form that there is any cloth there, and from the video I posted you see this "illusion" and clearly see that there is no piece of cloth there. That makes the video I posted relevant to their arguments even if it's from a different shot. They are making claims with "this is how it's done", those claims clearly don't hold up.

I'm sure they filmed from different angles and locations within the spacecraft. In one shot they explain that the camera is up against the window as they were at that time, in another shot they are at the back. I see no mystery here, I'm not surprised that they filmed from different locations to try to get different shots.

Haven't watched the relevant QI episode I think, at least not in a while. I really like QI though. I agree that on shows like that they should take on the more serious claims, preferably the best claims the 'hoaxers' put forward. The problem is videos like the one you posted. It's just a gish gallop really, they spew out tons of claims in quick succession, several of the claims in that video I would think you might classify as silly if QI debunked them. The problem, again, is that the people making these conspiracy claims themselves don't differentiate at all, they put in stuff that is clearly and obviously false. This should do a lot to hurt their credibility, but for some reason it doesn't seem to do so. I thought Mythbusters made a pretty good episode on this, have you seen it? They included the laser reflector put on the moon even, what is your explanation for that one?

Some actual evidence going the other way, this is an image of the international space station in orbit. As far as I know, although I'm no expert, it's in low earth orbit, like the video claimed that the moon craft was.

The thing to notice is just how fudging big the earth is from orbit. How these hoax believers explain how the astronauts filmed all of that earth through a small round window while sitting 4-5 meters (or however big the capsule is) away from it I don't know. I'm sure someone could do some math and calculate how big the window would have to be to fit the entire earth, but it's not going to be me.

 

[raboner]

fascinating.. but the narrator is annoying. the footage of JFK always makes me feel ill.

 

[mick cooper]

watch Capricorn 1

at least its a movie and is entertaining

I wonder how barking you have to be to take all this tosh in?

 

[WookieD]

Sorry mate but that "documentary" loses credibility very early on. Firstly the narrator talks about the Apollo11 mission like it was blind luck and they could never achieve such an arduous task at the first time of asking... Sorry? They spent years in test and development before launching the first manned flight... Which resulted in all of Apollo 1's crew meeting a crispy ending.

Apollo 8 was the first mission to break through the Van Allen belt (which is the second "point" they introduce into the documentary that discredits them).

Apollo 10 carried out tests with the lunar module without landing.

So to say that they arrived on the moon through sheer luck, if at all is a nonsense. They then went on to complete another 6 missions, including the crew of Apollo 13 nearly losing their lives. If you've just gotten away with the worlds greatest con, do you really risk it another 6 times?! If the Nixon administration really was that dastardly (and he was), much better to have fatalities at the second time of asking and file it under "too much risk".

Next the Van Allen belt arguement. There are reems of data supporting safe travel through the belt, it's a complete non starter.

Anyway, getting to the video. Firstly, the narrator seems surprised that mission control and the crew should be discussin how to set up the best shot... Really? Surprised? Possibly the most important footage taken to that date and we're questioning the intentions of a little stage setting?

As for the video, I didn't get anything from it. It wasn't right up against the window, granted, but there is absolutely no way to tell what obscures the shot. The second video, however, clearly shows a very small earth with no manipulation in two different windows.

I did love the bible quotes and shots of starving children in Africa to get you in the mood for venting bile at the wasteful capitalist pig dogs.

 

[mick cooper]

The Russians would have denounced the whole thing immediately, if it were not true

They said nothing, so they knew it was kosher

 

[Gifter]

To be honest I am not 100% whether they did go or not (well I'm 99% in the faked it camp), but the reactions (and contradictions) of the astronauts in the second video makes me inclined to think it was staged.

What is most shocking to me is that it was a FOX documentary!

It's only fluff anyway to me, I have no emotional investment in whether it is true or not, but judging on other historical events I think they didn't. One thing I am absolutely certain of though is that the footage in the documentary is showing staging (when I first watched it some years ago I had it on a better quality and you could see more clearly).

China will likely show one way or another when they do their mission. Which, when I first watched that documentary, was planned for this year, but has been pushed back (reading up on that it now says 2025-2030).

Now if I think how technology in society (in general) has progressed since the late 60's (well I was born in 71 so I know from my experience technology since 76 or so, Moores Law etc) to now, why does China need until 2025-2030 to get up there? To me it just doesn't add up at all, if it is 2030 that will be 60 years difference, why so long? (rhetorical question)

 

[mick cooper]

To be honest I am not 100% whether they did go or not (well I'm 99% in the faked it camp), but the reactions (and contradictions) of the astronauts in the second video makes me inclined to think it was staged.

What is most shocking to me is that it was a FOX documentary!

It's only fluff anyway to me, I have no emotional investment in whether it is true or not, but judging on other historical events I think they didn't. One thing I am absolutely certain of though is that the footage in the documentary is showing staging (when I first watched it some years ago I had it on a better quality and you could see more clearly).

China will likely show one way or another when they do their mission. Which, when I first watched that documentary, was planned for this year, but has been pushed back.

Blimey, another year with the tin foil hat on, this is going to wreck your hair do

 

[Gifter]

I don't need a tin foil hat Mick, technology has progressed in that field as well

 

[mick cooper]

I don't need a tin foil hat Mick, technology has progressed in that field as well

seriously though, in a country like the US, do you honestly believe that a lie like the magnitude of the one you are suggesting, could possibly be maintained to the point where such tenuous and frivolous Proofs would be the only evidence?

lets face it, if the president farts its on the front pages the next day due to leak in the white house (yes, pun intended) so something this monumental would never be kept secret.

Have you seen Capricorn 1?

I think it depicts about how long the lie would have lasted fairly accurately. The film probably sparked most of this baloney anyway

 

[braineclipse]

watch Capricorn 1

at least its a movie and is entertaining

I wonder how barking you have to be to take all this tosh in?

Although there might be some correlation between "barking" and believing in this stuff it is in no way absolute in my opinion. Some very smart people can believe things that you and I probably think are ridiculous. It's about how you think and it's a skill that can be learned up to a reasonable level pretty much regardless of intelligence.

To be honest I am not 100% whether they did go or not (well I'm 99% in the faked it camp), but the reactions (and contradictions) of the astronauts in the second video makes me inclined to think it was staged.

What is most shocking to me is that it was a FOX documentary!

It's only fluff anyway to me, I have no emotional investment in whether it is true or not, but judging on other historical events I think they didn't. One thing I am absolutely certain of though is that the footage in the documentary is showing staging (when I first watched it some years ago I had it on a better quality and you could see more clearly).

China will likely show one way or another when they do their mission. Which, when I first watched that documentary, was planned for this year, but has been pushed back (reading up on that it now says 2025-2030).

Now if I think how technology in society (in general) has progressed since the late 60's (well I was born in 71 so I know from my experience technology since 76 or so, Moores Law etc) to now, why does China need until 2025-2030 to get up there? To me it just doesn't add up at all, if it is 2030 that will be 60 years difference, why so long? (rhetorical question)

Far is it from me to answer rhetorical questions.

However, based on what you wrote in the other thread, about looking for meaning. To in any way come closer to that the first step must be to figure out how to objectively separate fact from fiction as well as possible, without that as the basis for thought all that follows will be unnecessarily flawed. This seems to be a point where we disagree and I won't be ranting about my own opinion (just yet anyway). However, if you do in fact care about truth I would ask you, how do you separate truth from fiction? Stepping away from any specific example, any specific case. What is the best way you have?

Take that rhetorically if you want, or as a normal question if you want.

 

[Gifter]

Although there might be some correlation between "barking" and believing in this stuff it is in no way absolute in my opinion. Some very smart people can believe things that you and I probably think are ridiculous. It's about how you think and it's a skill that can be learned up to a reasonable level pretty much regardless of intelligence.



Far is it from me to answer rhetorical questions.

However, based on what you wrote in the other thread, about looking for meaning. To in any way come closer to that the first step must be to figure out how to objectively separate fact from fiction as well as possible, without that as the basis for thought all that follows will be unnecessarily flawed. This seems to be a point where we disagree and I won't be ranting about my own opinion (just yet anyway). However, if you do in fact care about truth I would ask you, how do you separate truth from fiction? Stepping away from any specific example, any specific case. What is the best way you have?

Take that rhetorically if you want, or as a normal question if you want.

Good question, I think you, Mick, Scara (etc) and I are all very similar, albeit diametrically opposed, in that we have clearly defined world views which are much more deeply ingrained than most. So we are all probably the least likely to see truths objectively and apply our bias to truth all the time.

However most of my feelings in these areas come from my gut (soul I think but that might take things of course), rather than much else (though if I am not 100% I then tend to research alot to find what is weak and strong, where are there no counters etc). Though even then my definition of what is possible is probably completely different to yours, so our 'flimflam alert' flags fly in different directions.

You are right about alot of conspiracy junk making a bad name for the rest of the more pertinent areas of focus, of course it is a problem, as when you look into say 'JFK' and see the absurdity of the magic bullet, then '9-11', it is easy to get washed along with more and more borderland theories. Likewise, in reverse, if you look at a few videos and you feel you see through them (though I take this as very often cognitive dissonence) this reinforces the mind to believe that all conspiracy theories are hokum.

My heart has always felt that there is something fundamentally wrong with the world. I wish, more than anything, that in my lifetime that feeling will change.

You are right about intelligence, when I did an IQ test it said mine is the same as Bill Gates (that's not saying much I know!).