YouTube - Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part1
I saw this movie a while ago. I think it's an attempt to discredit the hoax believers. The part where Nixon and Kissinger and Rimsfield (I think) were talking was obviously out of context.
Quote:
|
The "wire glint" is simply light reflecting back into the camera. Simple debunk on that one.
|
The light source was to the left of the camera. It could not have entered the lens directly.
Do you think the same thing about the glints in this clip?
http://www.hq.nasa.gov./alsj/a16/a16v.1213311.rm
They look like the same phenomenon that's in the other clip.
What I think happened is that the original footage was full of glints from the support wires. The removed them but missed the one in this clip because it was so close to the glint on the antenna.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov./alsj/a16/a16v.1213311.rm Quote:
|
If you watch the clip, you will see dust thrown up by the right boot. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. The Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum. Had NASA faked this shot, they would have had to have a whole set (which would have been very large) with all the air removed. We don't have this technology today.
|
I watched it. I didn't see anything that couldn't have been filmed on earth. The dirt doesn't travel far enough to see the effects of atmosphere on the trajectory. If dust billowing was a problem, they could have sifted some sand to remove all of the dust-sized particles that would float in air. For good measure they could have run water on the sifted sand while still on the sifting screen while brushing it back and forth. Sand treated like this could have been placed where the rover was going to drive and the astronauts were going to walk and run.
Somewhere during the first half hour of this movie the topic of trajectories in a vacuum is dealt with.
Was it only a paper moon? James Collier (Better Quality)
I agree with what he says. The horizontal vector of the dirt kicked up by the rover changes. The dust slows down because it's encountering atmosphere. It is going slower when it lands than it is going when it is first thrown up by the rover wheels. In a vacuum it would land at the same speed at which it is thrown up. You have to look at the part of the sand that is thrown up at the lowest angle to see the effect.
Quote:
|
The thing was very burned looking when we re-inspected it due to re-entry.
|
According to one of the theories, the astronauts were in earth orbit while the pre-recorded tape was broadcast to the world so the re-entry was supposedly real. The other theory is that they splashed down in the Atlantic right after launch. That still would have caused the same burning. They could have dropped the burned capsule out of the back of a plane at forty thousand feet to look like a return from the moon. There are lots of plausible scenarios that would explain the burning.