New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Ryan Gosling says moon landing was "human achievement",not an american one

It was impossible to have faked the moon landing in 1969. We did not have the technology to do it.
I'm not saying I believe the landing was faked, but are you saying we had the technology to land on the moon in 1969, but we didn't have the technology to pretend we landed on the moon in 1969? That seems unlikely...
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
I'm not saying I believe the landing was faked, but are you saying we had the technology to land on the moon in 1969, but we didn't have the technology to pretend we landed on the moon in 1969? That seems unlikely...
Correct, that is my point, that it could not have been faked; certainly not with wires or whatever my dear friend is attempting to promote. There was no way to slow down the video - that technology was years away. Film would have been worse - slowing it down would have exposed the individual frames.
 

Days

Commentator
Correct, that is my point, that it could not have been faked; certainly not with wires or whatever my dear friend is attempting to promote. There was no way to slow down the video - that technology was years away. Film would have been worse - slowing it down would have exposed the individual frames.
The video was slowed down by the way it was packaged for delivery. The signal was broken down into components in order to save on bandwidth. This was supposed to make it plausible for a signal that had a range of 35,000 miles max to make it from the moon to the earth. ...the problem with that was simple, parabolic dishes are not lasers, so while they may concentrate the signal into a single line of light, (metaphorically speaking) the electromagnetic wave wasn't in the visible light spectrum, it was a microwave, at any rate, the signal was still going to dissipate.

So what you witnessed (if you are old enough) was what happened to the signal they first composed for transmission as it went up to the Clarke orbit geosatellite and back to our microwave dishes. When the signal was received it had to be rebuilt... that's what slowed down the signal transmission reception.

As far as the wires used, they were there on the set in Nevada, that was standard movie making in that day.
 
They were on strings? I watched the whole thing several times and never saw that. You mean that during the over hour and a half of the actual landing, everything was on strings and NO ONE or nothing gave it away?

Wait, are you suggesting that people were murdered to keep the lie going? What about the killers, who has to kill them?
I watched the whole thing AT the time - it was a hoax and mmmm you tell me who kills the killers.
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
I watched the whole thing AT the time - it was a hoax and mmmm you tell me who kills the killers.
It's a ridiculous scenario because the people who know all have to be killed and apparently THOUSANDS of employees were privy to this "hoax" and thus far, no one who worked for NASA on this project has said as much.

So who was killed....name one person who was killed for silence. More unfounded speculation? Its hogwash, the worst kind of absurdity.
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
The video was slowed down by the way it was packaged for delivery. The signal was broken down into components in order to save on bandwidth. This was supposed to make it plausible for a signal that had a range of 35,000 miles max to make it from the moon to the earth. ...the problem with that was simple, parabolic dishes are not lasers, so while they may concentrate the signal into a single line of light, (metaphorically speaking) the electromagnetic wave wasn't in the visible light spectrum, it was a microwave, at any rate, the signal was still going to dissipate.

So what you witnessed (if you are old enough) was what happened to the signal they first composed for transmission as it went up to the Clarke orbit geosatellite and back to our microwave dishes. When the signal was received it had to be rebuilt... that's what slowed down the signal transmission reception.

As far as the wires used, they were there on the set in Nevada, that was standard movie making in that day.

The supposed photographic evidence cited by the conspiracy lovers has been debunked dozens of times already, but the video covers that one more time to be safe. To recap, anyone that knows how photography works can explain the apparent anomalies pointed out by the conspiracy. But the reason no one could have faked the moon landing has to do with the state of video technology in 1969. Essentially, the hoaxers claim the video footage was faked by just slowing down people walking in normal Earth gravity. However according to Collins, the camera required to do that didn’t exist at the time.

Slow motion video is done in one of two ways: you can shoot video at normal speed and slow down the playback, or you can film it at high speed and play at normal speed. The second way is called overcranking, and produces a smoother picture. In 1969 this was only possible with film cameras, which the moon landing was definitely not shot with.So where does that leave the conspiracy? Well, there were some magnetic disc recorders in those days that could capture 30 seconds of normal speed video and play it back slower (that’s the first method from above). So surely that’s how those clever devils did it, right? Nope — the math just doesn’t work out. The Apollo 11 landing was filmed in 10fps, so you could get 90 seconds of corresponding slow motion video from one of these devices. The problem? There are 143 minutes of video from Apollo 11.

At this point, even the most ardent conspiracy theorist has to start doing logical gymnastics to stay on target. What about a super-secret larger magnetic disc recorder that could hold 95 times more video? Not possible. Maybe it was shot on film and overcranked? Only if you don’t mind splicing together thousands of frames completely seamlessly and somehow avoiding the telltale signs of film.

It’s strange to think about. We had the technology to fly to the moon in 1969, but we just didn’t have what it took to fake it. Generating 143 minutes of slow motion video was impossible. Even if you posit some magical kind of secret electronic video technology that NASA had in 1969, you’ve only explained Apollo 11. All subsequent missions filmed standard NTSC video at 29.97fps — three times as many frames would be needed. Would faking this stuff with Apollo-era technology really be any easier than going to the moon anyway?
 
Last edited:

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
The Apollo missions are still one of the crowning achievements (in my opinion, at least) of both our country and of humanity as a whole. Yes, the reasons behind the race to the Moon in the 60s were very political, that’s surely no secret. But in just eight years we went from sending the first American on a brief suborbital flight to safely landing astronauts on the surface of another world and bringing them home again, an incredible feat accomplished only through the talent and hard work of literally hundreds of thousands of people—over 400,000, in fact (source)—and the support and financial backing of an entire nation. Reasons aside, the summer of 1969 changed both the global political landscape and our perspective of our place in the Universe, and that’s not something to be dismissed lightly… or with wanton disregard for all those who made it happen.

And, of course, let’s not forget the undeniable 842 pounds of Moon rocks that the Apollo astronauts brought back to Earth with them (rocks that are still standing up to microscopic scrutiny even today by geologists) and the laser ranging reflectorsthat were left up there and still being used to measure distances to the Moon today!
 

Days

Commentator
The supposed photographic evidence cited by the conspiracy lovers has been debunked dozens of times already, but the video covers that one more time to be safe. To recap, anyone that knows how photography works can explain the apparent anomalies pointed out by the conspiracy. But the reason no one could have faked the moon landing has to do with the state of video technology in 1969. Essentially, the hoaxers claim the video footage was faked by just slowing down people walking in normal Earth gravity. However according to Collins, the camera required to do that didn’t exist at the time.

Slow motion video is done in one of two ways: you can shoot video at normal speed and slow down the playback, or you can film it at high speed and play at normal speed. The second way is called overcranking, and produces a smoother picture. In 1969 this was only possible with film cameras, which the moon landing was definitely not shot with.So where does that leave the conspiracy? Well, there were some magnetic disc recorders in those days that could capture 30 seconds of normal speed video and play it back slower (that’s the first method from above). So surely that’s how those clever devils did it, right? Nope — the math just doesn’t work out. The Apollo 11 landing was filmed in 10fps, so you could get 90 seconds of corresponding slow motion video from one of these devices. The problem? There are 143 minutes of video from Apollo 11.

At this point, even the most ardent conspiracy theorist has to start doing logical gymnastics to stay on target. What about a super-secret larger magnetic disc recorder that could hold 95 times more video? Not possible. Maybe it was shot on film and overcranked? Only if you don’t mind splicing together thousands of frames completely seamlessly and somehow avoiding the telltale signs of film.

It’s strange to think about. We had the technology to fly to the moon in 1969, but we just didn’t have what it took to fake it. Generating 143 minutes of slow motion video was impossible. Even if you posit some magical kind of secret electronic video technology that NASA had in 1969, you’ve only explained Apollo 11. All subsequent missions filmed standard NTSC video at 29.97fps — three times as many frames would be needed. Would faking this stuff with Apollo-era technology really be any easier than going to the moon anyway?
I already explained it to you, the signal was compartmentalized in order to give it extra range. It was still out of range. What slowed the video down had nothing to do with the camera or even the range, the signal had to be rebuilt as it was received.

Do you know anything about radio transmission? Analog television transmission? line-of-sight technology?

I can educate you, if you want that, if you don't want it, I won't bother arguing.

Do you know anything about low power broadcasting? Ever picked up a low power radio station? Some of those guys only broadcast 400-500 feet. The more bold ones will go a mile radius. The lower your power, the shorter your range, right?

The LEMs were powered by batteries. So try this, try and discover what kind of range an analog television signal had, powered by say 4 watts and shot through the 2-foot diameter dish that was fixed to the top of the eagle. Now try and pick up that signal with a 200 foot diameter dish 230,000 miles away.
 
It's a ridiculous scenario because the people who know all have to be killed and apparently THOUSANDS of employees were privy to this "hoax" and thus far, no one who worked for NASA on this project has said as much.

So who was killed....name one person who was killed for silence. More unfounded speculation? Its hogwash, the worst kind of absurdity.
Nope - thousands of people can be duped too - but there, that, the usual 'thousands of people' argument is the wrong place to start - follow the facts and worry about corruption and complicity and 'the blind' after you have found them.

Three actor/astronauts for a start -
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
I already explained it to you, the signal was compartmentalized in order to give it extra range. It was still out of range. What slowed the video down had nothing to do with the camera or even the range, the signal had to be rebuilt as it was received.

Do you know anything about radio transmission? Analog television transmission? line-of-sight technology?

I can educate you, if you want that, if you don't want it, I won't bother arguing.

Do you know anything about low power broadcasting? Ever picked up a low power radio station? Some of those guys only broadcast 400-500 feet. The more bold ones will go a mile radius. The lower your power, the shorter your range, right?

The LEMs were powered by batteries. So try this, try and discover what kind of range an analog television signal had, powered by say 4 watts and shot through the 2-foot diameter dish that was fixed to the top of the eagle. Now try and pick up that signal with a 200 foot diameter dish 230,000 miles away.
OK, this somehow made the video run slower? No, it only had to do with bandwidth. It had NOTHING to do with being out of range, it had to do with showing it on TV which was not set up for live video. They slowed the TRANSMISSION, not the picture. If slowing the transmission slowed the video, why are the voices not slow?

... And you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about?
 
Last edited:

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
Nope - thousands of people can be duped too - but there, that, the usual 'thousands of people' argument is the wrong place to start - follow the facts and worry about corruption and complicity and 'the blind' after you have found them.

Three actor/astronauts for a start -
Your argument has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with fearmongering and mistrust of our government.
 
Your argument has nothing to do with facts and everything to do with fearmongering and mistrust of our government.
Hey, the idea is that we all speak for ourselves - not put ideas or words into each other's mouths.

Keep on trusting in Father Christmas pet - 'what difference does it make?'
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
Hey, the idea is that we all speak for ourselves - not put ideas or words into each other's mouths.

Keep on trusting in Father Christmas pet - 'what difference does it make?'
Well, thus far, you are offering up nothing to counter. No facts and no case for why the landing was 'fake.' I'm left scrambling to figure out your position.
 
Well, thus far, you are offering up nothing to counter. No facts and no case for why the landing was 'fake.' I'm left scrambling to figure out your position.
I haven't tried to give facts - what for? I've argued this 1 million times over and have no appetite to waste any more time arguing against brick walls.

You don't have to figure out my position - try to see it from my perspective perhaps but do you have that sort of courage?
 

Puzzling Evidence

Free range human living on a tax farm.
I haven't tried to give facts - what for? I've argued this 1 million times over and have no appetite to waste any more time arguing against brick walls.

You don't have to figure out my position - try to see it from my perspective perhaps but do you have that sort of courage?
You offer zero facts because I'm a brick wall?

I see....
 
You offer zero facts because I'm a brick wall?

I see....
Yup, something like that --- the arguments are out there for us all to find.

If we want to find the truths which would bring man to a place were peace on earth were possible we need to question absolutely everything - us, ourselves, as individuals - each of us on our own journey in the quest to find any truth - and there is pain in that journey, without question. I realize that this one, which I do not find very important, would be a very hard one for you to question because with it you would have to question everything you are and believe in. You would have to turn yourself inside out ---

But ........... it must be done if it be freedom one seeks.
 

Days

Commentator
OK, this somehow made the video run slower? No, it only had to do with bandwidth. It had NOTHING to do with being out of range, it had to do with showing it on TV which was not set up for live video. They slowed the TRANSMISSION, not the picture. If slowing the transmission slowed the video, why are the voices not slow?
The voice and the video were both attached to the same signal. But the video was compartmentalized, it was broken apart and neatly packed to save on bandwidth. Now, when the signal arrived, the audio went directly through, but the video had to be rebuilt, remember, everything was happening in real time. This only happened for the Apollo 11 broadcast. And it had everything to do with being out of range, because that was the reason they broke the video down to begin with.

And the bottom line is, they were still way out of range, compartmentalizing the signal might have gained them an additional 15,000 miles in range (might!) but that still left them 180,000 miles short of the moon. A low power transmission shot through a two foot diameter dish on the top of the Eagle didn't make up for any of that 180,000 miles. If you know anything at all about early television, line-of-sight technology, because that's what we have here; a microwave signal shooting between two dishes, you would immediately recognize how badly the Apollo missions were out of range. Doesn't that make arguing over what slowed the picture kind of moot?

... And you have the unmitigated gall to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about?
easy now, all I asked was whether you are familiar with the technology involved in line-of-sight microwave analog television. I'm guessing you might not have a background in that field?
 
The voice and the video were both attached to the same signal. But the video was compartmentalized, it was broken apart and neatly packed to save on bandwidth. Now, when the signal arrived, the audio went directly through, but the video had to be rebuilt, remember, everything was happening in real time. This only happened for the Apollo 11 broadcast. And it had everything to do with being out of range, because that was the reason they broke the video down to begin with.

And the bottom line is, they were still way out of range, compartmentalizing the signal might have gained them an additional 15,000 miles in range (might!) but that still left them 180,000 miles short of the moon. A low power transmission shot through a two foot diameter dish on the top of the Eagle didn't make up for any of that 180,000 miles. If you know anything at all about early television, line-of-sight technology, because that's what we have here; a microwave signal shooting between two dishes, you would immediately recognize how badly the Apollo missions were out of range. Doesn't that make arguing over what slowed the picture kind of moot?

easy now, all I asked was whether you are familiar with the technology involved in line-of-sight microwave analog television. I'm guessing you might not have a background in that field?

Except that ---- just as with 9/11, it was probably not being filmed in 'real time'. A pre - made movie being relayed, even perhaps in Kennedy, as if it where being filmed in real time ---- people are just grown up children and just as gullible - We believe what we are told most of the time because we really do not understand the concept of the lie.
 
The video was slowed down by the way it was packaged for delivery. The signal was broken down into components in order to save on bandwidth. This was supposed to make it plausible for a signal that had a range of 35,000 miles max to make it from the moon to the earth. ...the problem with that was simple, parabolic dishes are not lasers, so while they may concentrate the signal into a single line of light, (metaphorically speaking) the electromagnetic wave wasn't in the visible light spectrum, it was a microwave, at any rate, the signal was still going to dissipate.

So what you witnessed (if you are old enough) was what happened to the signal they first composed for transmission as it went up to the Clarke orbit geosatellite and back to our microwave dishes. When the signal was received it had to be rebuilt... that's what slowed down the signal transmission reception.

As far as the wires used, they were there on the set in Nevada, that was standard movie making in that day.
Court-Jester Martin Luther Supported the Genocide of Both Jews and Peasants

So who do you see as behind the fake landing: Christ-killing Jews or Antichrist Papists?
 
Top