Hmm, lemme reconvert it with 30FPS and see how that works out.

Meanwhile, are you planning to post anything other than "anyone who doesn't agree with me is an imbecile"?

EDIT: Nope, YouTube converted the file to 25FPS. I converted the file to a workable 29.97FPS version, and it had a double frame every 5 frames. Which usually means the file I converted it from is 25FPS.

Really. Do you know anything about "thin-transparent wires" (monofilament, perhaps..?) that would be required to support and lift 360 pounds of guy?

One line would be in the vicinity of .08" in diameter (almost a tenth of an inch in diameter). That's a thick clear line which would reflect plenty of light.

You might also have answered my questions rather than evade them. Where was this attached? Where were the connections (can't seem to see them anywhere...especially at belly level(?).
You're evading the issue here.





Sure...but Charlie got enthusiastic, and he fell on his butt, not, for the moment, thinking to lean forward before jumping. He's explained this himself many times...it was a scary moment for him (and for the rest of us watching him at that moment, and fully realizing what had happened and why...).

...he thought he was going to die.



...that explains alot...







Weak, shallow, and evasive.

These jumps were normal, and in the case of Charlie's whifferdill, explained ad-nauseam, and a completely natural result...which he didn't repeat again.

Experiencia docet!

Your argument is not argument.

The jumps were precisely what you'd expect on the Moon. You have proven nothing, and are evading simple questions because you cannot answer them. Unless you exhibit a desire to learn about that which you obvioously don't know, you're wasting our time with this nonsensical adherence to making declarations without anything to substantiate them.

We appreciate the comic relief...

Really, we do!

Thanks.

I'm sure it wasn't that funny. Just trying to break the unnecessary tension in this thread. I could never understand the name calling and stuff in forums like this. We should already know that no forum on earth is going to resolve believer or skeptic perception on anything discussed in it on a worldwide scale. It's just nice to be able to express your own opinions and ideas on them. When people start calling other people names, it only shows a high level of immaturity on their part and makes people take their comments and suggestions like a grain of salt. I prefer to listen to the people that act like adults. Those are the ones we can learn from. Name-callers and aggressive/defensive people acting like children are only making their own words obsolete in the process and any future ideas that they may want to introduce on this or other topics. (This is not to say that anger and name-calling is not a natural human reaction to debates and can certainly be understood to some extent when tension reaches that breaking point.)

Whether you are pro or con to a specific debate, the best idea is to simply realize that people are just as strong in their beliefs as you are in yours. No matter what amount of solid evidence you have to present to the opposing party, it will only account for more skepticism. If the Astronauts themself ever came forth and said "We never went to the moon. It was all a hoax", the skeptics would jump up in down in joy and grovel over their successful perceptual abilities while at the same time, the believers will defend their beliefs by saying that the astronauts were paid off, threatened or brain-washed into saying that. It will always be a never ending battle and that is what frustrates us the most. It appears as though the apposing party is not seeing things our way but the fact is simply that none of us can see things anyone's way but our own. Even as our perceptions are changed by new ideas and innovative thoughts brought up by other people's presentation of these things, we still hold strong to just one side of the story because admitting that we are wrong is more difficult than the construction of any great conspiracy or any tremendous accomplishment to begin with. It's almost as though despite everything that human nature has to offer, the one thing that we humans do not possess is humility. This is something we were born with, lost and then must re-learn to obtain once more.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

Link

Check this out, I think its a good idea.

I was about to ask if this could be done hehe

Well, examine who does the name-calling.
There may well be those who will never understand, or who don't actually wish to learn what is learnable herein. It's a sad state of affairs, but realize that the name calling comes from the weak side of this discussion. Over the course of these two massive threads on the topic, a great deal of folks have learned something.

Concurrently, a large number of people have been banned. The side of the fence that they have come from has invariably been obvious.





Unfortunately, you are, in some cases, correct. Which is why I've just said:






No, no, no no, yallways, in this you are utterly incorrect.

Our astronauts cannot be brainwashed, and they would not say any such thing (do you have any idea of the character and abilities of these people we call astronauts?). Our astronauts have been steadfast for 40 years. It's not happening, there's no possibility of it, and they either laugh or are irritated at the suggestions by a minority of un-educated people who adhere to prevalent uninformed mythology.

They did this thing. And the purpose of this thread is not to argue the point...it is to educate those who desire to learn.



.

People are certainly entitled to see things in their own way. However, knowledge tends to influence how things are seen. People who argue against Apollo are lacking specific knowledge. Again, this thread, and the prior thread, are designed to impart that knowledge (knowledge is power, right? Well, this is a power thread...).



In so many cases, that's true.
But remember, here, we're not looking for anyone to eat humble pie. We're looking to educate, because learning is fun.


Now, of course, when someone comes here and decides to make unsubstantiated declarations, it may be somewhat boring (since most of what they say has been fleshed out in massive detail before), and some folks get into hammering on them as a result.


That's a wee bit undertandable.


It's why I always ask for questions about doubts rather than declarations...

Let not your heart be troubled. If we reach one out of a hundred, we've accomplished something.

And the fact is, WE HAVE!

My Case and point right here people. Everything remains debatable.

Well, many think it is a good idea (in fact, it is an essential part of our exploration plans for the future) and it can, and will be done. Hopefully late this year LRO will be launching to the Moon.


However, in regard to its imaging capabilities, those will be primarily used to map out future possible sites, not the old ones (real science, not wastes of time and effort). However, depending on orbital convergence at any given moment, LRO might just train it's cameras on an Apollo landing site and derive an image heretofore unseen. It's an intriguing possibility, but even such images, to a half meter resolution, will do little to convince a died-in-the-wool HB of Apollo's reality.

We might see the distinctive shape of an Apollo LM descent stage on the surface, but it won't be this:







And we already have about 6000 such photos taken right there, on the surface.

What do we need an orbiter photo that will never approach this for?


And whan you think about, even if we land there again, say, where the photo above was taken (Taurus Littrow Valley, December, 1972), and send back photos of this very place...no HB would believe it anyway!





It would have to have been faked....

LOL I agree MID, they could travel to the moon themselves and see the site personally and still cry "conspiracy!!"

So what are your thoughts on the subject? The hoax itself, not the debate on the hoax.

A considered response...
I am supposing I left some room for debatability here?

Perhaps then, you wish to debate?


One one hand, everything, it seems, is indeed debatable. Then again, as I said, knowledge of the facts tends to give one an upper hand.


Here's the thing:

1. The 8000 + posts on these two massive threads have clearly illustrated that this is debatable. Otherwise, we wouldn't have flooded the bandwidth with > 8000 posts about something so apparent to most people.

2. The 8000 + posts on these threads have also clearly illustrated that debate requires subject matter knowledge and also assumes a degree of debatability...to wit:

3. The 8000 + posts on these two threads also clearly illustrates that there isn't any debatability inherent; but rather illustrates that there is a profound and rather distressing lack of knowledge inherent in those who wish to "debate" the most documented technical and scientific accomplishment in human history, barring none.

So, were you posting to illustrate the obvious, or were you intent on debating it?


I spent some time posting, which included the following:



Perhaps you missed that?
I'm not interested in debating the undebatable, but rather in educating those who somewhat understandably don't know...


Again, to repeat what I've said many, many times:





You're not being completely clear here. If you wish to debate, ask some questions. That's where the fun happens.

I think, Slave, there'd be a way for that to actually happen!




p.s....love that avatar...it expresses feelings that have materialized in many of us on these threads!

I have my opinions but I'm afraid to express them too much. I spent time as Military Intelligence during desert storm and I think that even if I make some assumptions that are close (by accident) that someone somewhere might think I'm leaking real information.

Still I like to debate on it because I never had anything to do with this topic. My 'theory' is that there is definitely something being hidden about it (what, I'm not sure). I believe that the original landing was faked in order to claim the position and then when details were better perfected, an additional secret mission was carried out to cover the conspiracy by taking the necessary scraps to the moon that will be needed to prove things later. Just a theory because I do know for a fact that when a cover-up or something occurs in the government is not ever left unattended to. there are always things going on in the background to keep their tracks covered up with just the right amount of dirt (not too much and not too little). You will never find the truth on the internet (that is to say 'proof' of the truth) because this was one of the main concepts of the internet to begin with. My MOS was 'Tactical Telecommunications Com-Center Operator' (74C) Military Intelligence 501 of the 532nd with a Top Secret clearance (the level of which is not important because everything is compartmentalized anyway). I know this to be true. Allowing people to connect computer to computer over the original design (V-Link) was to unstable and a new idea needed to be installed. A world web of information that the world will come to rely on as the sole source of information communication is a great way to make tracking and controlling of information so much easier and effective. Hence the Internet was redesigned and developed in such a way that nothing becomes secret except for what they want to become secret.

You may as well not consider what I said above as being anything classified because it is a known fact now that this is true about the internet. Does anyone out there think that they can place anything, send anything or receive anything on the internet about what is really going on and the government not be able to find it? You can create whatever encryption programs or coding software that you want but remember one thing... It will always have to work with the primary construct of the internet to even be able to work period.

My views on the subject of the moon landing on the other hand are pretty much the same as yours... I have my beliefs and I have my theories... and certain things I know for a fact.... but when I step back and take a look at it all from a distance.... I still don't anything for certain. If I did, I wouldn't need to be in here listening to what everyone else had to say about it.

Oops... I didn't mean that offensively. I was referring to the fact that every post seems to have a disagreement to it. Pros and Cons.

How? You know what is involved in the launch of a Saturn V. (If you don't, ask. It is a hell of a lot.) How was one assembled and launched in total secrecy without the entire Florida coast knowing about it?

Also, why do you think that the original landing was faked? What was impossible about landing in July 1969, and if it was possible at a later date, why didn't NASA simply wait until that date and mount a legitimate, above the board mission?

Also, exactly what about Apollo 11 leads you to believe that it was fake?

I know this may be annoying to some, but I don't really feel like reading through the 8000+ posts to find this info. So could someone please give me a re-cap of exactly WHY there was a need to fake the moon landing? I know we were in a space race with Russia, but why did it matter who made it to the moon first?

let's just say that alot (if not all) launches have been televised really well. But how often do we pay much attention to the landings? Plus you are thinking inside the box. Who said that they had to launch off the Florida coast? Can you see central Antarctica from there? Not to say that that is where they launch from.... but we don't always know everything.

That's what this whole thread is about to begin with. Should we just start over?

You can't have a landing without a launch. Let's get that out of the way first.

If you want to get to the Moon, you need to launch as close to the Moon's orbital plane as possible. That leaves out the polar regions, you wouldn't have enough delta V to get to the lunar orbital plane.

The Saturn V was the biggest rocket ever built. Each one was accounted for, and it took thousands of people to mount an Apollo mission. In forty years, absoluetly none of them are going to say anything about the secret Apollo mission they helped to mount? What of the billions of dollars it would have taken to build a secret launch facility and totally erase any evidence of it for one clandestine mission?

No, you can just jump in here. Tell me, why do you think it was faked, etc.

Just as some corrupt taverns leave the watered down old liquor on display behind the bar for the customers and hide the good stuff... So does the government with their technology. You know quite a bit about the extravagant amount of stuff that is involved in the preparation for a launch as well as the location of the launches because it's right there in view of the public. You really think they are going to share the good stuff with you? it's no conspiracy at all that there is a tremendous amount of technology behind the curtain that we don't know about. It's only common sense to keep it secret in order to keep the enemies from discovering it. The government leaves this planet on nearly a daily basis while the rest of you keep drinking from the dusty bottles of watered down knowledge. They spend billions of dollars not to send people into space but to keep the truth covered up. We can debate on this forever just like we can debate on the moon landing issue. Neither you nor I can prove a thing and yet it remains a matter of beliefs as apposed to facts. The fact is... You are right about what you say.... The fact is also that the government has technologies you don't know about and they admit to that... The only unknown is what those technologies are and that is what keeps us nose to nose talking about it.

Because I do. The reasons that I do is not going to help the debate any and will only raise more questions that could veer off the topic.

Then I suppose all that is left is to agree to disagree and close this thread.

Why not? But what do I know?

I'm asking you questions about the science involved, science that stands up in any physics class, and the best you can come up is, "secret technology". In this discussion, that has as much weight as saying, "A wizard did it."

So I can ask you any question about the Apollo Hoax and your answer is going to be, "secret technology"?

So, you prefer to sit back and name-call us for "name-calling" rather than commit yourself to the discussion?

I see the Apollo debate in the realm of evidence. There are mountains of evidence supporting Apollo...photographs, technical and engineering discoveries and new techniques, scientific findings, and the historic record, written and verbal.
On the hoax side, we have folks of dubious spaceflight knowledge making claims about the hardware and the space environment which have been clearly proven wrong.
In my opinion, the real question is simple. IF indeed Apollo was hoaxed, SOMETHING would drive this requirement to build an entire "hoax" program. Disregarding the enormity of the problems involved in a massive hoax, what exactly made the decisionmakers throw up their hands and say "we can't do it!". Was it a hardware/technology problem? Was it the space environment? Something had to motivate the hoax...what was it? Something made going to the Moon impossible for us.
I have yet to see an answer that makes real sense.

yallways...


I think you've made yourself clear.

You've got some opinions, perhaps some doubts, perhaps some questions...


This is the place for 'em.
But you see, you've met one of those folks who's gonna force you into discussion and fleshing out stuff. Our Nuclear Canine (ARF!) here is trying to pull you into a TALK.

...don't worry, Atomic Dog doesn't bite. he does, howqever glow in the dark in a mysterious green phosphorescence...



But be aware, you're gonna have to think about it and ask...



Let me give you a little hint here...



Most of what we discuss doesn't seem to be in public view...or at least wasn't in public view (it is now, but no matter how hard we seem to try, few avail themselves of the opportunity to actually look at it!)

.


Yes...
I was rather aware of the good stuff when it was actually good stuff...40 years ago.



No, they don't. The government doesn't leave this planet at all. It might help them if some of them did, honestly.




Please try to avoid things like that. It sounds a little over the top, you know.

Just Saturday, we got back from 14 days on orbit...and as we speak, three of our bretheren (two of them un-associated with the U.S. Government at all) are on orbit, and will be for months to come.


What do you mean?





Cardinal sin.

No, the Apollo program is not a matter of belief. Read what I told you. It is a matter of knowledge.

Belief is the realm of faith and conjecture, and HBs. Knowledge is in the realm of those of us who know something about the topic...and I think it would behoove you not to jump to conclusions about the people here....we have engineers and technicians and scientists and all sorts of really smart folks who actually do know something about it here...


Look, it seems apparent that you are entertaining doubts.
Rather than post nebulous lengthy paragraphs referring to obscurities....outline specifics for yourself. What bugs you about Apollo?

Ask it...


Take your time. One question at a time.
That's the best way to get what you're looking for.


It's a complicated topic with many, many facets.

Point out exactly where I called anybody names.

Anyone and anything connected with the government IS the government as long as that is the taxpayers money funding it.



What about this forum topic? is that NOT over the top?



Who's 'we'? I wasn't there so all I can go by is what I am being told... which is one of the common delimas behind conspiracy.



And I have knowledge about things that you don't as well. I am very familiar with government cover-ups and have been apart (albeit a small part) of them myself that is unrelated to this topic. As long as one is definite then another is still a possibility. Knowledge is based only upon what we learn and what we learn is based only upon what we are exposed to. Anything else is a belief or something derived from the deduction of facts based on common sense.



I've never jumped to any conclusions about anyone anymore than I have mentioned any names. however you speak directly to me and you have no idea what my full background is nor are we here to discuss my background. On another note, other people's background is not in my interest nor does it have to do with anything I'm talking about unless their background also includes the knowledge that has been so well kept from them to this day.



We all entertain doubts... about some things. And yet we still withhold knowledge about others.

Obscurities? You mean all this stuff that people present as evidence and yet someone still claims to have some reasoning for it? Ok fine... I'll present one and we'll work from there....


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2...sX0Dg&hl=en

What people are overlooking the most about this video is not as much the 'so called' facts described in the video but the responses of the astronauts. Not the fact that most of them would not swear on the bible that they went to the moon, but the nervous reactions and fidgeting that was involved insomuch as the body language alone tell you that something is not right here. Put yourself in their position... what would you have done if you really went to the moon? the reactions in which they gave were more like those of a guilty party trying to change the subject and make accusations, etcetera... anything they could in order to prevent them from being cornered into telling the truth.

Yes this one is debatable like the all the others but is merely something I have not seen covered in this thread. And like I said... I would like to see what others think about the astronauts responses rather than just the facts presented and that they were confronted about. Not to show you that I am right but to see if I am right. Like I said earlier in the thread... If I KNEW what was going on, I would not need your input. I want to know what others think so that I can see other viewpoints on if this is how they would react if confronted with something that they did in fact do.

I'm not here to prove or disprove anything.... you want me to bring up an obscurity... there it is. I have more that I can present later that isn't even on the internet unless it's somewhere I have not looked. Last time I brought it up in www.abovetopsecret.com, the entire thread disappeared (maybe just a coincidence).


You know I should bring one thing up about this video though.... I really think that no matter what the case as far as the moon landing situation that these people generally went about this all the wrong way. I couldn't see anybody harassing these guys like this and calling this entertainment or even evidence. A lot of evidence can be presented and people can be confronted but there is still a right and wrong way to go about it. If I were one of these astronauts, this guy and his crew would be spending more time in the hospital than editing their film to present only the stuff they want you to see.

You claim that Apollo is a hoax, and when asked to produce evidence, you refer to "secret technology". Please produce some evidence of this secret technology, and show how it was used to produce the hoax.

Can you even hear what you are saying? Produce evidence? Wouldn't be very secret if people could just present it right here in the forum, huh? Nice try though.

You first. Please point out exactly where we (specifically, Apollo Proponents) called anybody names. If we did, I bet I can show you some provocation.

Well then... if its so secret, how do you know about it?

You must have heard about it or read about or been told about it somewhere, sometime.



Cz

I can produce evidence of the existence of the F-117 stealth fighter, the B-2 bomber, and the B83 nuclear bomb, and they are very secret.

Can you produce evidence of the existence of the "secret technology" used to produce the Moon Hoax?

Can you produce evidence of the existence of the "secret technology" used to "leave this planet on a daily basis"?

Can you even produce evidence that this "planet is left on a daily basis"?

Without evidence, you are merely handwaving.

Your turn.

What's so secret about something I just watched on the discovery channel not two days ago? I'm not referring to stuff that is secret but people have talked about or leaked information about.

I'm referring to things that you know nothing about, haven't heard about, haven't conjured up in your wildest dreams or seen in sci-fi films and I am not at liberty to tell you either. That's the whole reason I simply refer to things as 'secret technology'. This is just a very mediocre way of trying to get people to talk about stuff you really have no need to hear about. Do you really want to know what it is? The answer will be the same every time... "I wouldn't tell you anything even if proved information that you had the correct clearance because I have no orders to reveal anything to you regardless. And the fact that I no longer work for the military should tell you that I will never receive those orders either.". Just refer to the term 'secret technology' and deal with it. It's all you'll get. And to simply explain how it was used is pretty much the same as telling you what it is. I'm not your duck. Go try someone else.

Perhaps you misread AtomicDog's post...



If you'd take the time to read a bit more carefully, you'd see that LLL is definitely NOT an Apollo Proponent. LLL has a history of resorting to name calling when his "opinions" are categorically refuted, which they always are, and this habit of his has gotten him in trouble with the moderators in the past, most recently yesterday I believe for the very same "imbecile" post you've quoted.

So... ball's back in your court...


Cz

So we're just supposed to "take your word for it" I suppose...?

I think you'll find that few if any will, and because of that, your opinions will hold little to no weight, nor be very convincing.

I realize you don't care much either way, but just an FYI regardless...



Cz

Fair enough explanation as far as this thread is concerned but you also misread my post when the whole topic was about forums in general... Not any one particular thread or person for that matter. What's name-calling got to do with conspiracies? It was part of a larger post that didn't revolve around just name calling but rather was a small insignificant example of a larger view. Let it go already. Are you this bored?

Alrighty then...


By and large, the name calling is usually one-way, with the hoax believers or conspiracy proponents (or whatever term you choose to apply) hurling them at those of us on the other side of the fence. It usually comes just after one or all of their points or opinions are thoroughly rebuked. And it is certainly not limited to this thread or this topic in general. You'll see it in most of the major threads on this and many other boards.


Whether I'm bored or not has very little to do with the desire to present accurate information and to clear up misconceptions...


Cz

I never asked you to take my word for it. I just gave you something to consider just like everyone else here does. OMG people. When did this forum become about me? I'm about dumb (period) in what I do know - just as you people are smart about what you don't. In other words.... Who am I to say that just because I know one thing for a fact that all your beliefs and perceptions are not even more true about other things? As far as the Military is concerned... I'm like the guy at wal-mart that calls himself a mechanic cause he changes your oil.... So what? Does that make him knowledgeable about everything to do with cars? Not even close. hes just some kid trained in one thing while more skilled people take care of the other things. Quit taking everything I say so personally. Move on!

Ok your responses at this point are well respected enough that I'll just back down now. I don't see anything controversial about this so well done.

wires thin enough to not be seen with the video quality .



they were attacjed at belly level with some harness , and the wires attached somewhere in that harness , between the backpack and the naut .



i'm talking about the 14,5 second 'jump'.



the answer is no , i already explained why they aren't natural , the naut is jumping +- 70cm high without making a balance check . but comming from a guy that convinced himself that a flagpole rotation cause the flag to move in the famous apollo 15 scene , i'm not surprised that these jumps appear normal to you mid.

LOL... love how you worded that.

As far as I'm concerned, "secret technology" , the way you are using it, is another way of saying, "it was magic". It is no answer, and you are conceding that you have no argument. I will say this every time you bring it up. YOU deal with it.

You are Arguing From Authority. When asked to show evidence of this Authority, you claim that you can't, that it was "secret", but trust us, you have it. How is that not taking your word for it?

Around here, when you make an assertion, you will be asked to provide evidence of that assertion. I will ask you for evidence. Deal with it.

And how thin would that be ( I think I told you already, but apparently, you don't read...)?



Really?
Can you illustrate that? Some harness...between the "naut" and his backpack?

Hint: there wasn't any space between the "naut" and his PLSS. It was flush mounted to his back. In a painstaking process that took about 25 minutes per man to accomplish, sans any harnesses and connections!...






So what...that's just fine too, and has been explained to you.







No. you explained why they don't look normal to you. You obviously don't realize, nor do you wish to realize, that these are in fact natural manifestations of 1/6 g behavior.

I didn't convince myself of anything. I know why the flag moved in the Apollo 15 scene (virtually without a doubt). It is obvious to me...but then again, I know a little bit about physics...and stuff like that....and that issue is long since fleshed out, explained ad nauseam and dead. It's irrelevant.

The jumps appear "natural" to me because I know what I'm looking at...I knew what I was looking at then too, when I first saw them...along with a whole bunch of people who also knew what they were looking at.


You're wasting our time here LLL. You appear here simply to make nonsensical declarations based upon your ignornace of the facts. You won't actually ask questions about your doubts...you just want to hear yourself and see yourself in print.