NASA 2024 moon landing jeopardized because space suits aren't readyhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pU-i4r8MjsI
If they did it more times in the past, why are they developing again the necessary technologies?
They still use Soyuz rockets to bring spacemen on the ISS, but they allegedly had the technology to bring them to the moon.
>B-but the people who had the know-how died so they need to do the work all over again
Yeah, sure.>B-but they didn't it again because there is no incentive to do it anymore
There is no economic incentive in space exploration at all, that's why SpaceX is in deep red and basically only takes public funding. Also owning a base on the moon is a big strategic advantage.
You understand the technology to get to mars already exists right and has for decades at this point with ion thrusters, engines capable of transporting spacecraft 100s of thousands of km/h? We’re not sending people to different planets anymore when it’s far more efficient to send robots that can collect information on an industrial scale and don’t need to be fed clothed sheltered and what not and likewise space programs around the world stopped sending people to different planets willingly.
OP your a fucking moron and a schizo repeating talking points already made and debunked by Americans
And also debunked by the rest of the international scientific community
>>1634>We’re not sending people to different planets anymore when it’s far more efficient to send robots that can collect information
If it's not convenient why are they attempting to do another landing then, let alone a fucking base on Mars?
You mean corporations are using 60s space tech for marketing the idea that they aren’t larping
We already have mars bases a lot of countries have several on the moon. It’s just not efficient anymore man just leave it
It didn't happen because the US is a fake country, it's all an elaborate CGI scam made by the anglos
Space Race 2.0 for the Cold War 2.0
Oh boy, another worthless schizo thread on Leftypol
Very ironic to hate reddit so much when the people here are just as retarded in their own special way
Even if I gave you the concession that man did not put one foot on the moon, man indeed actually at the very least orbited the moon, this is fact.
>space boots [sic]
Just derail these threads ans raise the stakes by spouting even more insane conspiracy theories until you fry those schizos brains. It's a fun public service
>>1632>If they did it more times in the past, why are they developing again the necessary technologies?>They still use Soyuz rockets to bring spacemen on the ISS, but they allegedly had the technology to bring them to the moon.
The Soviet space program had it's own production. To replicate stuff from the Soyuz program: un-mothball a bunch of old equipment and then train people to use it. The American Space program used a lot of private contractors to fabricate components of their space program, and many of those are just gone. They might have kept the blueprints for the spacesuit but the fabrication processes that were used, are lost to history. Maybe they figured that so much had to be reinvented that making a new suit from scratch was easier.
All you are saying doesn't debunk the OP's claim, you merely provide a different equally plausible explanation. When we go into detail, we will find that OP's theory is more plausible, though.
There is an extensive book on the faking of the moon landings by the USA by Yuri Muhin. Highly recommend it.
it's in /roulette/ because the monthly theme is /x/ lol
I do have some information that is important. According to a rather obscure law, all companies contracted to the US military (NASA is in essence part of it) must destroy all tools and production line machines in relation to any vehicle or armament that has ended production, thus the F-22, M2 Bradley and most famously the F-14 Tomcat not only cannot have their production lines unmothballed, but cannot even produce new pare parts. The same applies to the Moon program technology.
That being said, it should be extremely easy for modern technology to deconstruct the process of making old space suits, especially since space suits for brief space travel are used on the ISS and can simply be improved upon, and not to mention MIT providing concepts and prototypes often (pic related). >>1648
Also forgot to mention that a couple years back the original VHS tapes of the moon landing 'vanished' and NASA suspects someone recorded over the existing tape or tossed it. Extremely suspicious to me; so yes all videos you can find today are digital copies that are often "restored" and so likely edited and cleaned up using VFX.
>>1642>waaaah muh schizos, muh rebbit <no stupid don't think about things critically just accept thing claimed as fact and never try to understand them!
Do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up; you're the retard, spamming your retarded anprim kiddie flag and screaming "schizo" constantly.
True. >>1635>debunked by the rest of the international scientific community
Not OP but that's rubbish, Plenty of people including those that are scientists question the validity of the landings.
>>1652>scientists question the validity of the landings.
>>1650> Also forgot to mention that a couple years back the original VHS tapes of the moon landing 'vanished' and NASA suspects someone recorded over the existing tape or tossed it.
I call bullshit.
>>1656>explain how they managed to stream that video feed uninterrupted for the entire time they were on the lunar surface<streaming video from the moon uninterrupted is easier than doing it from land or just playing a recorded video
what did he mean by this
>Le first landing was fake
How about the other 5?
I find the idea fascinating, but unfortunately there's too much stigma around the subject to have a sincere discussion about it. The landing was a huge propaganda victory for the US, it would have seriously harmed the trust people had in the US government if the landing was faked and people found out. That's plenty of reason to attempt to undermine any questioning of the landing as coming from delusional schizophrenics that deny science (a lot of of it does, flat earth people and other space deniers flock to this subject), and the US has used these propaganda tactics before to stifle discussion and criticism on legitimate subjects that could have potentially damaged the reputation of the empire. Most people, especially those with a reputation to maintain, do not want to be associated with schizophrenics that deny science, so they steer clear of any kind of discussion of this subject beyond "it's real, I'm not one of those kooks, let's move on."
I think the subject is irrelevant today since trust in the US government and other capitalist institutions has been on decline for more legitimate reasons than "they lied about the moon landing", if it turned out to be true I think most people today would not particularly care. Moon-landing conspiracies have been incorporated into this greater "conspiracy-entertainment" bubble alongside many other popular conspiracy theories. Most of the conspiracy discussion you see online (especially among right-wingers) is within this bubble. The people that consume it may legitimately believe it, but they consume because it makes them feel like they're the protagonist of the movie uncovering a massive government coverup. A "victory" in this sphere wouldn't affect the empire's reputation that much, or incite any real anti-capitalist movement. It would get a couple of articles, the conspiracy consumers will feel good about themselves, and then everyone would move on to the next hot topic.
This is a good summary IMO, not taking a side jut pointing out the social impact and relevance (or lack thereof) in this discussion. >It would get a couple of articles, the conspiracy consumers will feel good about themselves, and then everyone would move on to the next hot topic.
Sadly yes, people had very little reaction to the revelations brought to light by Assange, Snowden and by the CIA declassifying their files on things like MK ULTRA and COINTELPRO, most people just couldn't care less, because pic related - nobody has the time to think about thee kinds of things except entitled middle-class fags that don't do anything but stir drama on social media for a short time.
On the subject, anyone remember that article about Neil Armstrong punching someone that said the Moon Landing had been fake?
maybe actually watch the video
it's a professional videographer talking about the video technology that existed at the time and what the theories it was faked would require
1) you're replying to 2 different people
2) My Greentext/Orangetext specifically is a reply to the post, not the video Embed.
3) I too am a 'videographer', and understand the complexities of VFX especially in those times. That said: Nothing he says is actually anything truly concrete against the landings being possible hoaxes; merely stating that faking a landing is hard. Something that he does not go into is that there did not exist HD quality in that time, As he stated Color TV was a rather recent development in 1969 and the video feed for the Moon Landing is so blurry that it makes special effects very easy to hide, a fact that is still used today in modern computer editing, using blur effects to muddle and merge the border of CGI and live-action special effects.
The video addresses the "Kubrick" story or rather the amalgamatedly confused account of various events, formed into a urban legend. Again this doesn't debunk anything but the lumped together myths that got perpetuated alongside facts.
On the "muh photographs and "broad daylight" camera set up, he kind of forgets that in SPACE, light is not refracted through the atmosphere, so a camera set for "daylight" on earth is going to become overexposed due to the light having no filter and Stars ought to show up. All he's doing is making claims and using argument by authority but isn't actually backing it up. There was a documentary from a decade back or so that had a bunch of people attempt to recreate the landing using basic practical effects perfectly available to people of the time and succeeded. He's overstating the complexity and making nebulous statements that in summary do mean that apparently a bunch of Astronauts, that have no reason to be able to operate cameras perfectly in their bulky pressurized suits and acting in the lone void of space rather than an atmosphere could not have had such perfect photos, The American flag shouldn't be flapping and previous photos from cameras in space probes and satellites of the same era had much lower quality and often did show stars… such as the photos from the Soviet Moon launches.
Also do you really think that the USA, a country that has engaged in numerous PROVEN and sometimes self-admitted false-flags and conspiracies couldn't pull this off? That these people are so incompetent as to not possibly create a passable hoax that has explainable or dismissible inconsistencies? As posted earlier in the thread, the original tapes of the landings are famously lost, so nobody can actually check the footage for inconsistencies even if NASA permitted someone to do so, and this videographer also cannot review the original tapes.
The site he briskly scrolls through is (FYI)https://casa.colorado.edu/~dduncan/pseudoscience/cosmicapolloHoax.htm >>1677
Also just for the record, his claims are essentially that "movie tech had been so bad that they couldn't possible fake it!" (ignoring that a couple years later A New Hope got made using the same industry special effects) and that the same applies to the photographs. The implication being that the photographs, released after the video and flight couldn't be fake because of 'technological constraints in editing'.
If that is true, than that make pic related also a hoax, as I doubt that Soviet photographers had some magic editing tech 40 years ahead of the USA, all the way back in the 1930s.
Did you miss the part where the event was broadcasted live, continuously, for over an hour, and what that would require in terms of storage and playback? If it was faked it had to have been faked live.
would it be that hard at the time to store this much film ? genuinely curious about how storage technology advanced.
1) According to the PR of the government: I doubt you could prove that a broadcast is live or a recording being played back and claimed as live, especially back then.
2) I specifically stated PHOTOGRAPHS, those did not get broadcasted live nor are claimed to be broadcasted live, and are suspiciously so HD, steady and 'clean', something that was simply impossible back then using plain photography. Even using a Tripod today that has stabilization not every photo you get is going to be good using digital camera that have advanced focusing and zoom, yet shitty fucking tape cameras that had limited zoom and focus capabilities, being handled by massive, unwieldy suit fingers turn out perfectly? Fucking rubbish that makes no sense. Even though 60s videography had been far les advanced, it is still miles easier to do a hoax than actually film this shit AND broadcast it live and have it turn out so good that digital clean up makes the photos fucking poster-worthy, give me a fucking break. >what that would require in terms of storage and playback
Yes, indeed, think about that, given that they DID store said tapes and photos, much of it ON BOARD the Apollo unit. And FFS are you really telling me that hours of film tape is harder to record on Earth and then replay than it is to broadcast live from space and simultaneously record said broadcast, ignoring the complexity of the space mission alone, the sheer complexity of that filmography far exceeds making a hoax. >>1689
Yes, the Apollo capsule had very little space - all pace capsule of the time had little space - and so cameras and film, that are extremely bulky, are fairly impossible to have in large amounts onboard without sacrificing far more necessary things like Oxygen, fuel and more. For all the video's blather about "muh undeveloped film industry" and "study de space tech" people kind of don't think about such critical things. Part of the reason the idea of Moon Landing being a hoax arose is that very shortly before, tests of the first Apollo mission planned resulted in deaths of several Astronauts due to the limited capabilities of the systems. No matter the complexity of filmography and VFX of the time, a Space mission is a million times more complex - that's the reason for the idiom "[X] is not Rocket Science".
Ah yes, it's this magic airbrushing, source: anticommunist propaganda book No.234
There is no evidence of this photo edit even originating from the USSR at all, I can't find a single Soviet publication featuring EITHER photograph, let alone from the time period this edit supposedly comes from. Every article that refers to this edit has lacked any sources to back it up, it could (much more easily) have been an edit in the 2000s by some photo editor, heck Stormfront made this kind of thing for the sole purpose of creating falseflag attacks on photo editing by "de gommies" such as a famous photo of 2 German soldiers holding Geese under their arms, edited to be infront of a war crime. The claim had been made that the USSR made this photo as a fake for Nuremburg, but the original photograph got traced back to the mostly dead storm front forum, but the myth continues ever since.
My point is, is that the argument made by the video is that technology had been so poor that making a hoax is far too hard… but yet using said tech films prior to, during and after the Moon Landings replicated extremely convincing Space scenes, eclipsing a 'Moon Landing', and moreover, if technology had been so poor, then it should be functionally impossible for them to have filmed it LIVE in the first place.
The only film they stored were for photographs. The video was broadcasted live back to earth along with the rest of the signal that was used to communicate with NASA on earth. There was some engineering that went into making that work but it really isn't that complex. Actually filming that much footage continuously and storing it (regardless of format) would be very expensive if it was even possible given the technology of the time. The film industry had nothing that could do it. Rolls of film that long would have to be very large, and they don't come in a size big enough to put in a camera or projector. They'd have had to do multiple takes and splice them together without jumps or film artifacts. And similarly the technology for digital video was still using very large discs because miniaturization hadn't gone far yet, so to continuously record with those you would also need a device a lot bigger than anything we know was actually made.>>1690>Yes, the Apollo capsule had very little space - all pace capsule of the time had little space - and so cameras and film, that are extremely bulky, are fairly impossible to have in large amounts onboard without sacrificing far more necessary things like Oxygen, fuel and more. For all the video's blather about "muh undeveloped film industry" and "study de space tech" people kind of don't think about such critical things.
The video wasn't recorded and then played back later. It was sent directly to earth through a live broadcast signal that was included the communications data that the craft was already designed to send back. You're not even familiar with the basic claims you're trying to debunk. The only part that was stored on the module was the photos, which IIRC were just rolls of film.>suspiciously so HD, steady and 'clean', something that was simply impossible back then using plain photography
No it wasn't. You are probably just comparing the general impression of photography tech from the period that you can remember having seen. The kinds of cameras that are used for scientific experiments (particularly on a project like this) are higher quality than the average consumer models. Stabilization is not particularly an issue if you have a reasonably high shutter speed. There are professional photographers today who still use antique camera methods because there are particular unique qualities you can get from them at extremely high resolution (for film, which being analog has theoretically "infinite" resolution).>handled by massive, unwieldy suit fingers
They had some of the best engineers in the country design the suits to be used for various tools, and the astronauts trained extensively with the suits. Everything they used was tested and sometimes redesigned for the mission. This is a ridiculous cope.
>cameras and film, that are extremely bulky, are fairly impossible to have in large amounts onboard without sacrificing far more necessary things
The video camera was famously mounted to the outside of the lander module, which is why there is footage of Armstrong stepping off the ladder. They detached the camera and moved it around on a tripod at various points.
>And FFS are you really telling me that hours of film tape is harder to record on Earth and then replay than it is to broadcast live from space and simultaneously record said broadcast, ignoring the complexity of the space mission alone, the sheer complexity of that filmography far exceeds making a hoax.
With the technology they had then it would have been impossible to record and play back that much footage. If they did it live on earth they would have had to fake the low gravity and lack of atmosphere. The entire time you can see them bouncing around in reduced gravity and they made a point to replicate a famous experiment where they dropped a hammer and feather at the same time and they both hit the ground together.
>No matter the complexity of filmography and VFX of the time, a Space mission is a million times more complex
You're talking in a way that makes it seem like you don't understand how technology in general works. It's not like video game logic where it has a certain strength that unlocks new abilities. What technology can or can't do is defined very concretely by its physical limitations. Space flight is a lot more complex than a human flapping their arms to fly, but one is possible and the other is not. Just because something is simpler doesn't mean it's more possible. They didn't have CGI back then that could render whatever you want if you just have enough computing power.
>>1693>The only film they stored were for photographs
Assuming the honesty of the landings, the amount of Film stored for photograph is - again - very small, yet as I point out, the photograph seem to be fucking epitomes of professionalism and not the efforts of Astronauts' inexperienced mangling of photography. >There was some engineering that went into making that work but it really isn't that complex
2) It's still much more complex than just broadcasting a pre-recorded video fake. >The film industry had nothing that could do it.
Yet they had the technology to do a live broadcast from the MOON. You do understand you're contradicting yourself, yes? Not to mention that people have attempted to and succeeded in replicating Moon Landing scenes using plain practical effects, easily disguised. >They'd have had to do multiple takes and splice them together without jumps or film artifacts.<has never heard of taking 1 clean take <thinks people didn't actually do this for films just as long and longer than the Moon Landing video.
Again, splicing film frames, is tough but also very well known. >the technology for digital video was still using very large discs because miniaturization hadn't gone far yet, so to continuously record with those you would also need a device a lot bigger than anything we know was actually made.
LMAO the fuck are you on about. Digital Video didn't properly exist at the time.
>>1693>The video wasn't recorded and then played back later
Source: Mainstream claim
Proof: "it just wasn't!" >It was sent directly to earth through a live broadcast signal that was included the communications data that the craft was already designed to send back <You're not even familiar with the basic claims
Yes, it is SO easy to conjure up a bunch of extra, bulky tech to send back not just basic data but clean video files REMOTELY during a time when digital video did not functionally exist. >were just rolls of film.
Yes, in a bulky reinforced camera that could not be properly adjusted and so should have ton of blur, I'm not even mentioning the HD quality of the photo in comparison to the broadcasted film. Yes Photo cameras are generally in better definition than film cameras, but not to that extent.
>>1693>No it wasn't
Are you fucking with me? The photos are extremely clean. >general impression of photography tech from the period that you can remember having seen.
I literally possess a photocamera of the era and one of the first digital photocameras and neither has even close to the professional-tier clean-ness in the Apollo photos (contrasted to the very poor video quality). >kinds of cameras that are used for scientific experiments
They are still limited by the general technological level of the time, as the video itself claims. High-shutter speed is unlikely to completely eliminate blur, yet each photo is clean as fuck, despite being mounted on the Astronaut's body as they moved (supposedly) on a low-gravity area and had trouble moving precisely due to the clumsiness of the suits. >professional photographers today who still use antique camera methods
That's not the same as consistent ordinary photography used for straightforward purposes>for film, which being analog has theoretically "infinite" resolution
Theoretical is a key phrase, it's not infinite in and of itself if you don't have the technology to exploit aid "infinite" resolution. The Lens width and length on the Apollo cameras is not comparable to the 'old-style' unique photographs. >They had some of the best engineers in the country design the suits to be used for various tools
1) NASA and the astronauts themselves mention the suits uncomfortable, heavy and clumsy nature, it's a tendency of suits of the time.
2) You're just making generic statements, the prime directive of the suits is to remain pressurized, sealed, and able to be moved in a bit. Use of cameras is the last priority. >the astronauts trained extensively with the suits
Yes, because those suits had extremely clumsy mobility, camera training is hardly the thing they'd be doing - surely NASA would save the photographs for the first training sessions of Astronauts. > Everything they used was tested and sometimes redesigned for the mission
Again, you're just making generic phrases about them doing things because they just did. >cope
No, it's logical deduction. People have trouble pushing buttons on regular cameras using gloves today without shaking the subsequent photograph. Underwater cameras today have massive buttons and limited zoom and rely on digital focusing. If technology had been so poor that no hoax could be made (again despite this feat being easily replicable using practical effects in movies before, during and after that time).
>>1693>The video camera was famously mounted to the outside of the lander module, which is why there is footage of Armstrong stepping off the ladder. They detached the camera and moved it around on a tripod at various points.
You're just stating the mainstream narrative, and mounted outside or in is not relevant; it's considered on board the ship, and the mounting has plenty of weight. >the technology they had then it would have been impossible to record and play back that much footage
Yet somehow the same technology let movies just as big be released in movie theatres? The same technologically limited systems could broadcast
Also you kind of ignore that NASA recorded their moon mission (and then later "lost" the tapes), if they can record the mission, then it is absolutely possible to record and playback such a recording. > If they did it live on earth they would have had to fake the low gravity and lack of atmosphere.
The latter is easy the atmosphere is generally not tangibly visible in light and gravity is easy to circumvent using (again) practical effects, Soviet film and American films did such things at the time. It's as easy as using wire work with thin or painted lines. >they made a point to replicate a famous experiment where they dropped a hammer and feather at the same time and they both hit the ground together
1) That's Apollo 15, not Apollo 11.
2) That's not how reduced gravity functions according to the same physics as is taught in the USA. Lunar gravity is stated to be ~1/6 of Earth's. Thus weight of both the hammer and feather are 6 times lower BUT mass does not change. If the hammer is 6 pounds and the feather is 6 ounces, then they become 1 pound and 1 ounce respectively in terms of gravitational pull and their mass remains as 2.7 kg and 170g, thus the feather and hammer should both fall slower but should not hit the ground at the same time. As for the slow fall, that is easily replicable through using basic slow motion effects.
>>1693>You're talking in a way that makes it seem like you don't understand how technology in general works.
Not at all. I'd hardly claim to be a NASA scientist, but I have read the literature of the people that pioneered space exploration and said literature discusses the sheer scale of just making a space walk in orbit of Earth. The complexity of creating all this alone is enormous. >It's not like video game logic where it has a certain strength that unlocks new abilities.
Yeah no shit you dullard, that's my point; creating even a "simple" mission to launch Sputnik required a massive infrastructure and years, if not decades of research>Space flight is a lot more complex than a human flapping their arms to fly, but one is possible and the other is not.
False equivalency, faking a space mission and using practical effects to do so is a technologically limited venture that is possible. >They didn't have CGI back then
They didn't have CGI for decades before and after and yet Space films and replication of their conditions occurred.
>>1637>We already have mars bases a lot of countries have several on the moon.
>Iskander is generally described, at least in the west, as a ‘quasi-ballistic’ missile. But ‘quasi’ or not, the US considers the Iskander a very dangerous weapon, and a type of weapon which it does not yet possess. In fact, the US’ attempts to develop its very first hypersonic missile have been rather slow out of the blocks. Its first flight test attempt with the proposed Lockheed-Martin AGM183 [aka ARRW] in April of this year, did not even manage to release the rocket from the wing of the B52 carrier! The second attempt, on July 29, managed to get the rocket to release, but the engine failed to fire!
>Clearly the US is many years away from fielding a working hypersonic missile. These early tests were only supposed to test the rocket, and carried a dummy ‘glide vehicle’ which is supposed to separate from the rocket once it reaches a speed of about M 6 or so, and then glide to its target while maneuvering.
That's why I keep saying that US never went to the Moon. They don't have the technological expertise to do so now, and they apparently never did before either.
I was hoping I could embed a timestamp. Jump to 30 seconds: https://youtube.com/watch?v=--AaixSNCUg&t=30s
For those that don't get it, Neil was in the position to claim he was not able to see the stars because the sun was too bright but that reason do not applies to Michael. Michael was circumnavigating the moon and therefore in the dark side of the route he MUST have been able to see stars and Neil tried to get him to shut up so he didn't blunder into that. https://archive.ph/9Yier
Where did you get this qboomer meme
>>1691>but the original photograph got traced back to the mostly dead storm front forum, but the myth continues ever since.
Yeah, I remember this shit. There were two or three photos Russian Nazis edited, very obvious edits even, which they tried to pass as Soviets trying to fake Nazi warcrimes
I literally just searched Google Images for a fragment of that quote, but the quote is real. I picked the weird shitty result on purpose for A E S T H E T I C S, you're welcome.
So generic low-content inspiring message about science, or leak of something like a Stargate program?
supply chains dumbass
the first moon landings were built on 20+ years of special government planned and funded infrastructure that was completely abandoned in the 70s and 80s
>>2078>the first moon landings were built on 20+ years of special government planned and funded infrastructure that was completely abandoned in the 70s and 80s <implying that modern technology and industry can't replicate these supply chains<implying the modern technology can't reduce and make such supply chains easier
I'm genuinely surprised we have proper moonschizos on this website
>>1632>B-But I put the correct arguments in greentext with a stutter so they're wrong!
Not OP, but whatever: >Muh stutter greentext is correct!
No, no it is not. Even if the technology cannot be literally remade using the old tools, and the original creators may not be around, replicating the capability should be childs play given the advancement of technology in the half-century since the first alleged moon landing. This isn't magic, where the old magician guild members die and their arcane knowledge gets lost forever, it's engineering, science and mechanics and the calculations needed can be replicated through repeating the process.
And again, NASA has the tech to send rovers to Mars, but can't replicate the Moon-landings? Laughable. If they had claimed they didn't have the rockets and ability on hand for a manned mission at the moment, that's a different matter; that makes sense, a manned space mission has different needs than unmanned probe launches, BUT NASA has been planning and putting off a manned Mars mission for at least a decade already, so this implies study of technology to make such a distance, including a launch rocket and return system, far in excess of a 'mere' Moon Landing. So there is a contradiction. Today a moon-landing is very much possible, the technology has advanced so far that numerous electronics can be made very compact and oxygen systems have been refined for decades, not to mention rocket engines and modules and materials improved. Heck they are planning one for 2024 ' Artemis I and despite setbacks in terms of issues and funding, seems to be possible, ( https://archive.ph/KUqCZ
) But that´s a different discussion for the /edu/ Space thread. https://archive.ph/zNgFb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_mission_to_Mars
>>2102 >no incentive
That's not the meaning that NASA had, in claiming they couldn't do it, they claimed they couldn't replicate the technology and so do the moon landing. >America has totally gutted its public sector and privatized everything
True >many of America's scientists involved in the moon landing (like von braun) were brain drained from other countries
True, but claiming America lacks the engineers and scientists capable of replicating the calculations and mechanics is not true.
Lost tech or not, NASA should theoretically be able to do it. But if they can't then they shouldn't be able to have done it repeatedly for Apollo, either option means someone is lying about something.
>he thinks the moon is real
>Thousands of scientists cooldn't keep that secret REEEEEE!
All and I mean all government contracts in the US are divided up in such a way that you are in charge of or make part A you have 0 information what its for or what its going towards nor about part B-Z. This is to prevent any and all leaks and keep complete confidentiality. Bombs, aircraft, weapons, rockets everything you can think of. If a scientist is told to build a rocket he is not going to be the same person seeing it in action. What this comes down to is the number of people truly in the know about the operation can be counted on 2 hands. Someone in control of watching the monitors has 0 fucking clue on if anything even took place as no readings would show it. Because of this it is very likely faked considering we "cant" go back and that the technology is "lost". Either everyone who built a part is dead or has no memory of what they built or the final product failed and is properly kept under wraps. The men that made the NASA crawler are currently the only ones that can properly repair it and not enough of them are alive to ever replicate it without taking it apart, measuring it all and putting it back together. You can create a similar device again, but not 1:1 replication, nor could it be done back then either, since only this handful of engineers understood them.
They didn't necessarily fake all the rockets and stuff, they failed to go to space/reach the moon. A hoax landing footage could have easily been made after the initial Apollo tests had failures that killed the originally planned crew.
TL;DR: The Left hand is not going to know what the Right hand does and vice-versa
To film a movie continuously, in one shot, is very hard, and definitely impossible with the 60s tech. First film filmed in this technique is 1982 Macbeth, and for nearly a 20 years it was the only one, until the digital technology made storage of thousands of gigabytes of video stream possible.
In 2002 "Russian Ark" were made, a 96 minute one-cut story of the Russian Hermitage through centuries. It involved two failed attempts, continuous work of 2000+ people, separately produced sound track (as in not only music, but also dialogues and ambient sound) and mounth-long digital postproduction, during which objects such as mike booms, cameras, crew reflections and such were removed, lighting adjusted, certain scenes tempo dilated or compressed.
This kind of work is a pinnacle of the camera operator mastery and requires flawless coorditaion of the work of hundreds or thousands, especially when you also need to synchronised the whole action with the real-time radio transmissions that any ham radio enthusiast on Earth could receive. In 60s it would be easier to actually sent man on the moon than to produce such elaborate cinematographic hoax/
To fake the moon landing it would be way easier to just broadcast it and use some device to simulate lower gravity. Doesn't explain how they did the bit dropping the hammer and feather though. They'd need to simulate a vacuum as well. And also lighting from the sun.
>>1690>so HD, steady and 'clean', something that was simply impossible back then using plain photography
Go get yourself a medium format camera, you'll be surprised how good the images will be (and by good I mean "better than any consumer APS-c digital camera in 2022"). The cleanliness and steadinees are directly proportional to sensor/film size, and with 60x60 mm frame MF is 125 times better
than your iphone 6.4x4.5 sensor.
Add ultra-bright direct sunlight, unobsured by atmosphere, to the equation and you have the best photo setup imaginable.
>limited zoom and focus capabilities, being handled by massive, unwieldy suit fingers turn out perfectly?
You don't know shit about photography and consider a team of engineers dumber than you at the same time. Film drive was electrified and automated, control rings on lens fitted with glove-friendly tabs, lighting was plentiful - you set the aperture at f/8, focal range at 5-10 m, exposure at 1/1000 and fire away - from ~1 m everything will be in focus, crisp and clean.
I'm trying to explain how hard it is to get that "it": actors working on complex set for hours, zero crew fuckups, synchronised radio relay on the Moon and on Earth/Moon trajectory. So hard to fake it's easier to actually go to the Moon and film there.
I know, was just saying that one of the big things is broadcasting would be easier than filming. Another anon asked specifically about filming.
From a purecly technical point of view - yes, otherwise no, because you can't post-product and have only 1 chance. Whatever, the arguments apply both to filming and to broadcasting equally.
>>2138 >To film a movie continuously, in one shot, is very hard<it's really hard to take a grainy video camera and film shit fucking around
This kind of work is a pinnacle of the camera operator mastery
If you're filming a documentary using high resolution cameras and need to keep extreme details in check. The Apollo videos, particularly the first one are not that, they're grainy, blurry videos of people fucking bouncing around on "the moon" and doing some shit to the module. THAT is not hard to film in a single shot. >synchronised the whole action with the real-time radio transmissions
You do realize that they have the perfect excuse of "communications delay" due to distance yes? You can easily put aside discrepancies in video/audio communication synchronization to that.
>In 60s it would be easier to actually sent man on the moon than to produce such elaborate cinematographic hoax
Y'all are REALLY Underestimating the toughness of fucking ROCKET SCIENCE. People use the idiom "its not rocket science" for a fucking reason. I urge you to rad some Soviet books on preparing for a space walk and the thousands upon THOUSANDS of people it took to set up every aspect of it, the immense calculations unaided by any modern computer and the need to PERFECTLY align parts in rockets and space capsules and space suits and everything else so that the mission doesn't literally go kablooey. Space technology didn't progress that fast in the USA.>>2140> The cleanliness and steadinees are directly proportional to sensor/film size, and with 60x60 mm frame MF is 125 times better than your iphone 6.4x4.5 sensor
I don't have an iphone, but ok faggot. And this is all technical specs. In perfect conditions smartphones are supposed to have super-HD photos, but conditions are never perfect and you're going to get degradation - grain from lack of light, blurriness from motion, blurriness from an unfocused camera, etc. In non-digital cameras this matters too, hell matters even more back then since there existed no auto-stabilizers, no automatic focus, etc. The cameras used to take the "super hi-res" moon photos are literal boxes strapped to an Astronauts chest, they cannot feasibly adjust zoom or focus, they are not a tripod so shakiness is inevitable, especially on an unsupported chest mount etc. >ultra-bright direct sunlight, unobsured by atmosphere
Overexposure is also a thing you fucking dingbat, too much sunlight is going to overexpose the film, and the amount of lens cover needed to reduce it is nuts.
>You don't know shit about photography
No YOU don't know shit, all you're doing is spouting technical specs and vague 'concepts' that do not directly apply to real life a lot of the time. >Film drive was electrified and automated
That only makes it slightly easier, you're still not going to get shit from an automated film drive if you're not careful, and 'glove friendly tabs' is fucking laughable, given that it's not the size even, but the lack of tactile sense and the uncomfortable positioning on top of a lack of ability to see a clear image of what is being photographed >lighting was plentiful
Yeah not part of my sentence you greened, but you're still ignoring over-exposure. Even if you take into account modifications, NASA is not likely to be able to have PERFECT exposure counters, because exposure changes depending on angle and position to the source of light. >you set the aperture at f/8, focal range at 5-10 m, exposure at 1/1000 and fire away - from ~1 m everything will be in focus, crisp and clean
In a perfect environment on a TRIPOD, not on the chest of a tottering man standing on a lunar satellite, even if you try to stand absolutely stock-still your body is going to produce minor shakes and vibrations and you have to time a shot just right to get a clear photograph, or in the case of shooting using a scoped rifle, get a clear shot. That's in normal conditions. Imagine now being in lowered gravity that you are NOT used to, and that you have to walk around in like a bungee-jumper or dragging your feet. Not to mention an inflexible suit. Even if you increase shutterspeed you're going to get a slight blur effect.
Unique IPs: 32