Camera work of Apollo 17

wogoga

Critical Thinker
W
Joined
Apr 16, 2007
Messages
334
An astronaut on the moon can obviously follow another astronaut when filming.

The video 1972: Apollo 17 (NASA) provides also situations where the camera follows both astronauts. This is possible by preprogramming the camera work, such as e.g. at 16:30 when the two astronauts present the Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock.

Yet at 8:50 the camera even follows an astronaut slipping and falling outside the camera focus. Did they use a sophisticated interaction between camera and astronauts, or is this video a fake?

Cheers, Wolfgang
 
They even made a point of showing this on the "From the Earth to the Moon" mini-series. Ed Fendell was one of the camera operators back on earth.
 
What I find very distressing is how often in conspiracy theories the same question is asked, answered, and then asked again and again. There appears to be no killing a stupid question- it just lives on and on because the goal of conspiracy theory is the conspiracy, not the facts.

Even I, who do not follow the Apollo conspiracy theorist very much, knew the answer to this question.

And I fully expect either (1) a rejection of this answer based on something "not looking right" to the conspiracists as they would expect to see it (perhaps involving the 1.3 second time delay each way Earth to Moon, the angle of the shadows, etc.) or (2) this particular thread being dropped, only to have someone (maybe even wogoga) bring up the same question months from now.
 
wogoga said:
Did they use a sophisticated interaction between camera and astronauts, or is this video a fake?
Click to expand...

Wow, you really don't know much about Apollo, do you?

The "sophisticated interaction" between camera and astronauts was effected by a man named Ed Fendell whose major job at Mission Control was to remotely steer the camera assembly. And you can't get very far into the Apollo video footage without hearing the guy's name and knowing of his task. This means you really haven't done much research into the Apollo photographic record. You have to be pretty colossally ignorant not to know how this was done.
 
JayUtah said:
Wow, you really don't know much about Apollo, do you?

The "sophisticated interaction" between camera and astronauts was effected by a man named Ed Fendell whose major job at Mission Control was to remotely steer the camera assembly. And you can't get very far into the Apollo video footage without hearing the guy's name and knowing of his task. This means you really haven't done much research into the Apollo photographic record. You have to be pretty colossally ignorant not to know how this was done.
Click to expand...

Seems every new thread is designed to underline ignorance.
I have the advantage of being 60 y/o and having heard Walter Cronkite tell the world all about the moon landings, so I remember being told about the cameras.

Next,
Edited by Darat: 
Breach of Rule 0 removed.
will be asking who held the camera that shot Armstrong stepping off fhe LM.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I keep wondering is why are some people SO obsessed with proving the Apollo missions wrong?
Apart from the tons of evidence that show they happened, we went to the moon.

No really, we went to the MOON!

I mean, seriously, how cool is that?
Using ingenuity, massive amounts of hard work and standing on the shoulders of all those philosophers, writers, mathematicians, scientists etc of millennia humanity actually managed to put several live people on the moon. And make them come back.

Sure, in some respects the moon might have been duller than we imagined, but on the other had we learned so much about our solar system. So much about where we came from.
To me it is one of the hope spots of humanity. These missions show what we can do if we put a fraction of the energy we use for killing each other for something else.
And yet, here is someone desperately trying to mis-interpret and misread anything if only to prove that no, actually about a million people actively lied to the world!

In fact, come to think of it, a lot of conspiracy theories seem to be out to belittle or tarnish the things that show humans can make a positive change (vaccines spring to mind, or the UN).
Would you mind telling us WHY you so desperately want to Apollo missions to be fake Wogoga?
 
Giordano said:
What I find very distressing is how often in conspiracy theories the same question is asked, answered, and then asked again and again. There appears to be no killing a stupid question- it just lives on and on because the goal of conspiracy theory is the conspiracy, not the facts.

Even I, who do not follow the Apollo conspiracy theorist very much, knew the answer to this question.

And I fully expect either (1) a rejection of this answer based on something "not looking right" to the conspiracists as they would expect to see it (perhaps involving the 1.3 second time delay each way Earth to Moon, the angle of the shadows, etc.) or (2) this particular thread being dropped, only to have someone (maybe even wogoga) bring up the same question months from now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the time delay was what I'd expect to be the next bone of contention. However, even just here on earth a decent live action camera operator needs to anticipate where the action is going and how best to accommodate. You'll note in the incident in question as the one astronaut falls out of the field of view the camera doesn't pan but zooms back widening the field of view to keep both astronauts in the shot. I remember back when, as we saw the live action lift off from the moon, the point being made about how the operator had to anticipate and start the tilt up early due to the delay time in the camera control.
 
Giordano said:
What I find very distressing is how often in conspiracy theories the same question is asked, answered, and then asked again and again. There appears to be no killing a stupid question- it just lives on and on because the goal of conspiracy theory is the conspiracy, not the facts.
Click to expand...

It's what Bill Maher calls a Zombie Lie.
 
The Man said:
Yeah, the time delay was what I'd expect to be the next bone of contention. However, even just here on earth a decent live action camera operator needs to anticipate where the action is going and how best to accommodate. You'll note in the incident in question as the one astronaut falls out of the field of view the camera doesn't pan but zooms back widening the field of view to keep both astronauts in the shot. I remember back when, as we saw the live action lift off from the moon, the point being made about how the operator had to anticipate and start the tilt up early due to the delay time in the camera control.
Click to expand...

Yes, the network I work for has one control room for all local news stations. Some of the stations are a few thousand kilometers from the control room. Cameras are operated from the control room. The news anchors are in a green room looking at cameras that have no one behind them. Occasionally you can note a mistake in anticipation by the camera operator. Now it's not all that difficult for in studio, but often the anchor throws to a live shot from elsewhere in the city or the traffic helicopter. That requires anticipation by the producer & switcher. Coordination can be a problem but from what I understand everyone gets used to thinking a few seconds in the future, so to speak.

I also am the tech for the local cable access station and we do a live show every week. There is a 2 second delay between what occurs in the studio and it appearing on the cable channel. Our town is a hub of a larger city 200 km to the west, so the studio shot is digitized, sent to the larger center, inserted to the channel stream, which is then sent via fiber to the hub site in this town and from there to customers.
 
Last edited:
Hey, wogoga, are we gonna do these one at a time or could we just do the Dumbass Dozen questions all at once?
 
Jrrarglblarg said:
Hey, wogoga, are we gonna do these one at a time or could we just do the Dumbass Dozen questions all at once?
Click to expand...
wogoga does not want that. He has taken upon himself the responsibility to misrepresent all replies on his own blog. We know this because he has told us so and provided links to it. His goal is simply to misrepresent replies here on his blog to make it appear that he is somehow "winning". That's it. That's all he is doing. It matters not that he is getting owned here, only that he can drive his own traffic and glean ad revenue.

It's in my view a pretty cynical exercise.
 
wogoga said:
An astronaut on the moon can obviously follow another astronaut when filming.

The video 1972: Apollo 17 (NASA) provides also situations where the camera follows both astronauts. This is possible by preprogramming the camera work, such as e.g. at 16:30 when the two astronauts present the Apollo 17 Goodwill Moon Rock.

Yet at 8:50 the camera even follows an astronaut slipping and falling outside the camera focus. Did they use a sophisticated interaction between camera and astronauts, or is this video a fake?

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...

One and Done, Hoss?
 
Lukraak_Sisser said:
What I keep wondering is why are some people SO obsessed with proving the Apollo missions wrong?
Click to expand...

I still maintain that it is basically a gnostic cult. It allows the proponents of the hoax theory to imagine that they've discerned some secret that most people are too simpleminded to see. That's why so many of them respond angrily when the claims they present are challenged. To them, you aren't just pointing out errors regarding physics and engineering, you are challenging their self-perception of intellectual superiority. To them, their ability to see the secret means, "I'm smart and you're dumb". When you say, "actually, you're mistaken about that", they basically hear it as, "ha ha! You're dumb!".
 
abaddon said:
wogoga does not want that. He has taken upon himself the responsibility to misrepresent all replies on his own blog. We know this because he has told us so and provided links to it. His goal is simply to misrepresent replies here on his blog to make it appear that he is somehow "winning". That's it. That's all he is doing. It matters not that he is getting owned here, only that he can drive his own traffic and glean ad revenue.

It's in my view a pretty cynical exercise.
Click to expand...

Ah. So he's invincible!
 
abaddon said:
wogoga does not want that. He has taken upon himself the responsibility to misrepresent all replies on his own blog. We know this because he has told us so and provided links to it. His goal is simply to misrepresent replies here on his blog to make it appear that he is somehow "winning". That's it. That's all he is doing. It matters not that he is getting owned here, only that he can drive his own traffic and glean ad revenue.

It's in my view a pretty cynical exercise.
Click to expand...

I don't see this latest issue on his blog yet though. Possibly because his question is just too easily answered.
 
Foster Zygote said:
I still maintain that it is basically a gnostic cult. It allows the proponents of the hoax theory to imagine that they've discerned some secret that most people are too simpleminded to see. That's why so many of them respond angrily when the claims they present are challenged. To them, you aren't just pointing out errors regarding physics and engineering, you are challenging their self-perception of intellectual superiority. To them, their ability to see the secret means, "I'm smart and you're dumb". When you say, "actually, you're mistaken about that", they basically hear it as, "ha ha! You're dumb!".
Click to expand...

That's basically every CT ever.
 
jaydeehess said:
Yes, the network I work for has one control room for all local news stations. Some of the stations are a few thousand kilometers from the control room. Cameras are operated from the control room. The news anchors are in a green room looking at cameras that have no one behind them. Occasionally you can note a mistake in anticipation by the camera operator. Now it's not all that difficult for in studio, but often the anchor throws to a live shot from elsewhere in the city or the traffic helicopter. That requires anticipation by the producer & switcher. Coordination can be a problem but from what I understand everyone gets used to thinking a few seconds in the future, so to speak.

I also am the tech for the local cable access station and we do a live show every week. There is a 2 second delay between what occurs in the studio and it appearing on the cable channel. Our town is a hub of a larger city 200 km to the west, so the studio shot is digitized, sent to the larger center, inserted to the channel stream, which is then sent via fiber to the hub site in this town and from there to customers.
Click to expand...
Speaking of amazing camera work and anticipation- the camera work at most televised professional sports events is absolutely amazing! Even such fast moving sports as soccer and ice hockey have a main camera following the ball or puck extremely well (I am ignoring the additional cameras at these events in regard to this thread). Practice and experience by the camera operator do allow even unscripted events to be followed when they occur.
 
Maybe one should not post, if one is too exhausted to read and only fit enough to watch videos. After the fact, I'm actually astonished at my stupidity and rashness of yesterday. Nevertheless committing harmless mistakes can also help understand the psychology of such mistakes, and thus reduce the probability of committing less harmless mistakes.

Obviously my question is wrong insofar as it does not take into account the possibility of remote control from Earth.

My opening post shows that there is a difference between arguments with substance and arguments without substance. It is easy to refute an argument without substance, as in this case. Nevertheless after having (more or less superficially) watched several Apollo videos (due to thread Athletics Records on the Moon), I conclude that it would have been quite easy to fake such films on Earth. The fact that on the moon there is 83% weightlessness with respect to Earth does not show up in the films.

Unfortunately, by slowing down a film by factor 1/√6 we can "simulate" lunar gravity (being 1/6 of terrestrial). Both downwards and upwards accelerations are then reduced to 1/6 (and all velocities are reduced to 1/√6). That upwards accelerations of the astronauts are substantially smaller than on Earth can be explained by hinting at the mass of Apollo space suits. When running, mass resp. inertia of space suits would have limited only acceleration and deceleration, but not achievable velocity. Yet it makes sense to assume that for safety reasons they did not run fast or jump high.

Even if by intuition it reminds me of a fake, rationally (at least until now) I cannot consider the film material of Apollo either proof for or against the truth of Apollo. But I'm still convinced that my arguments presented in The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy? are relevant.


Lukraak_Sisser in #11 said:
What I keep wondering is why are some people SO obsessed with proving the Apollo missions wrong?
Click to expand...


Try a thought experiment: Assume a hypothetical world where the Apollo program actually has been faked and where you know that it has been faked. How would you react?

Cheers, Wolfgang
 
wogoga said:
Nevertheless after having (more or less superficially) watched several Apollo videos (due to thread Athletics Records on the Moon), I conclude that it would have been quite easy to fake such films on Earth.
Click to expand...

Then you should take your own advice and not post until you get more knowledge, because they would have been impossible to fake on Earth.

Unfortunately, by slowing down a film by factor 1/√6 we can "simulate" lunar gravity (being 1/6 of terrestrial).
Click to expand...

Only if you're a bad movie director. Slowing down a film doesn't simulate lower gravity because movement is not slowed by less gravity, just the falling down part. And it's the acceleration which changes, not the speed itself. Also, there's no air on the moon, something you can't simulate on a sound stage.

The problem with Apollo CTs is that in order to believe them you have to maintain an active ignorance of the related topics
 
wogoga said:
Try a thought experiment: Assume a hypothetical world where the Apollo program actually has been faked and where you know that it has been faked. How would you react?
Click to expand...

I'd start a blog where I would pretend it wasn't fake and make really stupid arguments as to why it was real.....
 
Giordano said:
Speaking of amazing camera work and anticipation- the camera work at most televised professional sports events is absolutely amazing! Even such fast moving sports as soccer and ice hockey have a main camera following the ball or puck extremely well (I am ignoring the additional cameras at these events in regard to this thread). Practice and experience by the camera operator do allow even unscripted events to be followed when they occur.
Click to expand...

I have manned a camera for a hockey game, local high school league, and YES, it is difficult to keep the puck in frame. You have to zoom in and out at the same time as the play moves from one end to the other. I know that I would occasionally lose the puck, have to look over the camera to find where the play is and then swing camera back. Then again we do not have the equipment that ESPN or TSN have.
 
wogoga said:
Nevertheless after having (more or less superficially) watched several Apollo videos (due to thread Athletics Records on the Moon),
Click to expand...
Highlited your problem there. You really should research before writing. You caught yourself with your erroneous statement in the OP now you are allowing yourself to commit a similar error again.
I conclude that it would have been quite easy to fake such films on Earth. The fact that on the moon there is 83% weightlessness with respect to Earth does not show up in the films.
Click to expand...
You need to explain this. Yes it does "show up" in the Moon videos, why do you claim it doesn't?
Also that is a very odd way of expressing the lesser gravitational force on the surface of the Moon. Weightlessness is a zero force, 83% of zero is still zero.

Unfortunately, by slowing down a film by factor 1/√6 we can "simulate" lunar gravity (being 1/6 of terrestrial). Both downwards and upwards accelerations are then reduced to 1/6 (and all velocities are reduced to 1/√6).
Click to expand...
I am pretty sure that slowing the film speed down by 1/6th will create velocities of 1/6th.
Perhaps you need to actually do this with some videos on Earth and measure velocities and accelerations. True research.

That upwards accelerations of the astronauts are substantially smaller than on Earth can be explained by hinting at the mass of Apollo space suits. When running, mass resp. inertia of space suits would have limited only acceleration and deceleration, but not achievable velocity. Yet it makes sense to assume that for safety reasons they did not run fast or jump high.
Click to expand...
You seem to have missed the entire discussion in the 'athletic records' thread concerning friction with the surface and it's effect on horizontal force generation.

Even if by intuition it reminds me of a fake
Click to expand...
Intuition is never a substitute for reality of physics.
rationally (at least until now) I cannot consider the film material of Apollo either proof for or against the truth of Apollo.
Click to expand...
Intuition, in thi s case is supplanting rationality.

But I'm still convinced that my arguments presented in The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy? are relevant.
Click to expand...
I don't think your intuition has convinced anyone here, much less those with actual hands on experience with spaceflight.


Try a thought experiment: Assume a hypothetical world where the Apollo program actually has been faked and where you know that it has been faked. How would you react?
Click to expand...

That is not a hypothetical, that is what is commonly referred to as "fiction". It is akin to the TV series "Timeless" or "Lost". You might as well propose the 'thought experiment' that "The Matrix" world is real.

However, ok if the Apollo Moon shots were faked then physics and engineering are all out the window and absolutely nothing in this universe makes any sense any more, therefore I must be insane. THAT is how I would react.
 
wogoga said:
The fact that on the moon there is 83% weightlessness with respect to Earth does not show up in the films.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.

Unfortunately, by slowing down a film by factor 1/√6 we can "simulate" lunar gravity...
Click to expand...

No we can't. I participated in a test of this on the Mythbusters television program. Despite testing several mechanisms proposed by conspiracy theorists for achieving the look and feel of Apollo video on Earth, only producing actual diminished gravity in a parabolic flight trajectory achieved suitable results.

You want to claim it would be easy to simulate hours of Apollo footage by slowing down the video, be my guest. Do it. And yes, it's hours. The clip you provided above wasn't the original. That was a clip from a film by AV Films of Houston. They took clips here and there of Apollo film and video footage and produced a series of half-hour films for classrooms, one for each mission. Conspiracy theorists generally limit their surveys to convenience sources such as that and are thus unaware that the video footage of the EVAs (at least from the J-missions) were literally hours on end, uninterrupted.

... but not achievable velocity. Yet it makes sense to assume that for safety reasons they did not run fast or jump high.
Click to expand...

Neil Armstrong jumped 1.8 meters vertically onto the LM ladder. As for speed, your ability to stop depends on your weight to provide tractive effort. You have only 270 N of weight distributed over 0.08 m2 of foot surface area on a loose surface (coefficient of friction roughly 0.12). At a decent running speed of 8 m s-1 you have to stop a moving mass of 165 kg. Okay, Mr Kinetic Energy -- do the math.

All the conspiracy theorists sit in their armchairs and pontificate about how they would have been able to run faster or jump higher or do all these acrobatics in a space environment -- never having thought it through, never having put on an actual space suit, never having done an iota of math to even model the problem.

Even if by intuition it reminds me of a fake....
Click to expand...

No one cares about your intuition. You've demonstrated that it's not suitably informed, and it's not evidence anyway.

How would you react?
Click to expand...

By providing better evidence than 15-year-old recycled garbage. You want to be given a bye for having made a colossal error in understanding the Apollo photographic record. That will not happen.
 
wogoga said:
Maybe one should not post
Click to expand...
Maybe...

wogoga said:
After the fact, I'm actually astonished at my stupidity and rashness of yesterday.
Click to expand...
Chalk it up as a learning experience.

wogoga said:
Obviously my question is wrong insofar as it does not take into account the possibility of remote control from Earth.
Click to expand...
Considering that Tesla invented tele-operation in the 1890s one has to wonder why you didn't.

wogoga said:
Nevertheless after having (more or less superficially) watched several Apollo videos (due to thread Athletics Records on the Moon), I conclude that it would have been quite easy to fake such films on Earth.
Click to expand...
Well, than it should be quite easy to prove it was quite easy by actually doing it.
Make a movie that looks like the real thing.

wogoga said:
The fact that on the moon there is 83% weightlessness with respect to Earth does not show up in the films.
Click to expand...
And you can tell that by superficially watching a few clips.
Out of the 100+ hours of video and film of lunar EVAs?

wogoga said:
Unfortunately, by slowing down a film by factor 1/√6 we can "simulate" lunar gravity (being 1/6 of terrestrial).
Click to expand...
It also would simulate the astronauts being on tranquilizers.

wogoga said:
Even if by intuition it reminds me of a fake, rationally (at least until now) I cannot consider the film material of Apollo either proof for or against the truth of Apollo.
Click to expand...
So what?

Your opinion doesn't matter in grown-up land. Nobody cares if you choose to reject evidence and reality. So many people already live in a fantasy, one more won't make difference.
The only thing that matters is what you can show evidence for.
 
Last edited:
wogoga said:
Maybe one should not post, if one is too exhausted to read and only fit enough to watch videos. After the fact, I'm actually astonished at my stupidity and rashness of yesterday. Nevertheless committing harmless mistakes can also help understand the psychology of such mistakes, and thus reduce the probability of committing less harmless mistakes.

Obviously my question is wrong insofar as it does not take into account the possibility of remote control from Earth.

My opening post shows that there is a difference between arguments with substance and arguments without substance. It is easy to refute an argument without substance, as in this case. Nevertheless after having (more or less superficially) watched several Apollo videos (due to thread Athletics Records on the Moon), I conclude that it would have been quite easy to fake such films on Earth. The fact that on the moon there is 83% weightlessness with respect to Earth does not show up in the films.

Unfortunately, by slowing down a film by factor 1/√6 we can "simulate" lunar gravity (being 1/6 of terrestrial). Both downwards and upwards accelerations are then reduced to 1/6 (and all velocities are reduced to 1/√6). That upwards accelerations of the astronauts are substantially smaller than on Earth can be explained by hinting at the mass of Apollo space suits. When running, mass resp. inertia of space suits would have limited only acceleration and deceleration, but not achievable velocity. Yet it makes sense to assume that for safety reasons they did not run fast or jump high.

Even if by intuition it reminds me of a fake, rationally (at least until now) I cannot consider the film material of Apollo either proof for or against the truth of Apollo. But I'm still convinced that my arguments presented in The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy? are relevant.





Try a thought experiment: Assume a hypothetical world where the Apollo program actually has been faked and where you know that it has been faked. How would you react?

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...
You making up utter rubbish is evidence of what now?
 
wogoga said:
<snip>
Nevertheless after having (more or less superficially) watched several Apollo videos...I conclude that it would have been quite easy to fake such films on Earth.<snip>

Unfortunately, by slowing down a film by factor 1/√6 we can "simulate" lunar gravity (being 1/6 of terrestrial).<snip>
Click to expand...

...others have addressed your faux pas of basing your "conclusion" upon superficially watching a few edited videos.

Here's a thought experiment: Describe what aspect of the visible behaviour of dust is accentuated by slow motion; and why it makes accusations of "faking it on a sound stage" patently silly.

I will be waiting for your answer, which I (a mere high school teacher) will be happy to grade for you.
 
wogoga said:
Maybe one should not post, if one is too exhausted to read and only fit enough to watch videos. After the fact, I'm actually astonished at my stupidity and rashness of yesterday. Nevertheless committing harmless mistakes can also help understand the psychology of such mistakes, and thus reduce the probability of committing less harmless mistakes.

Obviously my question is wrong insofar as it does not take into account the possibility of remote control from Earth.

My opening post shows that there is a difference between arguments with substance and arguments without substance. It is easy to refute an argument without substance, as in this case. Nevertheless after having (more or less superficially) watched several Apollo videos (due to thread Athletics Records on the Moon), I conclude that it would have been quite easy to fake such films on Earth. The fact that on the moon there is 83% weightlessness with respect to Earth does not show up in the films.

Unfortunately, by slowing down a film by factor 1/√6 we can "simulate" lunar gravity (being 1/6 of terrestrial). Both downwards and upwards accelerations are then reduced to 1/6 (and all velocities are reduced to 1/√6). That upwards accelerations of the astronauts are substantially smaller than on Earth can be explained by hinting at the mass of Apollo space suits. When running, mass resp. inertia of space suits would have limited only acceleration and deceleration, but not achievable velocity. Yet it makes sense to assume that for safety reasons they did not run fast or jump high.

Even if by intuition it reminds me of a fake, rationally (at least until now) I cannot consider the film material of Apollo either proof for or against the truth of Apollo. But I'm still convinced that my arguments presented in The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy? are relevant.





Try a thought experiment: Assume a hypothetical world where the Apollo program actually has been faked and where you know that it has been faked. How would you react?

Cheers, Wolfgang
Click to expand...

A thought experiment will likely cause you more unpleasant responses.
 
wogoga said:
Nevertheless after having (more or less superficially) watched several Apollo videos (due to thread Athletics Records on the Moon),
Click to expand...

That thread is a thinly veiled attempt to crowbar in some Apollo hoax nonsense. Didn't work. Embarrassing for you.

Even if by intuition it reminds me of a fake, rationally (at least until now) I cannot consider the film material of Apollo either proof for or against the truth of Apollo. But I'm still convinced that my arguments presented in The Apollo Space Program – A gigantic conspiracy? are relevant.
Click to expand...

Apollo film can be regarded as evidence thanks to the clear indications of extended periods of demonstrable lunar gravity, time and date specific images of Earth, and rocks and craters that were not known about prior to the landings. Contrast this with you deciding your own webpage is a reasonable proof despite you having been proved wrong in your assumptions many times.

Try a thought experiment: Assume a hypothetical world where the Apollo program actually has been faked and where you know that it has been faked. How would you react?
Click to expand...

You assume that people haven't already done this and have then dismissed the notion as balderdash.
 
wogoga said:
Try a thought experiment: Assume a hypothetical world where the Apollo program actually has been faked and where you know that it has been faked. How would you react?
Click to expand...
I'll play.

In such a hypothetical world if I know it was faked it would be because of the evidence presented shows it was faked and everyone except fringe lunatics would say it was faked. Nothing that currently exists from the moon landings would exist. I'd miss all that stuff. In your hypothetical world any films would easily be shown to be fakes, the opposite of what is true in the real world because in 1969, as now, it was easier to go to the moon than to fake going to the moon and make it believeable. In your hypothetical world, tens of thousands of people would have come forward to admit their part in the charade.

I'm glad I live in the real world where the moon landings did occur rather than your silly hypothetical world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom