In news:Xns98767615D9435kiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:sSm4h.4225$TH3.2630@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net:

In news:Xns987577DBDDC80kiwilovesomewherenz@203.109.252.31,
Harvey@NZ <kiwilove@co.nz> typed:

The footage I was referring to, was what was going on inside the
Command module, in which the video and audio clearly has the
astronauts faking that they were further out, 1/2 way to the moon,
and sticking
a transparency onto the window, setting the camera inside - faking
the whole thing - that this footage exists, shows something totally
amiss.
If the documentary makers, do have the original film, then obviously
this can be scrutinised for authenticity and age.
Without that film - the case for the faking, is much much weaker,
with no proper evidence at all, and only circumstantial.
Only experts debating two sides of an argument.

The problem with using transparencies on glass though is you would
need even backlighting and some form of diffusing screen as you would
have on a light box. You could certainly achieve that effect by
sandwiching a transparency with a sheet of frosted acetate though,
and by using the Earth as a light source when in close orbit.

However I do have serious doubts about that footage, it appears to me
there is something obstructing the camera lens which is extremely
blurred because it is very close to the lens, which has caused
optical distortion which gives the illusion that you have some form
of flat transparency over the window. But I think it is a purely
accidental effect

The other possibility of course is it was shot during a training
session in which case they could very well have been using backlit
transparencies over the glass.

But to be honest to me it simply looks like optical distortion caused
by something close to the camera. One can get a similar effect by
placing a hand near to one eye and focusing on something distant, you
should see optical distortion close to the burred edge of your hand.
Such effects can of course be more pronounced using a camera
depending on the aperture used, depth of focus etc.

I think that footage is a complete lie to be honest an example of
conspiracy mongers taking advantage of people's lack of knowledge of
photography and optics to create a total falsehood.

Besides if NASA had set out to fake the Moon landings with all the
billions of dollars spent on building and launching those Saturn 5
rockets into orbit and all that the state of the art technology I'm
certain they wouldn't have been daft enough to have the astronauts
sticking transparencies over windows in weightless conditions with
bits of Sello or Bluetack LOL

It is not easy to sort out the wheat from the chaff in this one.
Whose experts do you believe?
That the Saturn V rocket was grossly inefficient such that it could
not send a payload to the moon - that the Saturn Vs were canned
because of this?

The Saturn 5 was AFAIK the largest Rocket NASA developed. Smaller rockets
have been capable of delivering a Payload to Mars and other planets. Any
rocket capable of lifting a payload free of earth orbit will get you to the
Moon. Once you are free of Earth orbit you can turn the engines off velocity
and gravity will do the rest, you would just need to slow down and need
enough fuel to escape the moons gravity for the return trip. In the Apollo
13 mission they used the fuel in the Luner module to achieve that.

As to astronauts having to tape a transparency to the window glass
and then having to act like they were half to the moon, when they
weren't...
Either you believe that footage, or you don't.
As to "When Astronauts Go Wild" in which the filmmaker confronts
the astronauts about their hoaxing - all the astronauts, had to do,
was to say something like "Buddy, you're cuckoo - we did go to the
moon - because we have the documentary evidence to prove it..."
but instead they just go berzerk, as if they had something to hide,
or were ashamed of?...

I didn't see it that way. I know ex-service people, they don't like their
service record cast into doubt. No one likes to be called a liar. I'm
totally convinced those guys believe they did what they are supposed to have
done and are proud of what they did. It didn't surprise me they got upset
about it or that Buzz hit that guy in the end he was asking for it.

And we just have the big gap of ...
No one has been to the moon since, and the moon is so off limits
to us, and so we can't confirm that yes, the astronauts did go to
the moon.
In the meantime we'll just have to wait and see what the Chinese
get up to. Whether they will put a man into space, without dying -
if the Chinese will go to the moon for us, and put all the
speculation, etc etc to rest. Because NASA is certainly not going
there ever again? If they do, will they give all the old apollo sites
a wide berth?

You can reason it out, either way.
They had spent billions of dollars, and still could not send a man to
the moon, so they had to fake it - or either admit defeat, that they
could not keep Kennedy's promise. And not beat the Russians too.
How much is prestige worth?

Considering the billions of dollars it would have cost in any case just to
put 17 Saturn 5 rockets into orbit many of them manned. It would have been a
very expensive way to fake it up. The other thing is people all over the
world were tracking the progress of the mission, universities often have
radio telescope equipment, students could have tracked the position of the
spacecraft using triangulation and trigonometry tables. It would have been
impossible to have faked it up and to have kept it secret, too many people
were watching.

Obviously if there were moon rovers, these can go to the sites, and
check out the rubbish/junk left behind.
[For NASA to cover this up, would be for them, to send junk to the
 moon, to authentic history - which is a huge task in itself, so the
 junk is already there, or not?]

Note - apparently with the first screening of Apollo coverage, this
was sent and aired in Australia first - and an Australian woman does
recall seeing a coke bottle on the lunar surface - but this was
later edited out.

The TV pictures of the 1969 Apollo 11 landing were of appallingly
poor quality to be honest it was hard to see anything. Particularly
on a PAL system. I dare say PAL TV would have been just coming into
use in Australia in preparation for the switch to colour TV as it
was in the UK and most of Europe. I would doubt anyone would have
been able to see something like a Coke bottle on the Lunar surface.
In my experience it was difficult to recognise the astronauts let
alone anything else. On the BBC they had a commentator telling us
what we were supposed to be seeing and one could just about see the
astronauts jumping about doing their lunar walk dance :)

I have listed documentaries at
http://truthbox.blog.co.nz

I haven't checked out YouTube - but if you can find these
documentaries there - they are worth watching.
I can send you a DVD with a lot of these documentaries on it, if you
wish? I have already grouped them together, in their specific
groups.

Thanks for the offer, but as I say I don't seem to be finding any
problems finding copies of most of these films on the Net. But thanks
all the same :)

I try to list the documentaries worth chasing up and viewing.
I have lots of documentaries, I haven't yet viewed.
I may be able to download lots more - if the new broadband plans
are genuine? Which will finally allow me unlimited downloads???

Well I have a BB service which is supposed to be "up to 4mb and unlimited,
saying that it seems to have be running a bit slow for the past month or so.
I used to download films but haven't bothered much lately.

YouTube didn't impress me, but I only briefly glanced at it.
In that poor quality versions are not worth looking at, when you can
view it in near perfect quality.

The quality doesn't seem to bother me a great deal to be honest. I don't
have a DVD writer so anything over 700MBs means I either have to store stuff
on my hard disk or split files onto CDs. If I can watch a streamed version
online I do that since it saves a lot of messing about. :)
-- 
Amanda