"Amanda Angelika" <manic_mandy@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:mbv4h.4341$TH3.1242@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net: 

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. 

I think you'll have to be into rocketry to know whether the Saturn V
was all that it was cracked up to be? The biggest rocket doesn't mean
the most efficient rocket, with the most thrust (efficiency) possible.
It could have been burning up huge amounts of fuel, and not providing
the vital thrust?
There was a programme about a Russian rocket, how it's design efficiency
was much more efficient - that it got the Americans attention.

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.

I wouldn't be so sure that universities at that time, had the necessary
tracking equipment available, although the Australian tracking station
would have.
We know now that NASA's track record isn't too good, with 2 fatal
space shuttle mishaps, which were totally preventable - yet no one was
lost on the Apollo missions. I couldn't be bothered watching the Apollo 
13 movie or documentaries about it. I don't know why? I had no interest 
in watching anything about it? At the time, I didn't have any kind of
thoughts it all being faked, etc etc. Maybe my pysche was telling me
something?
Conspiracy theorists wouldn't have a leg to stand on, if there weren't
missions to the moon since. By anyone.
Will we have to wait until NASA again goes to the moon?

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. :) 

I think a decent VCD quality is OK to watch - but anything less than 
that, does not do the footage justice, etc.
I have converted avi etc files to VCD - and it's amazing how small the
file can shrink down to, and still be of reasonable, watchable quality.
It is a slow conversion process to do this, via Nero.
I will guess, that YouTube prefers even smaller files than this - and
only when broadband is dirt cheap and extra high speed is normal,
will they up the quality possible...? there

Harvey