Scott

Come on people. Get serious.

The two clips above show that Collins' was in gravity as the way the corners of his jacket swing back and forth instead of floating show he was in gravity. It looks like they got sloppy.

There's more evidence of faking zero-gravity. Click on this link below and go down about a third of the way until you see this.

Apollo Internet Images and Videos With Inconsistencies Anomalies
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------
APOLLO 9: Dave scott performs Extra Vehicular Activities LAVA # : LV-1998-00030.mov
The astronaut is unusually flexible compared to today's shuttle astronauts on EVAs; the Apollo suit does not appear to have bearings at the joints like the space shuttle extra vehicular suits. The experimental thermal samples flutter and follow non-linear curved paths, as if under the influence of or affected by atmospheric drag and turbulence.
---------------------------------------------------------

That clip above may have been faked on earth.

I know they had the technology then to go into low earth orbit to film stuff like this ut the footage shows that they faked at least some of it. Maybe they were trying to save money.

tecoyah

The provided clips actually show the result of inertia and 0 gravity. It seems you are under the assumption that a lack of gravity makes stuff float around for no reason, when in reality all movement is a result of some force acting on matter. The movement you see is easily explained by the motions of the person wearing the jacket...to assume otherwise is to add complexity to a situation that is explained by the most fundamental laws of motion.

As for the Footage of astronauts from apollo, I will simply accept that you have not bothered to read the umteen hundreds of explanations that point to the many fold accuracies in minute detail that simply cannot be faked, or would have required technology unavailable at the time, and instead have only read those things that promote unfounded theory, and watched endless reruns of the Xfiles.

__________________
Self-Banned

John1234

I do not believe we faked the moon landing.
However, I completely fail to understand why we have not returned.
And i fail to understand why space exploration is not 90% of our budget.

Getting out their and contacting other life is my highest priority.
I just hope that my country does not try to bring them "Democracy".
Unfortunately though, due to lack of funding and progress, this won't happen in my lifetime even if reach 100.

tecoyah

I would agree we might spend a larger % of the budget on space exploration and cosmology. As it is we are taking a relatively sound approach by focusing on robotic missions and attempting to understand the risk factors in Human spaceflight. I believe the failure to return to the moon has been primarily due to a few factors:

1) What science we did manage to accomplish (ie. understanding the geology, history, and dynamics) on the moon did not generate much motivation to return, as the costs associated with such a venture did not justify the science.
2) Until now, we simply did not have the ability to establish anything approaching permanence on the moon, nor did we have the technology to take advantage of what the moon had to offer.
3) The politics of Earth forced a focus on far more pressing matters, and made expending resources on "frivolous" projects unacceptable on a federal level.


I have a feeling things are becoming more conducive to exploration and utilization of the moon, as the Orion Project seems to indicate.

Panache

That doesn't make any sense at all. Are the 20 mirrors supposed to face each other in a circle or what? I can't think of any reason why you wouldn't be able to see the light in the last mirror, and I don't care enough to go out and buy 20 mirrors.

Why would they be hurt by the intensity of the "hit of light?"

Oh right, because percievine light is exactly what rods and cones do.

Dude, the chemicals in flim react to light. That is why photographs work. That is why they are called photographs. Look up the origin of the term "photo" and you will see what I mean.

No. You won't. You have provided no evidence to support this assertion, and it doesn't make any sense.

That is because there is no such "phenomena." It exists only in your imagination.

You are observing everything that you observe as it was in its past.

You don't have films showing that though. The film can only show the product of a chemical reaction when exposed to light. The film has to wait for the light reflected from the spaceship to reach it before it can show the spaceship.

What separation? When the spaceship is five light minutes away, you see it as it was five minutes ago. When the spaceship is five light years away, you see it as it was five years ago.

It works exactly the same as it does for sound. If you stand right next to a thunderstorm, you percive the thunder at approximately the same time as the lightning. If you drive away from the thunderstorm, the sound of thunder will talk longer and longer to reach your ears. Even though you are listening the whole time, when you are miles away, the thunder you hear will be the sound of an event that happened in the past.

It works the same way with light.


If you want to learn about the Doppler effect, here is a link, maybe it will clear up some of your misunderstandings about how light works.

Doppler Effect

Why send it to the moon? I have a mirror right in my own house, and I happen to have a projector as well. Guess what, I bound the projection off the mirror, and I can still see the image just fine.


How would I see the light of the sun passing beside the earth away from us at night? By what mechanism would that light ever reach my eyes? Nothing con be percieved until you interact with it. If I never interact with the light, it will be imperceptible to me.

I can can only see the light that reaches my eyes. Thats what eyes are for.

Your sarcasm belongs to amateurs. Try again.

Why would I do that? Why does "who came up with the idea" have any bearing on the validity of the point?

What first tests an experiments? Its self evident. I invite you to search the entire web looking for first tests and experiments demonstrating that music travels with sound. They don't exists because the very concept is inane. Music is obviously a pattern of sounds, and images are obviously a pattern of light.

Sure, and when we hear music, we hear it at the exact moment it is being played. We don't have to wait for the sound to actually reach our ears.

Why would people ever assume that because it takes sound time to travel from one place to another that music must do the same?

Search the entire web and find me evidence that music -not sound- take the same time to travel from one place to another.

images are nothing but the patterns which we ascribe to our perception of light.

We see light whenever it hits the rods and cones in our eyes. We can't see anything except light. We can see light after it bounces off of things. Sometimes the wavelength of the light changes after it bounces off of something, so we can percive the colour of that light, and infer a property of the object which it bounced off of.

And yet you still don't seem to understand the concept.

The rods and cones react to light. No light, no reaction.

Scott

The movement would cause the corner of the jacket to go up and it doesn't go up because gravity is keeping it from going up.

If you don't go into any detail, this is just empty rhetoric.

When the astronaut walks by the flag in this clip, it moves because of the gust of wind caused by the astronaut.


(2 minute 35 second mark)

This one clip settles the whole issue.

Scott

Here are some videos if anyone wants to delve further.

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.