What Happened on the Moon Debunked Part 8

Concluding Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 127-128 We have a brief summary from Ronnie Stronge, whereby he refers to a firm conclusion as to the reason behind all the "anomalies" from the stills and movies. That is a re-assertion of what has preceded, yet I have already exposed it for misconception, lies, subterfuge and just zero understanding of how the missions were performed.

Then we have the dumb conclusion itself:-

All the "mistakes" observed, were in fact deliberate from all the people involved who wanted to unobtrusively blow the whistle. Rather than go to a news outlet, write a book, leave a deathbed confession, anonymous letter etc. They apparantly chose to leave "subtle clues" in the film, just like the James Bond film - bunkum. He cites life threatening danger to these people. Yet we have Bart Sibrel, David Percy et al. all free to say what they wish, alive and well. Figure that one out.

He offers the absurd glossing of this action, as the work of "brave souls who decoded their work with deliberate mistakes, which would be detected some time in the future".

Only by the people with a vested interest in selling books and films that is.

Whilst giving us his unique "insight" Percy shows two pictures with supposedly the same backdrop, which are taken nowhere near each other and show a clear difference in parallax. We are also shown the hotspot from Aldrin's boot, reinforcing the idea that they have proven their case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrU5qp9lmJg

Back to Una Ronald. I shouldn't laugh here, but why an old lady is being used for her opinion on Apollo, when her previous citation about "coke bottles" is provable complete fabrication, is just beyond me. The film again uses the referback and affirmation method to instill in the viewer, that they have proven all the previous items. Flashes a coke bottle on the screen for effect. Facepalm moment.

Minute 128 Ronnie Stronge continues with yet another Hollywood movie - Capricorn One. They show the anything but convincing Mars set from the film, then we are told that the destination for the movie was originally the Moon. Who tells us this? Good old, "bare assertion is my word", Bill Kaysing! Bunkum.
Kaysing tells us a couple of locations where they filmed the Apollo footage. As always with Kaysing, not even one iota of proof, this from a man who was in the publications area of Rocketdyne, and had left 6 years before Apollo 11! Quite how he would be "in the know" on this information, they don't tell us. Fantasy from Kaysing, an embittered man who hated the US government.

Minutes 129-131 Stronge gives us once again their conclusion that it was all faked, and refers us to Brian Welch a NASA spokesman, who quite understandably requests that Percy take his findings to the scientific community to present his "stunning" research. For obvious reasons, Percy doesn't do this, he is a businessman making a film and book for money. Having his work stripped down and exposed as complete nonsense before film release, wouldn't do his sales any good.

Stronge sets the scene for disc 2, by begging the question as to "why it had to be faked". He lists the numerous things the missions had to do to be successful, all of which were rehearsed in previous missions, then cites mystery "experts". He says these "experts" all say, that any number of things could have gone wrong that would have jeapordised not just the mission but the entire space program. Unnamed experts making bare assertions, is not that convincing to anybody but a conspiracy theorist.

Percy gives us his uninformed opinion as to the "compelling reason" why Apollo had to be faked. He tells us that apart from the radiation risks(instilling in the viewer a sense of excessive danger to the astronauts), there would be unknown magnetic and gravitational anomalies that could cause taking off from the Moon "very dangerous indeed". He "stuns" us with his knowledge by referring to mascons, areas of greater mass and stronger gravity on the Moon.

What he fails to point out(probably deliberately) is that these mascons were identified already by NASA's unmanned program and were less than half a percent variation of gravity! For a long orbiting satellite, that would be a problem eventually, but for the short stay of Apollo they would hardly notice, with the capacity to perform simple corrective thrust burns for any deviations. Percy does not tell us the consequence for any Lunar magnetic anomalies, yet the viewer is left with his assertion.

Percy and Stronge then combine to give us the dumbest contention one could imagine. Percy first cites his list of anomalies as a reason why "acceptable" images would be difficult to guarantee, hence the strawman "need" to fake them in advance.

Stronge continues - quoted in full:-

"Some think it's highly likely that surrogate astronauts were actually sent to the Moon, while the named NASA astronauts were obliged to play out the role of space heroes, far nearer to home remaining in the relative safety of low Earth orbit. As actors in a drama, the named astronauts represented the greatest achievement of mankind whilst others unknown travelled beyond the confines of their home planet for the first time, to all intents and purposes naked before creation as we shall see in a moment."

Hogwash.

So the film now presents its trump card - we went to the Moon, but faked the pics, images and the actual men who did it!

This according to Percy, is because of the inability to guarantee the pictures and images would be good enough? Who are these "some people"? Why would they think such a ludicrous thing?
Hoax believers are very fond of quoting this film as evidence of Apollo as being faked, I wonder if they agree with the assessment the film actually makes!

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 7

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minute 118-120 We now move on to what I can only describe as a laughable contention from the film. This is where they suggest that a 10mph electric Lunar Rover should somehow produce huge "rooster tails" on Earth, because the footage we see on Apollo shows them and according to the film maker they aren't high enough!

The whole concept ignores the fundamental reason behind them being made in the first place, 1/6th gravity. On the Moon an object will have 1/6th the weight but the same mass. Now the Lunar Rover still needs to accelerate that mass to overcome inertia, but it has 1/6th the traction as on Earth. The actual mechanism involved to eject material from behind a vehicle also relies on the wheel spin speed. Whilst the wheel is in contact with the ground, there is less chance of the wheel obtaining enough speed to eject surface material, as there is when it rises (free of friction to accelerate). This is why most of the arcs are produced when it comes down after a bump in the terrain. The 1/6th gravity contributes quite significantly to the bouncing effect of the rover.

I have made a video debunking this section of the film:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA


Minute 120-122 Percy starts the most famous clip from this film by making an incorrect statement. He says "astronauts moving in slow motion is another hallmark of the Apollo footage". This gives the viewer the idea that something has been slowed down.

Gravitational acceleration on the Moon will cause all objects to rise higher and for longer when even the slightest vertical movement is made. Together with less traction to move the 350lbs of mass, a restrictive suit has less traction to stop or change direction.

A short extract from a study explains this:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9076966

"We investigated the effect of reduced gravity on the human walk-run gait transition speed and interpreted the results using an inverted-pendulum mechanical model.

We simulated reduced gravity using an apparatus that applied a nearly constant upward force at the center of mass, and the subjects walked and ran on a motorized treadmill. In the inverted pendulum model for walking, gravity provides the centripetal force needed to keep the pendulum in contact with the ground. The ratio of the centripetal and gravitational forces (mv2/L)/(mg) reduces to the dimensionless Froude number (v2/gL). Applying this model to a walking human, m is body mass, v is forward velocity, L is leg length and g is gravity. In normal gravity, humans and other bipeds with different leg lengths all choose to switch from a walk to a run at different absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number (0.5). We found that, at lower levels of gravity, the walk-run transition occurred at progressively slower absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number. This supports the hypothesis that the walk-run transition is triggered by the dynamics of an inverted-pendulum system."

We are told that astronauts never jump as high as they should do in 1/6th gravity, and later we are told they are on wires! Go figure that one out.

We are then treated to one of the worst examples of modern "special effects" by showing a man falling through some sort of wormhole suspended on wires. Bunkum.

I have already addressed some of this section:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/06/gravity-and-motion-and-apollo-moon.html

Here is a video I made showing the sheer deception used by David Percy. The video shows how Percy has taken a small clip, deliberately avoided the sections either side of it, and made erroneous claims as to the motion sped up by 200% reflects Earth gravity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vawJhSnFcQ0

Now, the obvious lens flare from Apollo 14 that is alleged to be a wire, and the "ping" on Apollo 17! The Apollo 14 clip is a very over exposed piece of footage. Everything about the shot shows this clearly. The "ping" occurs exactly where the radio antenna sits, and the secondary reflection is not vertical. It is the most obvious case of a lens flare you could get. Quite why they would need to use wires on Apollo 14 in the first place makes no sense. There is not an awful lot of activity from what I can recall.

The Apollo 17 clip is an internal reflection probably made during the copying process. It has no such anomaly on the original footage. The "ping" is in the shape of the reflection seen a split second before, from the radio antenna.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqY1cYJEP_A

The section where he deals with the astronaut unable to jump high on the Moon, is a complete strawman argument. Here it is explained:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAz5OIzQsU

Percy continues by suggesting a "floaty effect" and a "dangly effect" of the John Young jump, then asks us to compare it with the Apollo gravity testing rig. I cannot fathom how somebody could suggest that a purpose built rig with sideways, vertical and forward stabilizers very clearly visible, could be compares to the mechanical motion from using thin wires. It is a ludicrous suggestion. Forwards and lateral mechanical motion would dimply be jerky and unresponsive due to the wire taking 5/6th (or whatever figure is claimed by hoax believers!) weight off of the astronauts.

Percy shows a small clip from Apollo 16, where one astronaut helps the other astronaut up by pushing his hand. Since the astronaut weighs 60lbs, the idea that somebody could not do this is absurd. This is a fairly simple thing to do on Earth, where people are far heavier. Bunkum.

A collection of videos - Wires and jumping debunked:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSroT3RkmQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjEItn1sSQg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBICR4PTLfc

A video showing the Apollo 17 astronauts trying to jump up high and falling over (obscured a bit by the Lunar rover):-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16D0hmLt-S0


Minute 122-124 Percy pads the film out here by waffling about how the film could have been altered to vary the speed. Since his theory about double speed is shot to pieces by watching any number of clips at double speed, this is just a means to reaffirm in the casual viewer, that his "analysis" was correct. He shows the John Young clip at double speed and tells us it looks like it was on Earth. No, it does not. His fall to the surface is still too slow for Earth gravity.

Here it is at correct Earth freefall speed, with absurd motion:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axEFTsXlsfA


Minute 124-127 We are now shown the hammer and feather experiment on the Moon, where the idea is suggested that it is very easy to fake. Then David Percy gives us firstly his "ahaa!" moment by showing the clip of "From the Earth to the Moon" where there is an edit! Followed by a doctored experiment of his own on Earth.

Here is a video showing more deception by him:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXVMnA1Xp5Y

1. The Apollo experiment corresponds to Lunar gravity.
2. The Earth experiment does not correspond to Earth gravity!
3. The Earth hammer hits the fround first.
4. The feather on the Earth experiment is weighted and bounces!
5. The hand holding the feather on Earth is lower.
6. The Earth feather drops predominantly vertically.
7. The slowed down Earth footage does not correspond to Lunar gravity.
8. Footage of "From the Earth to the Moon" has an edit in their depiction.
9. The speeded up Apollo footage, at 200% and 150% does not equate to Earth gravity.
10. The speeded up clip looks bizarre and does not show normal motion.

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 3

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 60-63 More assertions about how it was impossible to change lenses and magazines because of the bulky gloves, that Percy says don't look pressurised. That is because they weren't! The inner layer of the suit was the area pressurised. It is why Ralph Rene and his quite ludicrous swollen rubber glove experiment is such nonsense. The magazines were made to be easily handled with a simple push fit to change them. The only lens I am actually aware of as being changed outside, was the one on the Apollo 11 exterior TV camera(but I am not 100% sure on that), and conveniently the only one cited by Percy as though such things happened all the time. The lens on the TV camera was push-fit.

We are also treated to David Percy's opinion on how difficult it "must" have been to adjust the camera with pressurised gloves, then tells us they could do it with gardening gloves. Quite how anybody can make a film of this nature without researching this freely available information is amazing. I can't be sure whether Percy is lying here or just badly informed. The astronauts spent a considerable period of time practising shots and adjustments even in their spare time.

Ronnie Stronge continues, stating "even if they were able to do this" (which they indeed were!) as though it is in question from the strawman arguments, he then reiterates the point about so many professionally framed pictures. In actuality with a bit of practice it is quite easy to do. Here is a demonstration from an amateur photographer doing this:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/nosee.htm

Minutes 63-64 Percy isolates one picture and tells us how wonderfully framed it is. He insists it has to be a mock up because it is perfect for a publicity picture. The fact that they always pitch the flag next to the LM, and park the Lunar rover close by is, I suppose, irrelevant! Besides, the picture is not perfect, the LM is not central and the rover is cut off at the edge. This is one of those cherry picked observations that ignores the numerous awful pictures.

Percy says it would have taken a photographer several hours to get it right in a studio. The fact that we have already established perfect exposure settings for the Moon in advance, and confirmed by the 3 previously successful missions,  is also supposedly not important! He treats us to a mockup to establish in the viewer a definitive of how it was done.

He ignores the sharp black single shadows, only possible in an atmosphereless environment, without extra lighting and a single bright light source. Most notable of all, he ignores the astronaut visor reflection showing his mockup is complete bull!


Minutes 65-66 More shadow nonsense. Percy compares different shadow lengths and concludes that it is impossible on a flat terrain like the Apollo 11 landing site. What rubbish! As can be seen from this picture from Google Moon, the terrain is certainly not flat at all:-

The whole premise is taken from the use of the term "relatively flat", when the relation is to massively uneven terrain. It doesn't mean it was like the Salt Plains of Utah!  Percy's conclusions are so painfully wrong, that as a cameraman, he has to be lying. Shadow lengths vary with terrain and perspective, and the demonstration they use has an actor approaching a wall, debunking their argument without even knowing it!

This one photograph debunks their claim completely:-

And a website that perfectly explains this:-

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/shadlen.html


Minutes 67-68 This bit is actually a curious anomaly where the flag has changed direction after they have finished the EVA and entered the LM. Ronnie Stronge treats us to a laughable assessment about how it could be some kind of "whistleblowing semaphore signaller"!! He then gives the throwaway line, implanting a thought in the viewer, concerning astronauts dying or being "seriously irradiated on the Moon"! This is laying the groundwork for the follow up later about supposed lethal radiation.

The flag movement is easy to explain.

122:36:31 Aldrin: Roger. We have four out of eight (garbled) talkbacks indicating red. We still have the circuit breakers out as of right now. I believe this is normal. We have just entered Verb 77 on page Surface-52 and are ready to proceed with the hot fire. Is it normal to have these four red flags? Over. (Pause)

[Verb 77, Enter ("V77E") is at the middle of the page. They are about to test fire the RCS thrusters to make sure those are all working normally. During the 1991 mission review, I asked if the hot fire rocked and/or shook the LM. Did they check the thrusters individually or all together?]
[Aldrin - "We exercised the controller so that it would give a command for each of them to fire. I don't think that we were verifying that they fired. But the ground was getting something. I'm pretty vague on that. Maybe we got the noise but it sure didn't rock any, or physically jolt."]

[Armstrong - "I don't think it moved much."]

The flag was moved by the thrust from the test firing. The RCS thrusters were all fired pre-launch to ensure that they worked correctly. There was a big song and dance about a similar observation on the Apollo 14 flag here:-

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=3147

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCwkepJyNmg


Minutes 68-69  After telling us about the "continuity error" on Apollo 11, we are then shown "another one" with Apollo 16. An astronaut preparing the flag, and told that the camera immediately pans round to the right where "astonishingly" the flag has already been erected. This excerpt actually shows the two pieces of footages overlaid and speeded up giving the illusion it was done too quickly, although Percy admits it was 69 seconds later on. He over elaborates on the details and effort needed to plant the flag and makes the strawman argument that it could not have been done in such a short space of time. Percy deliberately leaves off the audio from this clip, as it shows what happened.

Here is the Real Player clip:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v.1202255.rm

And audio excerpt:-

120:23:35 Young: You really should set the flag up on a hill, Charlie, but there just ain't one (near the LM).
120:23:40 Duke: I know, John.
120:23:43 Young: I'll put it right here. Big rock.
[John plants the flag next to a rock about 1/3 of a meter across. The rock is between Charlie and the flag in AS16-113- 18341.]
120:23:50 Duke: Are you setting it up now?
120:23:51 Young: Yeah.
120:23:52 Duke: Okay, wait a minute; I'll run and come get the camera. Can't pass that up.
120:23:56 Young: That's all right. (Grunts) That's got it. (Pause)
120:24:05 Duke: Wait a minute. You're not getting away from there without me getting your picture.

Young simply walks to a spot and pushes the flagpole into the ground!


Part 4.....

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 1

Before I begin to debunk this film, I would point out some common practices used by film makers of this type. The various techniques used are a combination of bare assertions and flawed examples followed by a generalisation referring back to the examples shown, as a means to imply the assertion as being proven. To anybody who has even a modicum of understanding in the various sections of photography, perspective, parallax, physics and logical fallacies, the arguments presented are quickly seen to be nonsense.

I would ask that anybody who watches this film, is observant of these techniques and takes careful note of how they present their so called evidence. There is simply not enough time to do a statement by statement analysis, so I will concentrate primarily in debunking each claim and pointing out how they use subterfuge to apply it to things not mentioned.

Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 1-7 Primarily makes bare assertions and begs numerous questions. It presents one piece of "evidence" from the "genius" Bill Kaysing, who quotes a study in the 50s of how likely it would be to land on the Moon. As though a study made without any real space program in place would be accurate, given the tremendous advances made with Mercury and Gemini, allied with increasingly popular satellite technology. We also have just Kaysing's word on the figures quoted in the study.


Minutes 7-8 Introduces the moronic contention that the flag movements in a vacuum during the act of placing them in the regolith, was down to wind blowing, yet we fail to see any ground disturbance from this implied wind.

Straightforward explanation video:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc_mmtAxjMk
Mythbusters debunk:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU



Minutes 8-10 David Percy makes more bare assertions about "whistleblowers", fakery and obvious anomalies. He states the inaccurate claim that TV was always filmed off of a screen on Earth, when this was only on Apollo 11 due to the way the signal was sent:-

http://www.clavius.org/tvqual.html


Minutes 10-12 He basically starts to lie. He indicates a "continuity error" occuring on the Apollo 16 mission (one that had a delayed landing of 6hrs due to technical difficulties), concerning a missing flap on the TV footage. One technique he uses at this point is to make a throwaway comment that makes the assumption that it is proven. He states "let's ignore the reasons as to why such a small jump in the 1/6th gravity of the Moon". This is wrong for two reasons.

The jump was certainly not made using maximum effort, and he weighs 360lbs on Earth. Try jumping with somebody on your back on Earth, you probably won't even get off the ground!

Explained here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAz5OIzQsU

Now this supposed continuity error - a blatant lie shown here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0OS26q20R0


Minutes 12-17 Percy alleges that a transparency was clipped to the window to fake Apollo 11 half way to the Moon, says the blue glare on the window is the Earth, when it is the coating used to protect it. The whole thing is debunked in the most thorough fashion by proving weather patterns matched the view from the CSM in all 3 transmissions and the Earth disappears to the side as the camera pans back (must be a magic transparency!).

Not only would any craft be clearly visible to the Earth whilst in LEO, its radio signal would disappear with it orbiting every 90 minutes. Bart Sibrel, cited in this clip, made a 10 minute segment of his film alleging it was the Earth itself (not a transparency!) which is just totally impossible. He changed his claims later on (in line with Percy), after being barraged with counter argument showing his stupidity.

Here are numerous videos showing both these contentions are just complete bunkum, and the film makers are lying through deliberate omission!

Video 1:-

Demonstrates that during the footage filmed from the CSM, stills taken from the footage (supposedly a transparency) are moving in line with the Earth rotation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA

Video 2:-

Shows a brief clip from the transmissions that see the Earth disappearing to the side of the window. Very much not like a transparency!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHnGDFowHlY

Video 3:-

Shows a stunning demonstration of the weather patterns matching the Apollo 11 half way to the Moon video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y

Video 4:-

A different weather pattern demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qEoA35cLs
Video 5:-

A thorough debunk of both Sibrel and Percy demonstrating how they lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T9ZM50n0z4



Minutes 17-20 Introduces David Groves and Bill Wood, makes more bare assertions and casts "suspicion", nothing really said.


Minutes 20-22 Shows a "contradiction" in the Kodak film used, where a NASA spokesman says it was specially made, and a Kodak man who says it was not. The Kodak man was mistaken. The film implies subterfuge as is the normal theme running through it. Simple mistake from the Kodak man. The narrative is building the strawman that the film could not possibly survive in space because it uses standard available film.

"Kodak Film in Space: John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth, Kodak film recorded his reactions to traveling through space at 17,400 miles per hour. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions double-perforated 70mm film, which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black and white. Apollo 8 was one of the first missions to use this film. There were three magazines loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film - which produced 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs from the Apollo 8 mission."

Minutes 22-23 I really don't know what the film is suggesting. Jan Lundberg confirms the camera was specially adapted by Hasselblad on NASA's original specification, which they then improved upon.


Minutes 23-24 More deception. Shows photographs where the cross hairs(reticles) appear to disappear "behind" objects. He deliberately uses low resolution photographs, knowing that the higher resolution ones do indeed show the reticles, but fainter on brighter areas where the light has bled on to the film. He makes the strawman statement about how it would be totally impossible for objects to get in front of the reticles, when no such thing ever occurs!

Demonstration of this on Earth:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/cross.htm

A good debunking of the subterfuge:-

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/photoret.html


Minute 24 Shows Jan Lundberg appearing to disagree with NASA about the use of Reticles to judge distance by suggesting that stereo-pairs were needed to perform this. They then just lie about there not being any stereo-pair photographs from the mission! The link just above has one of many examples used in the Apollo photographc record.



Minutes 24-26 Percy, continues with his "photagrammetric" bull, citing non parallel shadows as indicative of fakery(bunkum first voiced by Kaysing). To say this is just pure stupidity negates the fact that he is just plain lying. In his main example, he actually draws lines to a point where he says extra lighting had to have been used, but misses the stunningly obvious fact that multiple light sources create multiple shadows!! Also, the lines he uses to create an intersection, actually cross each other in the shot! Just mind numbingly wrong.

Numerous shadow debunking videos and photographs:-

Simple 30 second debunk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrFuCnW6T8
Mythbusters just nails this totally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0
Nailed again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy9rkc8jq0k
More simple demonstrations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrPaz3xFIg


These weblinks further explain it, with clear examples showing Percy as a liar:-
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/trrnshdow.html
http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html
http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html


This website completely nails a direct example used by the film:-
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/shadows.htm
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/shadows2.htm


Part 2......

Spacewalks being "faked"

Only to somebody biased, uninformed and with no idea about motion in micro gravity.

Video 1:-
From the user arcangel4myke, a man so convinced of his case, he blocks all comments and replies on his films and channel. He has numerous videos that suggest Disney directed the Apollo footage, with Mickey Mouse showing up in them!

Clip 1 from that video suggests the astronaut breathing is a release of a single bubble. From a self contained system? The "bubble" is simply a small piece of space debris.

Clip 2 he announces a quote of "It's like the ocean (pool water) poured in the SLP". Facepalm! He is talking about the Spacelab Logistics Pallet and the word he says is MOTION not ocean.

Clip 3 he says the light is from refraction in water, opinion. He says the communication sounds like a diver helmet, opinion. He alleges the Sun is a big light in the vast Russian swimming pool, opinion. He then lies by referring to actual footage as being a simulation, thus creating the illusion that he is comparing the two, when in reality he is showing two different clips. Finally another piece of space debris is a "bubble". Truly pathetic. If anybody watches that and is taken in by it, they deserve to stay in ignorance.

Video 2:-
From the same person. More space debris, almost certainly ejected from the craft. It actually flickers visibly and disappears as it catches the Sun and spins sideways on. It is probably a piece of heat insulation. I cannot fathom what level of gullibility is needed to believe this footage is hoaxed.

Link doesn't work - same post from years gone by.

This is the actual footage:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJGkb2oLlf4

Are you seriously suggesting that was faked? It is the most obvious spacewalk you could get, there is no way you could fake the Earth with such clarity in the late 60s. He has a much less bulky suit than ISS or shuttle astronauts and it is an umbilical fed system rather than self contained.

The statement about non linear paths of objects in zero-g is just plain stupid. Objects in micro gravity follow paths that relate to their inertia and centre of gravity(COG). Anything with mass, albeit small, at either end of a line could easily rotate about its COG, a curved path resulting, is also perfectly feasible.

An example here:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coX1u2_KBsQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=53s

Maybe you need to confine your wonder to things you understand! The idea that it is feasible to fake spacewalks in the totally obvious underwater environment beggars belief. The effort needed to do this in water and cover it up, plus keep all the participants, film crew, divers etc. quiet, as opposed to just opening the hatch is an example of conspiracy theory going even more bonkers.

It should be noted, that the video maker has taken a small clip from a large continuous piece of footage showing all sorts of views of the Earth rotating, and the ISS orbiting it. This is deliberate subterfuge. Bunkum.

Circular argument and a credibility test from the hard of understanding.
China did not fake their spacewalk, as shown in my analysis:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-1.html
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/chinese-spacewalks-part-2.html

He discusses the photograph in Collins' book where he used a training photograph to show what his spacewalk would look like. He is implying that the photograph has been deliberately manipulated with intent to deceive, and attempts to pigeon hole this with Apollo photographs. The actual photograph was rendered to represent space for his book.

From that book, the quote:-

"One of the great disappointments of the flight was that there were no photos of my spacewalk. [...] All we had was the film from one movie camera, [...] which recorded an uninterrupted sequence of black sky [...] I was really feeling sorry for myself, unable to produce graphic documentation for my grandchildren of my brief sally as a human satellite [...]”

Hardly shows intent to deceive does it!! Deliberate subterfuge by Jarrah White, a common theme amongst conspiracy theorists, cherry picking little pieces of information, whilst deliberately omitting other information that clearly refute the claim being made.

He compares different missions where the suits have different pressures. His primary observation is the suits aren't ballooned, and neither are the gloves. Since the outer suit is not pressurised this is just a daft observation. It comes from Ralph Rene and his idiotic pressurised glove "demonstration"! Bunkum.
White's example of ballooning is from a video where the astronaut uses an umbilical air feed, which is totally different to the self contained suits used and developed for Apollo. He is either being deceptive, or is very ignorant. I tend to believe it was probably both of those!

The premise being that because their visors are up, the IR and UV from the Sun is going to cause damage, therefore it must be "faked". I expect he got that from "Deep Impact" the Hollywood movie!

This is where I advise the film maker to go back to school and learn how these two electromagnetic waves actually impact on astronauts. The Apollo pressure helmet and the protective visor are made of lexan, a material almost completely opaque to UV. Does Jarrah White think UV penetrates the helmet enough to give even a mild tan??

Infrared is also not an issue, since these suits have self contained life support systems, with sublimating heat exchangers.

Maybe soon, one of these youtubers will start quoting figures and exposure rates, and equate them to the known protection of the spacesuits used by Apollo. I somehow doubt it!

Circular argument. They didn't fake the Moon missions or the spacewalks, and they did not fake the Mars missions. I am simply not going to waste any of my time debunking a non-sequitur argument steeped in ignorance. I offer the quote on the first video which to me says it all:-

"What I learned from this video: Space probes can never have their paint job changed between photo shoots and launch. Promotional videos never get details wrong. Lens flare does not exist, and a screw? looks like a sort of white streak, also, you can pick a screw out of some dust without disturbing it at all or leaving a mark. Newspapers never make mistakes ever."

Whistleblowers, governments and lies.

Actually what she says is that the scientists who worked at the company she worked at, sold out for money. To use somebody talking about corruption within the Nuclear power industry is completely irrelevant. This tarring of all scientists with the same brush is an act of subterfuge called poisoning the well. It ignores the fact that anybody who makes claims about a hoax is subject to these same parameters.

The startling fact about this "whistleblower", is that she makes a whole lot of money talking about this freely and openly, yet the evil powers haven't seen fit to silence her! Bunkum.

Again you cite an irrelevant case. The safety aspect of using depleted uranium is thought to be questionable. But long term studies suggest otherwise. Scaremongering is very much a popularity grabber these days!

The first case cited April 15, 1999, the second video in 2011. Do you have an updated release from the Rand corporation given the new studies available to them?

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P8066.html

Yes. Now all you have to do is to establish any single scientist tied to the Apollo programs who has spoken out about this. There are thousands of retired ones, not needing research grants or money, yet nobody has voiced an alternate opinion to the correct official account. There are millions of physics students throughout the world who offer no objection to the calculus involved in Lunar gravity, space radiation or radio transmissions. There are large numbers of engineers in all countries who also do not dispute the efficacy of the Apollo hardware. Orbital mechanics which is a very complex subject supports all aspects of the Apollo program.

To suggest they are all keeping quiet implies that they are all aware of a hoax and simply doing so to maintain funding and to stay alive. Bunkum.

Meh.

An example where half assed research is presented as fact with no proper peer review. It is difficult to change anything when it is steeped in thousands of such peer-reviewed documents. Let alone by somebody who offers no counter to any of these documents, yet offers "Anti-Darwinian" theories based on suspect research and conclusions.

No, it means that if somebody presents crap unsubstantiated research to people who have previously performed superb research, it will be met with scorn.

Attributing this to finite science like geology has so many logical fallacies I don't know how to label it. How about just plain stupid. I did a full debunk on rock analysis by numerous institutions. The conclusions are nothing to do with keeping a hoax going, and it unintentionally adds a vast number of people to those who are "keeping the secret"! Geologists have no affinity to government or for that matter NASA. As stated previously, there are numerous now retired people who have examined the rocks.

No deathbed confessions, lawyer letters, whistleblowing tapes or leaked documents. Bunkum.

Watergate and Monicagate to name just two. The modern press is littered with conspiracy stories, often with total scorn, but not always. The idea that somebody coming forward to blow the whistle on Apollo would be ignored is a ludicrous statement. It would make a story that would go viral in seconds.

Link 1:-
Somebody does a cartoon about news restriction. Amazing proof.

Link 2:-
More Noam Chomsky and his freely expressed opinions. Still very much alive!

Link 3:-
More people alive and well, freely talking about restrictions in reporting on intelligence services and the CIA level of control. You'd think the evil people they were exposing would have bumped them off wouldn't you?!

Link 4:-
General search on one of the people in link 3 - William Schaap. He is still freely talking, giving his opinion and not being bumped off.

Link 5:-
More Chomsky. Zzzzzz. Same thing, freely expressing his opinion, and still alive. I'm seeing a pattern here.

Link 6:-
Chomsky, yada yada yada.

Link 7/8/9:-
More "media is controlled by the evil powers", and a headline quote from 1880.

Link 10:-
Laura Knight-Jadczyk article. I shall simply state that this lady also postulates that Comet Elenin is the harbinger of doom.

Link 11:-
This is my favorite! The evil Fox news network exposed. This being the same evil Fox news network that ran a documentary of profound stupidity about a supposed Apollo Moon hoax!!

You just cannot make up this level of contradictory stupidity.

Link 12:-
Same as links 7/8/9. Media whistleblowers, loads of articles from people telling their story, who fascinatingly are all still alive.

Link 1:-
Have to laugh here. The evil Fox news network documentary now telling the "truth"! More bunkum and speculation already discussed, concerning Apollo 1. As for link 2 below, a repeat link.

Link 2:-
Just a complete repeat of the section about deathbed confessions.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/deathbed-confessions.html

Link 3:-
People who disbelieve the official 911 story, suggested as being murdered to keep them quiet. Yet, hundreds upon hundreds of far more active campaigners remain alive. People who produce films that reach wide audiences, people who write books, people on youtube who churn out thousands of films.

Major campaigners such as Alex Jones and David Icke, website owners, truth organisations. All still very much alive.

Another wall of spam - wow! It should be taken as read that corruption in government is a given. There are all sorts of behind the scenes activities, subvertive motives and undisclosed operations. It is primarily a matter of establishing and keeping American interest abroad. Some of it sucks badly.

However, your use of it to link to the Apollo Moon landings is a big non-sequitur pile of bovine excrement. Apollo was the most open, detailed, heavily explained series of missions ever performed. There are hundreds of thousands of technical documents, films, photographs, audio and scientific publications.

The presence of this data presents a piece of history that can be analysed to as high a degree as could possibly be made. There is nothing missing from the detail that could be explained by subterfuge. There is no subterfuge that could explain the total detail released. The two go hand in hand.

When any rational person examines the science behind Apollo, there can be no question that the mission detail offers as complete and satisfactory account as any private citizen could require.

Begging the question. They don't. They support it because it wasn't faked.

Scientists around the world know Apollo was not faked. NASA is by no means the only source of data and information from space, and to suggest silence being bought for remaining quiet about a "hoax", involves thousands of complicit scientists, none of which has ever offered whistleblowing testimony upon retirement or deathbed confession.

Yes. No question about it. Human beings are inherently unable to keep secrets.

This is the old "compartmentalising" argument. This completely falls apart under the simple premise, that without direct knowledge, the half million people doing their jobs, would do so to ensure the mission was successful.

The whole scenario about hoaxes is perfectly summed up with this summary from the Clavius website:-

http://www.clavius.org/scale.html


Summary:-

This section of the "wall of spam" highlights two points that massively contradict each other.

We have the premise that scientists and governments lie, "demonstrated" with whistleblowers and articles written and spoken by numerous individuals very much alive.

We then have the premise that nobody would speak out about Apollo because they would fear for their lives!

BUNKUM!

"Disinfo" and "Damage Control" Forums

From the first link:-

"Things don't seem to have the damping in their motions that would be expected from water immersion...the inertia without friction causes them trouble at several points. There are several instances of "bubbles", but no buoyancy to them...they actually seem to radiate from a projection further on down. Popping flakes of ice/paint/insulation from surfaces heating/cooling, perhaps caught in maneuvering thruster blasts?"

That is actually one point I hadn't considered. There are frequent thruster adjustments to maintain the orb-rate attitude.

"I disgaree, only an "insane conspiracy nut" would see that "something is wrong". A normal person might say "I don't understand why the rope appears to be coming out of the hatch, what explanations could there be?" Or they might realise that almost all pipes, ropes and wires tend to straighten out, as this one is doing, pushing itself out of the container in the process.

Furthermore when a curved rope or cable in a confined area on a spacecraft is suddenly unconfined on one side it might float out. There are some good videos of astronuats on the shuttle fighting with cables coming out of a locker in exactly the same manner."

"As I mentioned above, just because it's weird doesn't mean it's suspicious. Because the cable is weightless, the shape it takes is primarily determined by the shape it had when it was stowed. In this case, the shape of the cable is forcing it into a position "above" the bar to which it's tethered. That's why the cable looks like it's floating."

"Ah, thank you, that is much better. When you stop and start the video in half second increments the right looks angular to me and changes in attitude as well. I think it is a small piece of flat debris, foil, insulation paper maybe. The same appears to be the case on the right hand side one as well. Again, flatness, angularitry and opposite sense of movement are not what you woudl expect from bubbles."

"It appears to be moving in that direction, but that image is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimension reality. What direction it really is moving it would require photogrammetry."

This post from that thread, which sums it up quite well:-

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy?p=1480461#post1480461


And this one, which I have bolded as it confirms my own analysis totally:-

"Something that is ejected, say, from the capsule by an impulse of escaping gas or a mechanical effect does not fly away from the capsule in a straight line. In fact it enters its own orbit around Earth, very similar in period and other orbital elements to the capsule itself. But what this means is that as the capsule pursues its orbit and the fragment pursues its own very similar (but not identical orbit) the fragment will be seen to move in various directions relative to the capsule. In orbital operations this is known as periodic recontact, and it is something we have to plan for when we schedule intentional ejections."

From the second link:-

"True, but the point is that it was written in advance and we agree that it was sensible to have done so. If you have reports written in advance to cover all of the likely outcomes, it's only a matter of time time before an inappropriate one is released accidentally. If the Nixon administration writes a speech in advance for a contingency, then it's just good thinking. If the Chinese news agency does the same thing, they're typical disinformationists."

"1 meter per frame, 30 frames a second so the "water jet used to achieve neutral boyancy" (Why??? [B]Last time I went diving I managed it with a few weights[/B],) is travelling at 30 meters per second.

Who would believe that?

Are they completely deranged?"

Once again you make your credibility test based on your own ignorance.

As for your opposingdigits, look at your own behaviour!

http://www.politicalforum.com/4166145-post67.html

Meh.

If there was damage in the first place! Once again offering your opinion as the finite analysis of something. It's pretty clear they are full of people a quantum leap smarter than yourself, who aren't gullible or ignorant and who don't spend their lives spamming the internet.

One of your other spam sites, offering more Aulis regurgitation. Each of those threads has correct assessments on them. Once again I cite somebody who has refuted this already (though his links to the ALSJ are a little out of date - I may need to rewrite this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911

Irrelevant. This is called attacking the messenger. The purpose of which is to indirectly suggest that his extremely competent rebuttals are in some way suspect.

From that link, somebody has also noticed your propensity to spam:-

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059060846&postcount=4

That's given me a great idea for the video I was preparing!

"If the webmaster used to work in aerospace, then doesn't that mean he and all the other contributors could be part of the conspiracy? "

"Yes, it's possible but not very rational. The conspiracists wish to divide their opponents into two groups, those who know very little about the moon landings and therefore don't have the knowledge required to see through the holes in the conspiracy theory, and those who know quite a bit about the moon landings and therefore (say the conspiracists) are probably part of the conspiracy. To stack the deck so that all the possibilities point to the conspiracy is to avoid seriously examining the question. Evidence which seriously challenges the conspiracy must be dealt with, regardless of who proposes it.

As a practical matter, the webmaster has never worked for NASA. He has no financial interest in supporting NASA's claims."

The "guilty" astronauts!

Last link doesn't work. No surprise since it is years old repeated spam.

I always have trouble with conspiracy theorists who attribute guilt to somebody because of how they "think" they look! This is especially true when considering hoax believers who are looking for absolutely anything as some kind of proof for their stupid hoax theory. The conviction rates of criminals would go through the roof if all that was needed was bare assertion to confirm "guilt".

Now, the contention itself. Not only is the full press conference full of light hearted moments, it is probably the first time any of one these 3 men has appeared in front of thousands of people and expected to talk publicly to them. Anybody who has got up to speak to just a room full of people will know that it can be quite nerve wracking and intimidating. These are astronauts, not media savvy people used to appearing in front of large gatherings.

The actual circumstances surrounding the press conference are more than adequate to explain why anybody wouldn't be at their best, if any such explanation were needed.

1.  Apollo 11 spends 8 days in space and on the Moon, in itself that is quite a physical exertion, with no normal food, toilet facilities, beds or bathing.

2.  Apollo astronauts land back on Earth July 24th and go straight into quarantine for just under 3 weeks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LpTQdgThBI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFg8aSiDnTU

3.  Quarantine ends on August 11th.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEZZ_mUMWM

4.  Press conference August 12th the day after!

So, no proper R&R, no contact with their family, no time to go outside, no proper downtime and straight into a packed auditorium in front of the world's media. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that anybody would be in tip-top condition in those circumstances. Even so, they did a good presentation, answered numerous questions and as can clearly be seen (for anybody who wants to trawl through 90 minutes of this!) there are numerous instances where everybody has a good laugh.

But all a hoax believer can do is say "they look guilty"!

Here are some videos showing the exact opposite of that. Relaxed, proud, happy and with no problem telling their individual accounts of their missions:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4qlZcWWWL0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8BEIVa1rM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bF_VVfB8b8

Some Cosmored "Hoax" Videos

Link 1:-
This is a youtube search on "Moonfaker" by Jarrah White. I have no intention of debunking every single thing in his hopelessly ignorant videos. I offer instead a youtube search for "Moonfaker critique", where Phil Webb has already debunked a large proportion of them already:-

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+critique&aq=f


Link 2:-
This is a demonstration whereby having a Phd in no way gives you skills in other fields. Hologram image analysis is not photogrammetry.
Before I debunk this rubbish, I want to present a critique on David Groves.

1. He begins by telling us that he is the director for Quantec Image Processing Ltd, a point raised 3 times, as though it has some weight of argument. The company went into liquidation in 1999 and ceased to trade in 2000. The film came out in 2000.

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1055&page=3#31777

2. Groves performs a heat experiment on the Kodak film, by placing it in an oven!! For those who understand physics, using convection as a means to heat something, when supposedly comparing to the activity in a vacuum where none such convective heat is possible, is just plain stupid.

3. Groves fires a full strength X-ray at the film and concludes that it is a comparison to Solar x-ray, when the x-ray strength from the Sun is less than 1/1000th of  a standard x-ray machine! In addition, he lists the energy levels in measurements of REM, when this is a measurement of human tissue exposure, instead of RADS which is the unit he should have used!

http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html

4. He used the wrong camera, and gave no indication that the magazines had been strengthened as per the ones used on Apollo.

If he is a scientist, he's a pretty poor one, selling out to make a buck!

Analysing the actual clip:-
The video clip is from What Happened On The Moon. Groves says he places the secondary light source next to Aldrin, yet ignores the most obvious of all methods to determine where the source is, by eye. As can be seen from this photo close up, the centre of the picture is about 30 centimetres to the left of his boot and it is so stunningly obvious that the hotspot is pointing straight back at the camera! The light source is the spacesuit of Armstrong, lit up like a Christmas Tree from the Sun! The clip even shows the video record with him brightly lit.

Percy, the maker of the film, then compares the TV footage using low bandwidth 10 fps, exposed for the surface, to the picture lit by surface reflected light and exposed accordingly. Just plain daft, as though a TV picture on a Vidicon camera will compare to a Hasselblad still camera!

They then debunk themselves with some "normal" and "backlit" models of the LM. In the backlit versions, we see the ground shadows soften noticeably, and the ladder now casts a solid shadow! Way to go Percy, I'm sure none of the gullible HBs noticed that one!

Percy then goes on to indicate average Lunar albedo as 7%, and says it is "untenable" as a natural light reflector. Bunkum. I wonder how many people think the Moon is not bright enough when viewed from Earth!

http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm

"Our Moon’s average visual albedo is 0.12. The brightness of the Moon changes dramatically as its phase changes. During first and third quarters, the visible Moon is 50% illuminated by the Sun, but its brightness is only about 8% of full Moon -- an increase of 2.7 magnitudes. The Moon’s visual albedo on its illuminated segment gets progressively smaller as the angle between the Earth and Sun on the Moon (phase angle) increases. A major reason for this decrease of visual albedo with increasing phase angle is the greater creation of shadows on the irregular lunar surface, thereby reducing reflected light back to Earth."

Indeed, one of the properties of the Moon, is its propensity to reflect light back at the light source. It is why a full Moon is 8 times brighter than a half Moon.

The natural backlighting of the Moon's surface is obvious to all but blnkered HBs, and corrupt film makers. Remember also, that the average albedo accounts for such things as crater rims, depressions and rocks, which are much lower, so a reasonably open area of surface will be higher than the average.

Percy continues with his ignorance, by showing pictures exposed for the surface, up sun and distant terrain to supposedly demonstrate nearfield under exposed rocks have shadows. Bunkum.

He uses a picture of the LM with a huge over glare from the Sun, indicating a high exposure, to insist it has been filled in with a light. Yet, we see no shadow softening, and no secondary shadows as per his example shown above.

Continuing the clip, we hear the account of HJP Arnold (assistant to MD of Kodak 1966-74) where he makes some observations about the quality of the pictures. Presumably the film makers used this to suggest that perfect photography was not possible. Despite the hundreds of duff photographs never shown, the hours and hours of practice performed, and preset aperture and exposures calculated, this is just more bunkum.

It did make me smile when I heard what Mr Arnold said:-

"That sequence of images on the Lunar surface, taken mainly by Armstrong of course, with that one camera, which incidentally was left on the Moon, so it's gonna be a marvellous relic for when we eventually get back there of course.... the film came back."

I get the impression he knows we landed on the Moon, and has no trouble believing the film made it back safely!

Percy now moves up a gear to pure subterfuge. He "analyses" the classic Aldrin photo and concludes all sorts of fall off problems, and alignment problems(from David Groves who concludes the camera must have been tilted down!) assuming I suppose that the Moon is as flat as a pancake! He then shows the picture to Jan Lundberg (of Hasselblad) who cannot explain it.
Perhaps if he had used the correct version, rather than a magazine adjusted crap copy, he would have had no problem with it at all?

Here is the photo analysed by somebody who knows what they are doing:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q07Xrsc397E

Here is why Jan Lundberg was confused:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VZIwtrDsRQ

And visually, the picture shown to him, and the proper picture next to each other:-

Link 3:-
This is another clip from the film What Happened on the Moon.
Firstly he looks at a photo of Al Bean and concludes the astronaut was above him in the visor reflection as though it's impossible?? He was in a slightly elevated position. The area they took these photos was undulating and perfectly normal as one would expect from the Moon's surface.

He then concludes that 2 Apollo 11 photographs are suspect, because the horizon is a different level to other shots at different angles. Once again, for some reason, he seems to think the Moon is dead flat! Google Moon shows perfectly the terrain of the Apollo 11 landing site with its undulations, and is fully consistent with what is seen.

HBs have no trouble in believing this contention, with David Percy begging the question at every opportunity, yet failing to realise this so simple point.

This clip from the camera setup, shows the nature of the terrain, clearly undulating and a very wide area. This sequence alone, debunks the stupid "shot in a studio" contention!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIX4suNoFs&feature=player_detailpage#t=253s


Link 4:-
This is where I become suspicious of whether you have actually watched this clip. It is a small Real Player version of the film "Was it a Paper Moon", which you include later on in your wall of spam.
I will address that film separately.


Link 5:-
This is where some observant HB has noticed a Mythbusters film with some fleeting scratches on a small piece of film played back through a studio monitor and concludes they are "wires"!

Directly responded to by Mythbusters:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9mYWWHREag

Completely refuted in this clip from a very long wires debunk video:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjEItn1sSQg&feature=player_detailpage#t=44s

Not only does that clip show the two scratches appearing in the exact same frame as each other, but also shows that the scratch doesn't match the astronauts movement. Not wires - scratches. Bunkum.


Link 6:-
Doesn't work. I expect it is a clip from the What Happened On The Moon film, and I will address it in one series(including and expanding upon the two clips above).