Showing posts with label apollo moon landings. Show all posts
Showing posts with label apollo moon landings. Show all posts

Saturday, August 20, 2011

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!

Monday, August 1, 2011

The Apollo 17 Flag

Since you wish to include this as part of your wall of spam, I shall debunk it properly.

Video 1:-

Here is my first video showing the whole clip from the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal. In this video, the astronauts crossover a few times, so the idea they are using "wires" that we never see, can be quickly debunked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQxQSzj3Khw


Video 2:-

Now, we have discounted the use of wires, since it would be impossible to stop them tangling! Here is the next video with the film firstly sped up 150%. The dust and flag motion is excessive, and several movements by the astronauts look very odd. There are short glimpses of vertical motion showing that it still is too slow for Earth gravity. I then speed the film up 200%, and now it all looks patently absurd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPLoqxacpFI


Video 3:-

The final video is a debunk of the motion, showing also that the flagpole is rotating, causing a massive dampening effect to any pendulum swing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc6sqIe3Aio

Sunday, July 31, 2011

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 5

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minute 89-91 More from Ronnie Stronge telling us about all the Apollo 13 anomalies found(already debunked), and concluding that "something is very wrong with this mission and the Apollo space program in general". This is just bare assertion aimed at influencing the viewer, and uses the reinforcing technique of all the "evidence" presented. He says "we certainly have to conclude that the official data concerning this mission is unreliable"!  Unbelievable bunkum. They have not presented one single tenable fact to conclude this.
Stronge just spouts more bare assertions about it being designed as a "rescue mission" and that Apollo 13 never left LEO. Ignoring the fact that the craft would be clearly visible to the world, radio signals would now disappear with each 90 minute orbit and every single ground station tracking the craft would see this.

Minute 91-93 Mary "epic fail" Bennett now comes up with top grade bunkum. She highlights inconsistencies with Apollo 13. No, not the NASA mission, the Hollywood movie! Yes, she really does think that a dramatized account should be 100% accurate and proves that Apollo 13 the mission would have done the same thing. I really cannot emphasize enough, quite how stupid this is.

There are quite a few more errors on the Apollo 13 movie, that could have padded out this joke of a film even more:-

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112384/goofs


Minute 93-94 Continuing with more Bennett nonsense. She now theorises whether the reason the landing site "that never was", took its name from the 16th century Venetian monk Fra Mauro, was because he was the instigator of a "map that never was".

Well firstly, we have already shown the landing site in darkness contention was complete bunkum, and the program presents no evidence to this non-sequitur link about fake maps. Secondly it was the 15th century, a minor point, but indicative of the level of research made. She represents herself as an academic, yet makes so many glaring mistakes and unsupported statements.

Direct quote from her "yet no trace of his map has ever been found":-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Mauro_map

I simply have to do a full quote on what this daft woman says next:-

"This adventure in mind mapping raises important questions concerning the links, between representation and imagination and even the nature of reality itself......we wonder what the Fra Mauro site symbolised for those in the know at NASA"

Stink it up, and you call that evidence?

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/landing_site/

The landing site selected for Apollo 14 was in the Fra Mauro Formation near Cone Crater, with the primary objective of sampling material excavated by the Imbrium impact.


Minute 94-95 Stronge announces that we are returning to more shadow inconsistencies. By "more" he reaffirms in the casual viewer that they have already shown some already, when they haven't. Percy continues with a TV shot of an astronaut exiting on Apollo 14 and offers the speculation "is this real or has it been simulated on a film set"? It's real. He uses his filled in light bunkum to "explain" it. Surface reflection.

Percy continues with his "ahaaa" whistleblowing theme, with some comments from the clip below:-

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14v.1141931.rm

114:19:16 Mitchell: Okay, set her up.
114:19:17 Shepard: Okay. All kinds of freebies in today's simulation.
114:19:27 McCandless: Roger. We've got the boys in the Backroom working overtime.

Perhaps he should list to other parts of the transcript?

114:20:34 Mitchell: Okay! There's Earth, way up there.
114:21:57 Mitchell: Back up just a bit. Right there. Okay, I have the Earth centered.

Obviously jokes aren't allowed on Apollo. Shepard was referring to the various glitches inserted into simulations back on Earth, as he encountered problems with the radio antenna on the Moon. To the deceptive Percy however, this represents "whistleblowing"! Edgar Mitchell has made numerous claims about UFOs, as he freely blows his large whistle in public, yet strangely we never hear a peeop from the even bigger Apollo whistle.

http://www.examiner.com/us-intelligence-in-national/ufo-phenomenon-is-real-says-apollo-astronaut-edgar-mitchell-on-abc-news-why-the-cover-up


Minute 95-96 Refers to "flat terrain" on an Apollo 15 clip where the shadow is "similar in length" to the astronauts height (it is longer), and the quote "shadows make a real difference up here". We then get the smarmy Percy saying "yes they certainly do", implying once again that his completely inept shadow analysis previously presented carries some weight. He then proceeds with shadows in a later part of the EVA where they appear longer.

The clue in this piece of subterfuge is with the angle of both the Lunar rover camera and the astronaut appearing to lean to his left.The shadow falls on a downslope!



































It is this very cherry picking mentality, that perfectly demonstrates the way Percy presents his claims. Blatant lying.


Minute 96-97 Here we begin the "irrefutable" proof of "superlights" by Percy. Refuted on this previous analysis:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/superlight-contention.html

This is the video I made showing it in detail:-

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


Minute 97-99 More summation from Stronge who reaffirms the "superlight" to the viewer. He begs the question "how could NASA hope to get away with it?" "could it be a very large whistleblower?", then offers the answer to his dumb strawman questions!

His answer is "as Hitler said, the bigger the lie the more easier it is for people to believe it". Facepalm.

Continuing, Stronge then postulates a "seemingly ridiculous" hypothesis, the "outrageous" idea that all the footage was filmed in studios - indoor and outdoor. Short answer to this, yes it is. On Apollo footage we always have dark shadows, no dust clouds, lunar gravity motion, dust motion consistent with that gravity, vast open areas that have no features recognisable on Earth, always evenly lit with always one shadow. Hundreds of hours with no continuity errors, with photography matching the video and always fully consistent with it.


Minute 99-100 Cue images of Area 51 and dramatic music!


Minute 100 Now we leap to the bizarre. Stronge identifies the sinking of the Lusitania. Percy takes over and indicates that the media mocked up a rendition of this, and "presented it as real events" - when it obviously isn't. We move on to the Hindenburg disaster cause being withheld, because supposedly it wasn't the hydrogen at fault, but the outer covering as being the cause. Bunkum, and irrelevant in the extreme!

http://www.airships.net/hindenburg/disaster/myths


Minute 101-102 Cynically this film presents the Challenger disaster, but fails to make any point concerning it!

Percy summarises a woefully short list of what would be involved in faking the entire film and video record, including all the personnel, then astonishingly claims that nobody involved would have noticed, because it was performed over "such a long period of time"! Nobody allegedly involved in simulation that would need to look real, has ever come forward or made any deathbed confession. Mind numbing, simplistic, ignorant hogwash.


Part 6.....

Saturday, July 30, 2011

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 4

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 69-70 Percy reminds us of the "designer continuity error" on the Apollo 16 jump salute with the PLSS flap, where I showed him to be lying! He then points out a photograph taken with the Earth and flag in shot on Apollo 17 and indicates how difficult it would be without a viewfinder. Difficult is not impossible, nevertheless We are left with the implied suggestion.

Perhaps this charlatan could have looked at the previous image in that roll of film where Schmitt also tried to do the same shot? Here it is badly framed sideways on, with the tiniest bit of the Earth visible on the edge of the flag.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20383HR.jpg


Minutes 70-72  Percy now shows us his assessment of the Apollo 17 flag billowing "positive" ie. bulging towards the stills camera, and to his "trained eye" also billowing positive in the opposite direction to the TV camera.

It is an optical illusion, perfectly explained here:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/2flags3.htm

With a demonstration pictorially on this page:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/2flags4.htm

And visually here:-




































He continues with just a bizarre summary of what his optical illusion actually means! Whistleblowing flag movers, and the Schmitt "Earth photgraph" interpreted by him as "No departure from Earth by the named astronaut in this photograph". I kid you not, he actually does say that hogwash!

Always we have the reinforcing of the "evidence" with repetition and referbacks, instilling in the viewer a sense of wonder at this "mass of hoax proof".


Minutes 72-74 Moving on to the question of why there is only one Hasselblad image of Armstrong on the Moon, Ronnie Stronge then speculates that it was because he was a reclusive man and maybe felt "guilt"! He says "was he even on the Moon"? The idea that they had one surface camera, and that Armstrong was doing most of the photography probably never occurred to them(though given the previous demonstrations of subterfuge, I suspect they did)! This is a laboured, irrelevant, contrived piece of nonsense.


Minutes 75-77 The next contention presented is "sound and light". Here we are shown footage of a bob sleigh powering down the run, vibrating as it moves along the surface. The adrenalin and excitement are highlighted as the film tells us how dangerous this is. Then on to the Apollo 11 descent where professional astronauts are cool, calm and collected as they call out descent readings. The film explains about the engine thrust and how it should have produced massive vibrations, yet clearly ignores the fact that there is no sound in a vacuum! The idea that the engine would shake the craft, the way a ground contacting bob sleigh in an atmosphere would do, is quite ludicrous.

Ronnie Stronge tells us that it is hard to believe we would not have heard any vibration or noise from the engine, yet anybody who has flown in an aircraft knows that the only noise we hear comes from external sound waves. This point is quite laboured and steeped in ignorance. The comparison is made to the Space Shuttle in LEO where supposedly astronauts can feel the thrusters firing, yet fails to point out that feeling motion is not the same as feeling engine vibration, that would at most have had only a gentle effect on the hull.

A throwaway reference is made to the "flimsy" Lunar Module, where no evidence is presented as to how this conclusion is made. The external mylar and kapton is often cited by conspiracy theorists as proof of the LM as bing a "tin-can", yet this machine was built to a very high specification by a dedicated team. The idea that they would create a "flimsy" craft, knowingly, yet the hundreds of personnel involved in its design and build would stay quiet about it is another piece of hogwash.


Minutes 77-79 David Percy now gives us the benefit of his "research" where he cites a mock-up pan of what the Surveyor III craft would look like to Apollo 12 (taken from the film "Conquest of Space"), and he then concludes it is the actual Apollo 12 descent footage!! Unbelievable subterfuge. The mock-up bears no resemblance to any of the Apollo 12 Surveyor III photographs. I'm surprised he didn't point this out as one of his dumb "inconsistencies"!

Here is the Apollo 12 full descent footage:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbj8Zo053Lc


Minutes 80-82 The Apollo 12 TV camera fail, is highlighted as "suspicious" by David Percy. He determines that the camera couldn't have failed, because a later mission did the same thing with no problems. Now, gee Percy, maybe they learned from their mistakes d'ya think?

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.tvtrbls.html

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/ApolloTV-Acrobat5.pdf












He carries on rambling about continuing lens flares indicating that the camera must have been still working! Lens flares are internal reflections from THE LENS, so any direct flared light would be reflected onto the vidicon screen. Direct light itself was not registered for the burnt out part of the tube. He continues by saying the blacked out portion of the tube was varied over time, which to him suggests it is still functional, when in reality, as is likely, the areas that were not burnt completely would restore some functionality over time.
Continuing, he now claims that Apollo 16 should have known not to point the camera into the Sun. So wh
en being directed by Houston, why would they ask such a thing? Simple, the camera had safeguards built in (as a result of Apollo 12), so why would they know that it was now completely inadvisable. They were guidelines only, and since Houston was directing them, it was a logical question. A trivial and meaningless point by Percy.


Minutes 82-86 This piece of the film is one gigantic rambling chunk of nonsense, Ronnie Stronge starts talking about 2001 a space ODYSSEY(the name of the CSM) and thinks it significant that they played the theme tune moments before the accident with the oxygen stirring tanks, He then suggests the song "The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius" (the name of the LM) being played is also symbolic of the need to use the LM after the accident. Just pure bunkum! He even alludes to the term "Houston we have a problem" as being from the film 2001 and being the work of a secret "whistleblower"!


Minutes 86-87 Mary Bennett makes her entrance and advises us that the blue Sunlight and Earthlight refracted and over exposed through the LM windows is evidence of the craft being in Low Earth Orbit, when it is the coatings used on the windows. Once again we have a referback to the supposedly "already proven" Apollo 11 in LEO (when weather patterns and numerous other things prove it wasn't!) as another example of this.

Debunked here again:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDo9Gyy_W6Q

Here is a section from that video showing how the bright Earth light appears blue, even at distance:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDo9Gyy_W6Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=116s


Minute 87-89 Percy suggests that the photograph of the damaged Apollo 13 CSM is identical to one where the cover is removed on another photograph. Irrelevant really what he thinks, the Odyssey photograph shows damage. Another daft contention. Ronnie Stronge makes an assertion that "many experts" claim, such an explosion would throw the craft "way off course". Hogwash. Who are these "many experts" and where are their computations?

We now have Mary Bennett and her "dance through space" speech, where she tells us that the Apollo 13 craft was scheduled to land in darkness, because it was just barely emerging from the terminator when the craft was over 19,000 miles on its way back to Earth. She says that Apollo 13 had just left Lunar orbit whilst it was still dark.

Let's examine this. Firstly, Apollo 13 never went into orbit!! She has the audacity to tell us how anybody with "rudimentary knowledge of astronomy or an ephemeris" could check this, but makes such a basic, bad error. The craft went around the Moon on a free-return-trajectory. This means it did not fire retro to slow its speed to acquire orbit, but was on a speed and course that took it around the Moon far quicker than normal. It also fired its engine to achieve escape velocity.

This means it hit 19,000 miles away from the Moon barely before it would have even performed one orbital rotation! Apollo 13 was scheduled to be in lunar orbit for 26 hours prior to landing. The actual sunrise terminator moves some 13 degrees in longitude between lunar orbital insertion and the landing.

Mary Bennett - epic fail.


Part 5.....

Saturday, July 16, 2011

Some Cosmored "Hoax" Links

















I'm tempted to just plaster some links offering standard rebuttal to the whole lot of them!

Actually, more than tempted, here they are:-
http://www.clavius.org/
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/main.htm
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked
http://science.howstuffworks.com/moon-landing-hoax.htm/printable
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html
http://as204.blogspot.com/
http://www.ka9q.net/crackpots/apollohoax.html
http://www.iangoddard.com/moon01.htm
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/conspiracytheorydidwegotothemoon.htm

Link 1:
Some quotes from the genius Bill Kaysing:-

"But there's a little problem, you know, the temperature on the moon is 250°F during the lunar day, and a friend of mine put some film in an oven and ran it up to 250 and the film just curled up. If you notice that the Hasselblad camera is worn outside of the astronaut's suit and it is not curled in any way. So that camera would have heated up to the temperature to bake cookies in a very short time, because the Sun on the moon is absolutely relentless, there's no atmosphere to mitigate the heat of the Sun."

Mr Kaysing seems to think the maximum possible Lunar surface temperature compares to an oven! There is no air on the Moon, so no convection. The actual surface temperatures on the Moon were not even close to maximum. The smart guys at NASA decided that landing early Lunar morning was a great idea!
He gives no indications or calculations as to how he decides the camera would bake like a cookie. There is only radiated heat from the Sun, and conductive heat for anything heated by it. Since the camera had very few parts in contact with the film, had extra shielding on it, and spent equal amounts of time in the shade, his contention is complete bunkum.


"No stars on any photographs"

Stars are too faint to be captured without very long exposures. There is also the fact that light pollution from the Lunar day would limit what was possible.

Demonstrated perfectly by this camera progression:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmPFv7S7My4

Debunked by numerous other examples:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTP2VoNr2r4

Photographing stars:-

http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Photograph_the_Stars


"The Van Allen belt would probably have cooked any astronauts who ventured into that area."

Charged particles don't cook things. The Apollo missions took 30 degree trajectories around the edges of the belts. Demonstrated in this video:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4

Explained in great detail on this site:-

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/apollo11-TLI.htm

And this picture:-


















Mr Kaysing doesn't do research, he just makes bare assertions and backs it up with anonymous witness accounts.


"The Russians discovered that the radiation on the moon would require astronauts to be clothed in four feet of lead to avoid being killed."

No they didn't. Kaysing offers just his opinion on this, as though it closes the case! The Russians had their own Lunar landing program, they knew the Lunar surface was manageable with the right shielding and spacesuits.



"The Russians never intended to land men on the moon."

They just spent billions of dollars exploding rockets for fireworks I suppose? More bunkum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)


"Apollo 13 was totally faked. It never left the earth."

Bill, as usual, offers no proof of this, just his bare assertion.
Weather patterns match with photography and video footage taken during Lunar coast:-

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=3132&page=2#90134

The Apollo 13 launch, that "never left Earth"!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta6q6-52a3c


"Shadows diverged. In other words, if you have a point source of light, like the Sun, and you can see this anytime outdoors, all shadows will parallel - telephone poles, trees, you name it - all the shadows will be parallel. "

Multiple light sources create multiple shadows.

As for parallel shadows, bunkum:-













































Debunked in 30 seconds:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrFuCnW6T8



"Did the Challenger blow up? Did NASA know it would blow up?
Yeah, and you know why it blew up? Because Christa McAuliffe, the only civilian and only woman aboard, refused to go along with the lie that you couldn't see stars in space. So they blew her up, along with six other people, to keep that lie under wraps. I claim that Christa McAuliffe was murdered."

Bunkum. So stupid it is hardly worth debunking. Even now ISS astronauts talk about the stars. The idea that NASA blew up a shuttle because of one person who was going to reveal this stunningly obvious non secret, is ludicrous.


"Oh, yeah. One of my friends went to the Smithsonian and he measured the exit door of the lunar lander and found out that astronauts wearing their life-support systems could not have gone out that door, they were too big. "

Yeah? My "friend" went there and measured it and he said it was fine. The photographs of Aldrin exiting kind of confirm that!


Now a bit of fun with Mr Kaysing and getting his story straight:-

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

That's His Story Part 2

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts never left the earth.
"The Apollo 11 vehicle, or Saturn 5, was sent out of people's sight, and then it was jettisoned into the South Atlantic, where all of the six [sic] that were launched now reside. There were no astronauts, of course, on board." (Nardwuar interview)

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts did leave the earth.
For the Conspiracy Theory show, he says he believes the astronauts lifted into orbit, waited several days, then splashed down in the ocean "as shown on film."

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts might have gone to the moon.
"[A] trio of men supposedly made the quarter million mile journey between earth and its satellite. Now whether this journey was made or not, a great many people witness the failure of their leaders...." (We Never Went to the Moon, 2002, p. 70)


Link 2:
First video shows the mockumentary about Kubrick directing the landings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(mockumentary)

That documentary has been suckering in gullible HBs since it was first released. I question anybody's power of discernment when that appears in prime position on their website!
Loads of WHOTM and AFTHOTWTTM. Nothing not covered in those two films, to be addressed in the direct film analysis.


Link 3:
Link doesn't work.

Link 4:
Interview with Bart Sibrel. The liar.
http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Bart%20Sibrel.htm

This video demonstrates that Bart Sibrel is very much wrong in his idiotic contentions about the "secret Apollo 11 film"!!:-

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

This video demonstrates that weather patterns match with on board photography and transmitted video, on the Apollo 11 trans lunar coast:-

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

Simple but effective video, showing the Earth rotating during a 10 minute video sequence shot during Apollo 11 Lunar coast:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA


Link 5:
Link doesn't work, why am I not surprised at the presence of long defunct links present in your numerously repeated wall of spam from years gone by!


Link 6:
Aulis - the David Percy team, plus Jack "what is photogrammetry?" White!

How poignant, as he presents one inept contention after another. If I get the time and inclination, I may do a complete point by point rebuttal.

Here is one already done:-
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911


Link 7 and 8:
The same blog in both links. Nothing new, all covered in the list of links I presented above.


Link 9:
Cosmic apollo. Totally debunked here:-

http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html

I look at that sight and am appalled at the ignorance shown by the website owner. He actually contradicts himself by claiming we never landed on the Moon, and covering up alien bases we discovered when we landed on the Moon. Bunkum.


Link 10:
Another duff link. Clearly your spam and paste needs a review!


Link 11:
Yeah, needs a review, yet another duff link.


Link 12:
They discussed this at BAUT and ripped it to shreds:-

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/94568-McGowan-s-quot-Wagging-the-Moondoggie-quot

Thursday, July 14, 2011

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).

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Russia didn't expose the "hoax"?





A series by Jarrah White spanning from the Columbia shuttle disaster onwards? How does that explain anything? It has no bearing whatsoever on the cold war between the USA and Russia during the space race of the 60s and early 70s. 












Profoundly circular reasoning, from a gentleman who was embittered by the USA government's Vietnam involvement. He starts by offering questions that are incorrect, then offers his opinion as a solution to his own theory!

This man also believes there should be stars seen on photographs and video. As is usual with Kaysing, he cites no references whatsoever. Just blind, unadulterated, ignorant bare assertion.

He worked from 1957-63 in the publication section of Rocketdyne. Kaysing would have had no involvement with the planning of Apollo as Rocketdyne was a sub-contractor for some of the engines used, and had no direct access to NASA's technical overview. The fact that he left in 1963, many years before even Apollo 1, discounts his over inflated opinion as just hype to sell his book!

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

Kaysing also said this:-

"What motivated me to spill the beans was a young man from the Vietnam wars by the name of John Grant. He said that he was sent to Vietnam to kill people with no good reason and he also got a heroin habit, and he says, "Bill," he says, "what I want you to do is blow the whistle on this rotten, corrupt government." He says, "Why don't you say something outrageous, like, we never went to the moon?" So I attribute my interest in this project to John Grant."

Putting this into perspective, Kaysing decided to say something outrageous to get back at the American government. The idea that this man would have any insider knowledge at all on any aspect of Apollo is ludicrous. His secondary goal was to make money by concocting a book littered with ignorance, unsupported opinion, no references to anything he says, with some of the most easily disprovable nonsense one could ever see.










I have bolded the salient part to that quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_manned_lunar_programs

During the entire Apollo program and for some years after, Russia spent a considerable amount of money on its own Lunar program. The idea that the Soviets supposedly knew about the Moon landings being faked, and kept quiet because we gave them grain shipments as humanitarian aid, is one of Rene's more notable quotes of stupidity.

Whilst these "secret" shipments continued, they continued their own Moon program, busily blowing up multi-billion pound rockets, right up until 1972. Billions of pounds that could have fed them 20 times over.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc









That is his opinion. He cites no references at all.


Conclusion:A country that continues to spend billions of pounds on its own program, suggests strongly that they were going to try a Moon landing. To suggest that they did so to help cover up the Apollo landings is just insane.
The question is, why would a country with any degree of doubt as to the viability of a project (ie. the evil space radiation!), together with a supposed famine, spend so much money secretively on its own Lunar landing program.

The Soviets had superb tracking capabilities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbiyAIqciU8

They had every possible motivation to expose any hoax. The goal of reaching the Moon first was very much a political one. The leverage the Soviets would have over the USA in simply threatening to expose a hoax would never end. They could do whatever they wished for as long as they wished it for. To suggest a grain shipment would buy off their permanent silence is quite frankly pathetic.

Bottom line, the Soviets would either have the USA permanently in their pocket, or more likely, they would yell "hoax" from every possible direction in consumate detail.

Friday, July 1, 2011

Apollo 12 - the smudge on the visor






"Some kind of studio" light being a Fresnel, as suggested by the image. Once again your capacity for research is below hopeless, or you just haven't got around to amending your standard cut and paste forum post.

For many reasons this contention is simply wrong:-

1. A spotlight would not show up against a dark background in a visor when it was switched off. If there was sufficient light to illuminate it, the cables and lighting rig to support it would also show up.

2. The "flaps" are known in the lighting industry as "barn doors". According to the visor, these barn doors are longer than the width of the light! That is not how these lights are made. The barn doors are used to limit light spillage, but why would you do that, when the objective would be to light as much as possible? A fresnel without barn doors would always be used, but obviously would be nowhere near bright enough for the job. Makes no sense.

3. There are no pictures in the Apollo records where a spotlight, capable of lighting only a small area, is apparent. Always we have a single shadow, crisp and dark, and a fully evenly lit terrain, so why would such a light even be suggested as necessary?

4.  Should such a light be used as a fill light, there would be washed out and multiple shadows.

5.  Having a light at eye level on a wide angled shot with distance perspective and a low angled Sun is simply a ludicrous suggestion.

6.  The reflection suggests a fresnel light that is absolutely enormous in size. A 180 degree visor reflection would show even the largest fresnel as really small. I cite the size of the so called "superlight", not much different in apparent size as the "fresnel". Fail.


The so called "studio light" is in fact a simple mark on the visor, located at the point where Conrad would push his visor up, or pull it down. A similar mark is seen on several other of the EVA pictures. Since the picture used is the only front-on shot, the other pictures with the same mark, only show a partial of this smudge on the visor.
Here is a small compilation of 3 side shots that show the "barn doors" attributed to the "studio light".






































They appear in the same place on the visor, over multiple different angles, and the mark is the same shape on all pictures. Clearly, it is a smudge on the visor.


Here are the ALSJ links to examine the numerous pictures with the smudge:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6919HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7074HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7133HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7134HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7307HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7308HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7309HR.jpg

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

No Blast Crater

Whenever I come across this argument, I quickly realise that this is somebody who has carried out zero research on the subject, and somebody who has no idea how a controlled descent to the Moon's surface was carried out.

The level of complexity to hoax so many missions is beyond staggering. I will not go into detail to list the numerous complex requirements. Suffice to say, NASA supposedly went to the trouble of manufacturing film and video to match prevailing weather patterns on route to the Moon, but didn't bother doing a simple crater? Something that could be dug up in 20 minutes!

I will simply discuss Apollo 11, since for one main reason, this is the most relevant. Namely, not cutting off the descent engine at the correct time, which would result in the most surface disturbance.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

"Let's consider several facts: (1) Although the Lunar Module descent engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust (the usual hoax advocate's claim), it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. While still several feet above the ground, the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface. (2) The LM descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time. (3) The Moon's surface is covered by a rocky material called lunar regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Lunar regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock. (4) In a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle."


At the start of the EVA, this is what Neil Armstrong had to say:-
109:26:16 Armstrong: Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here. I can see some evidence of rays emanating from the descent engine, but a very insignificant amount.

Then they took several pictures of underneath the Lunar Module.

The suggestion is, that the finest minds in science, remembered to "fake" gravity, the telemetry data, weather patterns to match et al. - but forgot to put a crater in, after talking about it on live TV, and photographing it.

That is just plain dumb.

The contentions made by Jarrah White taken apart:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mrdkw26QD0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K66YpKaimdI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3x8UbX-EHo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BueSyXC8cf8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Ivsy2Mo9_s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDs6-3Yt0Yk


FINALLY

Here is a thoroughly well written assessment of the Apollo 11 landing on the Moon, specifically relating to the engine power, and the blast crater:-

http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/LMcrater.htm