What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 6

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minute 102-106 "Mountain backdrops" are now discussed with Percy identifying various photographs with mountains of the same size in the background plus the mandatory eerie music! Mountains that are many miles away and thousands of feet high! He uses phrases such as "there appear to be" and "there seem to be".
He identifies some features on distant mountains, then suggests that because these features appear on numerous photographs aimed in that direction, that this is somehow suspicious. Distance on the Moon is totally different to Earth. There is no atmospheric haze to give perspective.

Here is a perfect demonstration. As you watch this, assess how big you think that rock is. Now watch as they just keep on approaching it:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8J-pcvRYnU

Percy uses a closer image to "establish" that the LM is in "close proximity" to the distant mountain. It isn't. It is just pure camera perspective on a faraway feature of significant size. We then switch to a view from a large rock, apparantly showing no LM. The LM is actually far to the right of the picture. The effect is called parallax. Twenty seconds later, Percy actually shows the LM some distance away, to the right of the rock. He overlays a partial of the mountain and suggests that it shows duplicate backdrops.  His partial is not the same size!

The mountain is very big and very far away, it is just subterfuge to suggest that this is not the case. He again compares the LM a mile or two away, with the same close up previously used, showing the same mountain range, and suggests that it is identical. He makes the observation that gives the whole thing away, "what appear to be absolutely enormous mountains". Precisely!

The mountain is closer, slightly bigger and at a slightly different angle.

Perspective demonstrated perfectly with a truck and house that never move, taken with different zooms and lenses:-

We then move to the comparison between a shot due West of mountains a considerable distance away, and the final shot from the landing site also facing due West. Here he uses subterfuge by circling a rock on the Station 5 picture, and compares it to the LM shot where he circles the flag!! Just blatant lying.

Percy never overlays the two images. Here they are side by side, with the station 5 direction(1300 metres away) indicated on the top one. Notice the flag to the right of the LM, and in the picture below a rock in a similar position. These are the two things he compares.

Notice from that picture that whilst the left-hand ridge lines up, the right-hand one does not. The Lunar rover has travelled in the direction of the yellow arrow and the camera sees these two far away ridges from a different perspective.

Station 5 pan 1300 metres West of the LM:-

http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/apollo-17.html

Here is a great video that shows how little distant perspective changes when we have mountain ranges far from the camera:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPS1lSqYIi4


Minute 106-111 This is where Percy compares the various mountains to the side of this huge Moon valley, and isolates a few pictures at different stations, and says because they haven't altered much, proves they shot them in the same spot! Bunkum. Again, just in case I have not made this clear, the mountains are very big, and many miles away. Percy insists that these are continuity errors, when in fact they are perspective, location and distance related. His conclusion never acknowledges, that the lack of atmosphere is a major contributory factor to the absence of a point of reference in assessing distance.

Here is another great video showing how the terrain altered between the LM and station 5, with the same mountain view over quite some distance travelled, and also highlights the ramblings of another noisy Moon hoax believer - Marcus Allen (n.b. Pay attention to the dialogue at the beginning, it is Bill Kaysing telling us how he started his campaign of Apollo being a hoax) :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coMGccvTK6g

We are now told that "tell-tale joins" are an indication of backdrops. These so called joins when we view the full high resolution pictures are so obviously blurred distant objects.

Quick video to demonstrate this idea is more bunkum - camera zooms up the mountain towards Hadley Rille:-

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

This video just nails this idea cold. Demonstrating projection or background technology was not able to do these "backgrounds":-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVFjBU7zIEU

This next video debunks this "backdrop" idiocy. The Lunar rover traversing towards Mount Hadley, distant mountains don't get noticeably nearer. They are very far away, and very big. Mount Hadley itself is 15000 feet high! Nothing on Earth could do that with crisp, dark and single shadows, evenly lit surface, approaching rocks, far away mountains of considerable size. Area 51? Bunkum!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-6dWPf0LXE

This video examines two of the examples shown in the film, and demonstrates quite how deceptive Percy is in his summation:-

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

Final nail in this stupidity resides in Mount Kilimanjaro on Earth. Same "backdrop" but just look at the foreground. Distant mountains on Earth, do the same as distant mountains on the Moon!

Minute 111-115 I actually belly laughed at this section. Here Percy says "rather significantly" the footage from "Diamonds are Forever" showing the scene where James Bond breaks into a complex, discovers a Moon set and escapes.

Percy concludes "the grey dome building looks remarkably like the Northern Hemisphere of the Moon". What a crock!

Apparantly this is whistleblowing on a very grandscale!

Who by? Guy Hamilton the director, the script writers, Harry Saltzman & Cubby Broccoli? Are they all in on the hoax? Bunkum of profound stupidity.

Unbelievably Ronnie Stronge then continues with this hogwash by suggesting Ian Fleming was in on the "know", despite his book bearing almost zero resemblance to the movie script. Percy tells us this 1971 movie is littered with "subtle clues", the next one being a truly facepalming link so tenuous it beggars belief.

He links the clip where Bond impersonates a Radiation shield inspector (for radioactive emissions that have zero relevance to space radiation!) to nose around, as being indicative of something suspicious. This is setting the scene for later bunkum about radiation doses in space. It serves to reinforce in the casual viewer a sense of the big "ahaa" moment to come. The scene concludes with my own take on this stupidity with the last piece of dialogue.

"our shields are fine now get out"!

Ronnie Stronge then stinks it up even more with this statement:-

"The Movie Diamonds are Forever is confirmation though that some works of fiction can communicate vital clues".

Hoax believers and conspiracy theorists fall for this kind of thing all the time, if it wasn't so sad, it would be laughable.


Minute 115-118 The movie now concentrates on establishing the fact that NASA had complete control of everything broadcast from the Moon. How could it not have!? It then goes on to suggest that the entire broadcasts from the Apollo missions were all recorded on video before being transmitted. Utter hogwash.
Apollo 11 did this due to the nature of cameras used and the technology to transmit on s-band carrier waves. At no point did NASA ever make secret the fact that the Apollo 11 transmissions were converted so that they could be shown on TV. Apollo 12 intended to do this, but had a terminal camera failure. Apollo 13 did not make a landing.

However, Apollo 14 - Live TV from the Moon - direct feed:-

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

Apollo 15/16/17 used remote controlled TV cameras from Houston! The entire mission in all cases was broadcast live on Earth.

The purpose of this section was to indicate "how easy" it could be to insert pre-recorded films into the loop, but never explains the stunningly complicated logistics involved. The whole of mission control would be seeing pictures, hearing and seeing nearby personnel talking with astronauts on the Moon, with daily Earth news relayed to the astronauts as part of the live footage. There is also the sheer number of personnel who would have direct exposure to this situation, yet not one of them has made any admission of potential subterfuge.

This whole idea by Percy is astonishingly simplistic subterfuge. The idea that hundreds of hours of pre-recorded footage was shot, gravity somehow faked (which I will later show as completely impossible!), interactive dialog was "inserted", highly directional radio signals from the landing site and Command and Service Module were somehow "manufactured" plus so much more, is completely untenable. It patently ignores the tracking from third parties such as amateur radio hams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

I made this short video detailing the barest minimum involved:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q

For those actually interested in the TV from the Moon, here is a PDF detailing the technology involved. Many people were involved in this, and the idea that they were all somehow hoodwinked is ridiculous. The idea also that they freely took part in a hoax is equally absurd:-

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



Part 7....

"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."