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 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.....

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.....

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 2

I want to briefly touch on another obvious point that this film creates in the viewer's mind. The old adage "no smoke without fire". By creating such a long padded out film, those who have no skills pertaining to what is suggested, or the inclination to check them out, are left with the overwhelming conclusion that "there must be something to it", because there is so much "evidence".

However, when you dissect each point one by one, it is patently obvious that this is merely a business venture that exploits those who take little convincing.

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 26-28 Percy shows us a modern composite of a Honda commercial and begs the question of the viewer. Nowhere has he demonstrated the same effect in an Apollo picture, yet he leaves the impression that he has. He cites a ludicrous example from Apollo 17, again missing the multiple light sources equals multiple shadows fact.

Here is a link to the high resolution picture:-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20425HR.jpg

The rocks that he says have different shadow directions are in undulating areas, where the shadow falls down subtle small slopes. Anybody looking at that picture who thinks it is a composite from 1972, is either lying, uninformed about 70s technology or just plain wrong.

Here are some Earth shadows demonstrating his whole contention as just a pack of lies:-

Minutes 28-29 He looks at the famous C rock picture itself clearly on a slope with undulations and draws these same idiotic shadow conclusions.Then he parrots the theory about the letter "C" (a piece of lint on a copy of the original that has no "C"!). He postulates that the "C" is a prop, and stands for either "center" or some rambling about it meaning light, since C is the constant for the speed of light!! Just pure bunkum.

Completely debunked here:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEygpL7r6Pk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DtzBMIKIp8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxwL4DCzUN4


Minute 29  Bizzarely the film starts talking about the speed of light constant varying with local gravity fields!?? I can only assume they are trying to bamboozle those viewers who have no real scientific background.


Minutes 29-31 The film lays the premise that backlighting had to have been used, since objects would show up as black with the light source behind them. This is patently wrong. Percy uses an Earth shot, where the backlight shows up in the visor as an example, yet as expected could find no examples of pictures with any such backlighting reflections in the visor. Further, any backlighting not from the surface, would wash out the shadows. Always in every shot, we have crisp dark shadows, something you simply would not get outdoors with an atmosphere either.

The backlighting is from surface reflection. I already analysed that on Link 2 of this page:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links.html


Minutes 32-33  Percy makes the astonishing comparison of the light capabilities of a modified 10 frames per second TV camera which had a high intensity night lens, to a Hasselblad stills camera which has variable shutter and aperture! He makes the claim that because one had a night lens, so should the other. Bunkum. Actually he is just lying, this man is supposed to be a cameraman and would know this.


Minutes 33-49 This is more about supposed backlighting, again covered in detail on the same Link 2 here:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links.html

As further demonstration of the surface being the backlight source, the picture directly before Percy's example where he cites something that should be in shadow, actually shows the bottom of the PLSS much brighter than other parts of his suit. In addition it is much brighter than the actual area we would expect to be bright, if Groves "analysis" of his phantom light source was correct!

Here is a link to the actual picture:-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863HR.jpg

Here is why Groves analysis is contrived hogwash:-

Minutes 50-51 The presenter Ronnie Stronge now offers more conjecture aimed at swaying the audience. He presents a "case proven" on the supposed fake images with vague strawman references saying how even one suspect photograph proves the case. Since I have shown that no such proof has been given, we can assume that it is aimed at promoting the idea in the viewer that it has been.


Minutes 51-55  We now have possibly the most contrived, dishonest and ludicrous of statements in this whole film. A woman nobody has heard of, talking about a coke bottle that nobody else saw, not reported in any publication, and supposedly put there by a Goldstone whistleblower!! Bunkum of the highest order.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14523

"Una Ronald claims to have “stayed up late” to watch the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moonwalk when living in or near Perth, Western Australia. She was amazed to see a “coke bottle” kicked across the lunar surface. This object was only seen during the live broadcast and was removed from replays in the days following. She also claims to have seen, about 7 to 10 days later, several letters mentioning the same thing in her local paper (The West Australian).

This claim has many irregularities, and researchers have discovered what might be an explanation. To begin, it is claimed that she “stayed up” to watch the live broadcast. This might have been the case in the United States, but it was not in Perth. The first step onto the Moon occurred at 2.56am on 21 July 1969 – Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Perth is 8 hours ahead of GMT, so it occurred at 10.56am in Perth. That’s in the morning.

The moonwalk video was actually received by ground stations in the eastern states before being transmitted to Perth (see http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html  for more details).

The claim regarding the newspaper reports are also incorrect. For at least two weeks following the broadcast, there were no articles or letters regarding sightings of a “coke bottle” in either The West Australian or the Daily News, the only two daily newspapers in Perth at the time. I have personally checked this, and any interested party can examine copies of the various editions of the papers on microfiche at the Batte library (State Reference Library) in Perth.

What Una Ronald probably saw was a reflection of Buzz Aldrin’s visor, reflected inside the television camera lens. This effect is known as catadioptrism, or “ghosting”."

Explained here:-
http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html

I should point out the continual references being made to "people in the know" having the opportunity to "whistleblow"! Hoax believers cite that it would take only a handful of people with knowledge of this "hoax" to pull such a thing off, yet here we have all these numerous people supposedly with first hand knowledge of it. None of whom has ever come forward, made a deathbed confession or said anything about it whatsoever to anybody. Bunkum.


Minutes 55-56 Bill Kaysing gives us his opinion with no references or proof as per usual. Kaysing already discussed in Link 1 of this analysis:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links_16.html


Minutes 56-57 Begs the question about what "we know" about Apollo 11 TV transmissions(this is the referback method, meaning his debunked "transparency on the window" nonsense) , and then more back references to Coke bottles and whistleblowers.

At this point we are treated to some mysterious music and a few clips of video from Apollo.


Minutes 57-59 Talks about how easy it was to use the camera and align the subject of each photograph. We are told quite correctly that the astronauts spent quite some time practicing with the camera before their missions. His motive in doing this, is to later present the claim that it shouldn't have been possible with "cumbersome" pressurised gloves.

http://history.nasa.gov/spacesuits.pdf

"There are two protective envelopes employed in the space suit: an Inner pressurizable envelope, and an outer thermal and micrometeoroid protective envelope. The inner pressurizable envelope Is called the Torso and Limb Suit Assembly (TLSA); this assembly Interfaces with a detachable helmet, and a pair of removable gloves.

The outer envelope used for thermal and micrometeoroid protection Includes an Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment (ITMG), a Lunar Extravehicular Visor Assembly (LEVA)..."

Minutes 59-60 Percy cites the example of setting up the TV camera on uneven surface and aligning it, to suggest that it is the same as a chest mounted camera that they had practiced with. He also uses one of his throw away lines to further suggest that all the photography was studio quality and perfectly aligned.

Debunked here:-

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


Part 3.......

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......

The "Superlight" contention

The Contention:-

Before I begin disassembling this over blown nonsense, I want to quickly touch on something pertaining to the person who has performed a most embarassingly inept photographic analysis at Aulis.

Namely Jack White.

Here is a short excerpt from the House Select Committee concerning supposed discrepancies with backyard photos and Oswald's rifle during a JFK hearing, this is what he said:-

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing. [...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? ......  Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm

Now, the non scientist, who doesn't know what photogrammetry is!!....then proceeds to make the most inept of studies on the Apollo records.
In this post I shall simply refute his conclusion of the "superlight" theory to light the Apollo video footage. Here is a youtube video I made on the subject:-

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


And part 2 that completely refutes this stupid theory:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBVjjPzU8SQ



Another youtuber has performed an analysis of studio lighting to show how shadows behave with lighting. To suggest a studio light could mimic the luminosity of the Sun, which in turn is the only thing that could light such vast areas, is simply ludicrous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ONk27fN5rg



Finally, at the end of that page quoted in the "wall of spam", the ineptitude continues with a simply daft analysis of the Heiligenschein effect caused by the volcanic nature of the Lunar surface.

Read This Page:-

Lunar Retro-Reflection Phenomena



Amazingly he comments about shadow directions, converging (due in fact to the depression in the surface). Now I wonder in any way, how he would account for single solid dark shadows, with the implicit suggestion that more than one light source was used???

Same thing occurs on Earth, when the Sun is low, and the grass has dew(droplets, similar in reflectivity to the volcanic beads on the Moon).

Gravity and Motion and the Apollo Moon landings

Finding cherry picked motion differences between the first Apollo motion and a later Apollo mission is not a valid comparison, since there are fundamental differences between what the astronauts are doing, and why.

The Apollo 11 clip used, is where Buzz Aldrin is performing mobility tests on the Lunar surface. He is not attempting to do anything other than test how to move about on the Lunar surface. The camera used has a 10 frame per second rate, has fewer horizontal lines, and is black and white. On a first mission to the Moon, one would expect, by any stretch of the imagination, that the astronauts would be moving with a lot more care than later missions.

Comparing it to the last mission of Apollo, belies the fact that during the other missions, they were able to verify the safety and efficacy of the equipment and suits, were a bit more sure with their footing and were a little more adventurous as a result.

The clip used by most hoax believers(HBs) is the one that shows that very mobility test where Buzz Aldrin gently runs towards the camera. Sped up 200% the clip resembles Earth motion. I cannot deny that fact, though to a trained eye, his steps fall just a shade too slowly to the surface for Lunar gravity.
Now, here is a video that refutes the idea that speeded up footage of 200% was used on all missions (this claim was made by David Percy). The video includes a clip from Apollo 11, where Aldrin retrieves the Solar wind experiment and moves with absurd speed and body motion.

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

Now, since that video was placed on youtube, Cosmored has made allegations that it was incorrectly sped up and that subterfuge was used. This, despite refusing to verify the allegation by doing it himself.

I took it upon myself to do just that.

Here is the clip in question, normal speed 30.72 seconds:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njdQ0Y1Yyo8

Here is the clip in question, double speed 15.36 seconds:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1HvJ0WXkuo

That one clip makes a mockery of the doubled up speed contention.

I now present a series of videos to refute the ignorant contention that 150% motion was used with wires. Special invisble wires of course.

Video 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq6yYQYoX_A

In this video, I show 3 objects being thrown. I determine the time from apex to surface and calculate the gravitational acceleration as equating to that of the Moon. I then calculate the necessary gravitational acceleration corresponding to speeding the clips up 150% and show that the gravitational accelerationis completely untenable for the heights and times relating to the 3 objects.

Question: Were inanimate objects on wires?
These objects do not correspond to Earth gravity when using your 150% theory!!


Video 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs

Using this clip (watch?v=kibAjb6qjtQ) showing normal speed, I demonstrate the motion of a dust wave as being fully consistent with Lunar gravity. I show how a very accurate time was taken, and an equally accurate height. I demonstrate that the rise to apex time for your 150% theory is completely wrong. I further demonstrate that the distance the dust wave moves, has a truly preposterous initial velocity for Earth gravity from a sideways flick of the boot. I finally show the footage at speed that would make the rise to apex equate to Earth gravity (245%), that is ludicrous motion.

Question: Was the dust on wires?
The dust wave does not equate to Earth gravity when sped up 150%. A dust wave could not be kicked like that with a casual flick of the boot.


Video 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD_O4pNnCQM

In this video I demonstrate Gene Cernan bunny hopping on the Moon, and take one of his jumps to show Lunar gravity. I slowed down the film to gain an accurate time. The result of the equation to change this to 150% is untenable.
Question:  Are you suggesting that Cernan, a few hundred yards away from the camera was indoors and wearing a wire?
Question:] Do you think a man on Earth could bunny hop those distances, travelling down a hill, with no arm movement to increase distance between jumps?


Video 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuvW0FRd-U

The idea that 150% was used for later missions is contradicting the theory of David Percy. You rely on him for that clip, yet disagree with him.

This video shows Cernan's "Hippity Hoppity" jumping sequence. Once again demonstrating consistency with Lunar motion. His natural forward motion is not impeded as his centre of gravity changes, indicating a complete absence of support. The video then shows that not only is David Percy's theory completely wrong, and to a trained eye, visually so....it also shows that a 150% theory is also wrong.

Question: If you maintain that non-visible wires were used, please account for an absence of retrograde motion always caused by them.

Question: How could anything track and match the distance he covered with a perfectly vertical wire?

John Young's jump has been exhaustively analysed. David Percy on the one hand says wire supports were used, then makes the observation that they never jump high enough!

David Percy is a deceptive businessman, and I have made a video showing a blatant example of this in video 5.


Video 5

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

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 200% reflects Earth gravity.


Video 6

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


That is conclusive as proof could be, of the consistency of Lunar gravity, and the untenable position of speeded up footage.