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.

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

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 3

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

This one photograph debunks their claim completely:-

And a website that perfectly explains this:-

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


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

The flag movement is easy to explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Here is the Real Player clip:-

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

And audio excerpt:-

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

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


Part 4.....

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).

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

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.

The Apollo 15 flag

Now, the next item in this "Mountain of crushing evidence".

The Apollo 15 flag movement

I have uploaded 7 videos on youtube analysing this subject. There are two main issues to deal with, namely the initial movement, and the subsequent movement after Dave Scott has passed by the flag.

Video 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kalT4NGdDsk

This video simply highlights the initial movement.


Video 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uhMQXRegc

In this video, I demonstrate that Jarrah White is self debunking his own claims. He runs past his own badly hung flag, yet fails to move it until he is level with it. He is considerably closer than Dave Scott was to the Apollo 15 flag. There is the barest of movements as he draws level.


Video 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0RsDqmPa_s

In this video I show the original Apollo 15 flag moving for 30 seconds. Using Jarrah's 66% slowed down footage theory, that equates to 20 seconds.
White then proceeds to run past his own flag several times, yet is only able to move his flag for 4-5 seconds. That equates to 6-7.5 seconds adjusted up 150%.
With White's flag, there is a totally different billowing movement, a rapid stop, and indeed a much more aggresive motion. No gentle back and forth prolonged swaying as per Apollo 15 flag.


Video 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJyv4TYpTKo

This video shows a wide book being dropped from 1 metre and failing to move a plastic bag until it is a few inches away from it.


Video 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y

In this video, I isolate several frames and show the flag with movement and Dave Scott at least four feet away. I show several color filtered shots that highlight the actual flagpole itself moving, that is clearly impossible. This one video debunks the "wall of air" contention completely, since air will only be pushed a few inches in front of a body in motion. The plastic bag demonstrated this.


Video 6

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ888vXaKNM

In this video I take it a step further. Using frame grabs, I show Dave Scott about 6 feet away from the flag, with clear movement.


Video 7

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

This final video is my personal favorite. If you watch no other video, watch this one.
I show White debunking himself in the most totally conclusive way. Simpler if you just watch it.

Update

From apollohoax.net, user Headlikearock  has made a very significant observation concerning the lens flares on the flag. They actually move alongside the flag itself, the flagpole and parts of the ground. Here is the direct link, and the picture below:-

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/Apollo%2015/flag-wave-new-gif_zps435e5ced.gif

 

 

Summary:

There are two possible explanations for the initial movement.
The movement is a camera blooming effect, caused by Dave Scott entering the frame and the camera blooming with CRT effect to compensate.
It is consistent with the whole flag shifting right, including the flagpole itself, and also consistent with slightly more movement to the edge caused by the wide angle lens' natural distortion to objects at its edge.
The movement could also be caused by ground vibration, since the flagpole is seated into the regolith, which has a consistency similar to sandstone just below it's surface.
I tend to favor the former of these two, but I am open to the other.
What I am not open to, is a mystery wall of air pushing against a nylon flag from 6 feet away, 4 feet away, or even 2 feet away.


Finally, the main movement:
The movement of the flag as the astronaut passes, is simply caused by his arm brushing it. There are two debunking videos explaining it perfectly.......

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx5H7Rwfkjo


But lets leave the last word on the subject with Mr Debunkhimself who concurs with the two analyses above:-

Apollo 11 - Michael Collins' Jacket

Firstly my Youtube Channel

http://www.youtube.com/user/Betamax101

My first refutation of your claims is to highlight what you call an "anomaly" with Michael Collins' Jacket.
I have seen numerous claims where you compare the motion of his jacket to ISS footage and make associations that any differences in movement are indicative of gravity. That in itself is a self supporting argument, since your assessment is wrong in the first place.
I am now presenting a video series I put on youtube to specifically debunk your argument, with descriptions of what each video demonstrates.


Video 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NkijOFUnu0

In this video, I show the footage in question. The major part of the movement of his jacket is caused by a semi rigid plastic hose holding an attachment (with mass) at waist height, being moved away from and back towards him. The contact causes the jacket to naturally ripple and flex.
The video also highlights a bulging of his jacket, at the back and on his shoulder area. In itself a clear sign that the jacket's Earth weight does not pull the air out, but rather, a lack of weight holds it in place.
His arms are vertical and against the bulkhead above him, to counter his natural upwards motion in zero-g whilst jogging. This is effectively transferring his momentum from one direction to another in a short space of time and repeatedly.
I highlight the flexing of his body, his laterally twisting torso, and the upward and downward motion of his legs.
All of this activity creates air movement, though slight, that also has a contributary effect.


Video 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ogk218Qt24

In this video, I concentrate on the motion in zero-g of Collins' identification tags (dogtags). The video highlights a very fleeting glimpse of the tags, shows them hovering in front of his neck, and moving side to side along with the lateral motion of his shoulders and neck. I have also slowed the footage down.


Video 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs_u4iNfaGk

In this video, I address the issue of the cuffs supposedly always resting on his wrist. There are clearly instances, when the opposite is true. That is, the sleeves are puffed up with air and floating as they would in zero-g.


Video 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BQQyG8XDlA

In this video, I show again the dogtags clearly floating, numerous times, zoomed in, and with a frame extract of all frames in the sequence. I demonstrate with back to back repeats, the sideways motion.


Video 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK0cleCpmfM

In this last video, I concentrate on isolating the signs of weightlessness and showing the numerous comments made on the videos. The comments in themselves, demonstrate a complete non-understanding of science, they contradict each other and quite frankly are absurd.

Summary:

When the jacket moves, the corner moves. When rippling occurs, the tendency of a fabric would be to unripple, since it is not it's natural state. When contact occurs from an object it will give momentum to the jacket, when the object swings away, it pulls the fabric back. The swinging object will cause gentle air currents which will have a minor effect. The movement of the jacket in and out will also produce small air currents.

In addition to the swinging object, we have the lateral motion of his torso as each knee comes up alternately. We have the upward motion it induces, followed by immediate downforce as he pushes with his arms on the bulkhead above. We have even more lateral and vertical rotation in his shoulders as his knees come up and arms push down.

The semi-rigid hose is what is causing the attachment to impact his lower jacket, as it pulls on it. It also flexes with his body motion and causes it to swing inwards and outwards.

The jacket has clearly air buffered at the back, because of earlier movement in the cabin with it unfastened. Jackets do not puff up and billow like that in gravity - it is a clear sign of zero-g. Weight will pull the fabric downwards and much tighter against a body where gravity is in effect

Every single thing involved in his movement has momentum that affects his jacket. I will leave you with just the two comments from my videos, made by the user youtube and forum spammer Cosmored.....

"Collins' jacket corner bounces up and down the way it would in gravity"

Then in reply to my video showing the puffed up back and shoulders of his jacket:....

"In zero-G the jacket would be bouncing up and down on his back if it were loose"

To anybody with rationale, logical thought, with even mild powers of discernement, I would say that fairly conclusively closes the door on that little piece of the "mountain of evidence".