What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 6

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Station 5 pan 1300 metres West of the LM:-

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Apparantly this is whistleblowing on a very grandscale!

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

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

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

"our shields are fine now get out"!

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Part 7....

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.....

Some Cosmored "Hoax" Links

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

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

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

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

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


"No stars on any photographs"

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

Demonstrated perfectly by this camera progression:-

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

Debunked by numerous other examples:-

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

Photographing stars:-

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


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

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

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

Explained in great detail on this site:-

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

And this picture:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple light sources create multiple shadows.

As for parallel shadows, bunkum:-

Debunked in 30 seconds:-

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

That's His Story Part 2

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

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

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

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

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


Link 3:
Link doesn't work.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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


Link 9:
Cosmic apollo. Totally debunked here:-

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

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


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


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


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

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