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 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.....

Whistleblowers, governments and lies.

Actually what she says is that the scientists who worked at the company she worked at, sold out for money. To use somebody talking about corruption within the Nuclear power industry is completely irrelevant. This tarring of all scientists with the same brush is an act of subterfuge called poisoning the well. It ignores the fact that anybody who makes claims about a hoax is subject to these same parameters.

The startling fact about this "whistleblower", is that she makes a whole lot of money talking about this freely and openly, yet the evil powers haven't seen fit to silence her! Bunkum.

Again you cite an irrelevant case. The safety aspect of using depleted uranium is thought to be questionable. But long term studies suggest otherwise. Scaremongering is very much a popularity grabber these days!

The first case cited April 15, 1999, the second video in 2011. Do you have an updated release from the Rand corporation given the new studies available to them?

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P8066.html

Yes. Now all you have to do is to establish any single scientist tied to the Apollo programs who has spoken out about this. There are thousands of retired ones, not needing research grants or money, yet nobody has voiced an alternate opinion to the correct official account. There are millions of physics students throughout the world who offer no objection to the calculus involved in Lunar gravity, space radiation or radio transmissions. There are large numbers of engineers in all countries who also do not dispute the efficacy of the Apollo hardware. Orbital mechanics which is a very complex subject supports all aspects of the Apollo program.

To suggest they are all keeping quiet implies that they are all aware of a hoax and simply doing so to maintain funding and to stay alive. Bunkum.

Meh.

An example where half assed research is presented as fact with no proper peer review. It is difficult to change anything when it is steeped in thousands of such peer-reviewed documents. Let alone by somebody who offers no counter to any of these documents, yet offers "Anti-Darwinian" theories based on suspect research and conclusions.

No, it means that if somebody presents crap unsubstantiated research to people who have previously performed superb research, it will be met with scorn.

Attributing this to finite science like geology has so many logical fallacies I don't know how to label it. How about just plain stupid. I did a full debunk on rock analysis by numerous institutions. The conclusions are nothing to do with keeping a hoax going, and it unintentionally adds a vast number of people to those who are "keeping the secret"! Geologists have no affinity to government or for that matter NASA. As stated previously, there are numerous now retired people who have examined the rocks.

No deathbed confessions, lawyer letters, whistleblowing tapes or leaked documents. Bunkum.

Watergate and Monicagate to name just two. The modern press is littered with conspiracy stories, often with total scorn, but not always. The idea that somebody coming forward to blow the whistle on Apollo would be ignored is a ludicrous statement. It would make a story that would go viral in seconds.

Link 1:-
Somebody does a cartoon about news restriction. Amazing proof.

Link 2:-
More Noam Chomsky and his freely expressed opinions. Still very much alive!

Link 3:-
More people alive and well, freely talking about restrictions in reporting on intelligence services and the CIA level of control. You'd think the evil people they were exposing would have bumped them off wouldn't you?!

Link 4:-
General search on one of the people in link 3 - William Schaap. He is still freely talking, giving his opinion and not being bumped off.

Link 5:-
More Chomsky. Zzzzzz. Same thing, freely expressing his opinion, and still alive. I'm seeing a pattern here.

Link 6:-
Chomsky, yada yada yada.

Link 7/8/9:-
More "media is controlled by the evil powers", and a headline quote from 1880.

Link 10:-
Laura Knight-Jadczyk article. I shall simply state that this lady also postulates that Comet Elenin is the harbinger of doom.

Link 11:-
This is my favorite! The evil Fox news network exposed. This being the same evil Fox news network that ran a documentary of profound stupidity about a supposed Apollo Moon hoax!!

You just cannot make up this level of contradictory stupidity.

Link 12:-
Same as links 7/8/9. Media whistleblowers, loads of articles from people telling their story, who fascinatingly are all still alive.

Link 1:-
Have to laugh here. The evil Fox news network documentary now telling the "truth"! More bunkum and speculation already discussed, concerning Apollo 1. As for link 2 below, a repeat link.

Link 2:-
Just a complete repeat of the section about deathbed confessions.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/deathbed-confessions.html

Link 3:-
People who disbelieve the official 911 story, suggested as being murdered to keep them quiet. Yet, hundreds upon hundreds of far more active campaigners remain alive. People who produce films that reach wide audiences, people who write books, people on youtube who churn out thousands of films.

Major campaigners such as Alex Jones and David Icke, website owners, truth organisations. All still very much alive.

Another wall of spam - wow! It should be taken as read that corruption in government is a given. There are all sorts of behind the scenes activities, subvertive motives and undisclosed operations. It is primarily a matter of establishing and keeping American interest abroad. Some of it sucks badly.

However, your use of it to link to the Apollo Moon landings is a big non-sequitur pile of bovine excrement. Apollo was the most open, detailed, heavily explained series of missions ever performed. There are hundreds of thousands of technical documents, films, photographs, audio and scientific publications.

The presence of this data presents a piece of history that can be analysed to as high a degree as could possibly be made. There is nothing missing from the detail that could be explained by subterfuge. There is no subterfuge that could explain the total detail released. The two go hand in hand.

When any rational person examines the science behind Apollo, there can be no question that the mission detail offers as complete and satisfactory account as any private citizen could require.

Begging the question. They don't. They support it because it wasn't faked.

Scientists around the world know Apollo was not faked. NASA is by no means the only source of data and information from space, and to suggest silence being bought for remaining quiet about a "hoax", involves thousands of complicit scientists, none of which has ever offered whistleblowing testimony upon retirement or deathbed confession.

Yes. No question about it. Human beings are inherently unable to keep secrets.

This is the old "compartmentalising" argument. This completely falls apart under the simple premise, that without direct knowledge, the half million people doing their jobs, would do so to ensure the mission was successful.

The whole scenario about hoaxes is perfectly summed up with this summary from the Clavius website:-

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


Summary:-

This section of the "wall of spam" highlights two points that massively contradict each other.

We have the premise that scientists and governments lie, "demonstrated" with whistleblowers and articles written and spoken by numerous individuals very much alive.

We then have the premise that nobody would speak out about Apollo because they would fear for their lives!

BUNKUM!

Deathbed confessions

An amazing statement. As though the internet does not exist, with absoulutely anything of note not able to go instantly viral amongst conspiracy theorists.

The first link highlights a whole barrage of articles, freely available and from multiple sources from people who to the best of my knowledge are alive and well, and in no danger of being killed for their crime of disagreeing with the mainstream.

The idea that a lawyer statement would not be read out in public, and have a devastating effect is laughable. The idea that the implied death of their immediate family would result should they do so, once again is quite ludicrous. A simple anonymous letter or a pre-recorded video would be in the public domain so fast it would never be stopped.

The Whitehouse was not even able to stop the tidal wave from a simple act of oral sex from an intern. It was completely powerless to stop an impeachment of Nixon from an investigation that supposedly could never go to press, namely Watergate.

The journalist John Pilger is a man who very much goes against the supposed status quo, very much alive, and seemingly in no danger.

The second link provided, has Noam Chomsky, a very opionated man, who has no trouble whatsoever saying exactly what he wants when he wants. With numerous film clips all over the internet, namely the ones quoted on youtube, he doesn't strike me as somebody who is not able to get a message out.

Is he still alive?  How odd that somebody like that hasn't been "bumped off"!

Video 1, the supposed media controlled Fox TV!! Their ignorance littered throughout the show, that particular clip concentrates on alleging that Gus Grissom was supposedly murdered, by sabotaging the Apollo program itself and casting the most intense scrutiny on the whole thing. Far simpler to have some sort of accident away from the spotlight. His son suspects foul play, but the investigation carried out by numerous NASA employees found no such evidence. Unless they are all to be added to the cover up of a murder, and future cover up of a "hoax", this is just nonsense!
We are being asked to believe that NASA employees, who supposedly knew even at that stage, that there was no chance of making the journey to the Moon, actually carried out a triple murder and covered it up. Bunkum.
We then have the secondary claim that Thomas Baron was also murdered in his car. This despite the fact that he had already presented his full report to congress!

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/baron.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Baron

Video 2 is just opinionated crap, where a tin-foil hat should be worn during viewing. He alleges that several test pilots who died doing their jobs were outspoken about Apollo, yet offers no proof. More nonsense about Grissom again, but this time he insists it was a masonic ceremony. Bunkum.