The Chinese Spacewalks - Part 2

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/


Item 11 - Transmission quality

The video is very good, as one would expect from the technology that comes out of the Far East, however only the audio recorded on the surface appears to be pretty good quality. Astronaut comms aren't that good, but they have a very good background noise supression system. A rather labored point, perhaps trying to demonstrate the clarity was because it was on Earth, when they could simply have added some video distortion to the picture, had they deemed it necessary. Bunkum.


Item 12 - Pre launch document released early

Somebody put out the press release early. The actual dialogue quoted appears to be fairly standard, and obviously something rehearsed in their genuine underwater facilites. Embarrassing for China, but hardly a unique event to have a pre-prepared press release in news reporting of big events.


Item 13 - China faked the Chang'e photographs

It was actually just one picture that sent tongues wagging. Completely wrong, the Chinese picture is taken at a different angle, and actually has a newly formed crater on its picture that can easily be verified. If this find had any credence, it would have had all the mad conspiracy theorists scrambling for more evidence. None was found, just this one picture. A leap of faith logical fallacy argument based on a single photograph.

Here is the picture against the NASA one:-

Item 14 - The arc of the Earth

He compares the relative Earth arcs of the Shenzhou spacewalk with other footage, and says Earth's arc is different!

The Chinese spacewalk is closer footage than the example given and has a wider angled lens.


Item 15 - The clouds are speeding up





This is more bunkum to explain both the motion of the flag and the space debris. He uses a short passage where the cloud cover appears to brighten up very quickly. This is light striking the solid cloud and diffusing it. The camera is set for near field operation so sees it over exposed. The craft as stated is orbiting at 17,000mph.


Item 16 - The floating cables

He says the astronauts air is provided in the tether cables!! He then says the astronaut is holding it down to stop it floating up!

The tethers have shape memory caused by them being wound on drums during manufacture. The only tendency the cable has in an unrestricted vacuum is to assume that curled position from being wound around a large drum. There are numerous examples where it makes this same movement in a horizontal vector in relation to the camera. Bunkum.


Item 17 - The "missing" outer atmosphere halo

He talks about the blue halo missing from the footage showing the outer part of the Earth's atmosphere that scatters blue light.

The halo is visible under most, but not all conditions, as shown by the examples below. The camera for Shenzhou 7 was set to expose for sharp nearfield and in digital quality, the Earth in the background is consequently over exposed and a little out of focus.

Watch 10 seconds of this video from the time marker 13:21. The first view has no halo, the second has a huge halo:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72OLN4lBpSQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=802s


Item 18 - The Earth moves

Says the earth moves up and down a tiny bit, and questions how does that happen in space.
The craft follows an elliptical orbit, it has very small corrections made at intervals to its forward orb-rate rotation. Perhaps he should have asked this basic question before adding it into his video?


Item 19 - The change in degrees towards the Sun

He talks of a 120 degree sun angle change in the 15 minutes we see the craft!!

A standard 90 minute orbit makes a 60 degree orbital change in 15 minutes not 120 degrees. However, the craft is following a 42 degree orbit so that equates to nearer 40 degrees. Just really bad math and ignorance of the orbital path.


Item 20 - The supposedly lit piece of the craft

He says the Sun angle never changes on both cameras, then indicates that it lights up part of the craft and then back off again. He says it is impossible, especially at 90 minutes per orbit.

If we assume that the area he highlights as being lit is done so by the Sun, when the light recedes, one would expect the top part to be still illuminated last of all. But it isn't as this screenshot indicates:-

The screenshots show the light is coming from the opposite direction, the Earth, as the bottom part is lit last of all! Simple attitude control would account for this, as previously explained. In addition, 10 minutes later on during the space walk, we see the Sun angle has changed accordingly, representing what we would expect to see:-

Item 21 - The extra astronaut

He says there are 4 distinct voices and only 3 astronauts.

This is just speculation. He begs the question, then plays some different clips, all labelled up for the viewer. Basically he is just clutching at straws. The voices are all varied volume inflection and clarity. To me, voice 2 is the same as voice 4, just closer to the mike(ie. face not turned to the side maybe), or speaking softer on some of the clips he plays.


So this is your idea of a credibility test is it!?

Only those with the same ignorance and gullibility as yourself, ie. no reasoning ability, nor any motivation at all to verify that what is said is actually complete Bullshit........actually pass the test.

Meh!!!

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.

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".