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
Showing posts with label spammer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spammer. Show all posts
Monday, August 1, 2011
Sunday, July 31, 2011
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:-
Stink it up, and you call that evidence?
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/landing_site/
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
Perhaps he should list to other parts of the transcript?
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.....
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.
114:19:17 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.
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.....
Saturday, July 16, 2011
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.
"The Russians never intended to land men on the moon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)
"Apollo 13 was totally faked. It never left the earth."
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.
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."
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. "
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)
"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."
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)
"[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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)