What Happened on the Moon Debunked Part 8

Concluding Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 127-128 We have a brief summary from Ronnie Stronge, whereby he refers to a firm conclusion as to the reason behind all the "anomalies" from the stills and movies. That is a re-assertion of what has preceded, yet I have already exposed it for misconception, lies, subterfuge and just zero understanding of how the missions were performed.

Then we have the dumb conclusion itself:-

All the "mistakes" observed, were in fact deliberate from all the people involved who wanted to unobtrusively blow the whistle. Rather than go to a news outlet, write a book, leave a deathbed confession, anonymous letter etc. They apparantly chose to leave "subtle clues" in the film, just like the James Bond film - bunkum. He cites life threatening danger to these people. Yet we have Bart Sibrel, David Percy et al. all free to say what they wish, alive and well. Figure that one out.

He offers the absurd glossing of this action, as the work of "brave souls who decoded their work with deliberate mistakes, which would be detected some time in the future".

Only by the people with a vested interest in selling books and films that is.

Whilst giving us his unique "insight" Percy shows two pictures with supposedly the same backdrop, which are taken nowhere near each other and show a clear difference in parallax. We are also shown the hotspot from Aldrin's boot, reinforcing the idea that they have proven their case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrU5qp9lmJg

Back to Una Ronald. I shouldn't laugh here, but why an old lady is being used for her opinion on Apollo, when her previous citation about "coke bottles" is provable complete fabrication, is just beyond me. The film again uses the referback and affirmation method to instill in the viewer, that they have proven all the previous items. Flashes a coke bottle on the screen for effect. Facepalm moment.

Minute 128 Ronnie Stronge continues with yet another Hollywood movie - Capricorn One. They show the anything but convincing Mars set from the film, then we are told that the destination for the movie was originally the Moon. Who tells us this? Good old, "bare assertion is my word", Bill Kaysing! Bunkum.
Kaysing tells us a couple of locations where they filmed the Apollo footage. As always with Kaysing, not even one iota of proof, this from a man who was in the publications area of Rocketdyne, and had left 6 years before Apollo 11! Quite how he would be "in the know" on this information, they don't tell us. Fantasy from Kaysing, an embittered man who hated the US government.

Minutes 129-131 Stronge gives us once again their conclusion that it was all faked, and refers us to Brian Welch a NASA spokesman, who quite understandably requests that Percy take his findings to the scientific community to present his "stunning" research. For obvious reasons, Percy doesn't do this, he is a businessman making a film and book for money. Having his work stripped down and exposed as complete nonsense before film release, wouldn't do his sales any good.

Stronge sets the scene for disc 2, by begging the question as to "why it had to be faked". He lists the numerous things the missions had to do to be successful, all of which were rehearsed in previous missions, then cites mystery "experts". He says these "experts" all say, that any number of things could have gone wrong that would have jeapordised not just the mission but the entire space program. Unnamed experts making bare assertions, is not that convincing to anybody but a conspiracy theorist.

Percy gives us his uninformed opinion as to the "compelling reason" why Apollo had to be faked. He tells us that apart from the radiation risks(instilling in the viewer a sense of excessive danger to the astronauts), there would be unknown magnetic and gravitational anomalies that could cause taking off from the Moon "very dangerous indeed". He "stuns" us with his knowledge by referring to mascons, areas of greater mass and stronger gravity on the Moon.

What he fails to point out(probably deliberately) is that these mascons were identified already by NASA's unmanned program and were less than half a percent variation of gravity! For a long orbiting satellite, that would be a problem eventually, but for the short stay of Apollo they would hardly notice, with the capacity to perform simple corrective thrust burns for any deviations. Percy does not tell us the consequence for any Lunar magnetic anomalies, yet the viewer is left with his assertion.

Percy and Stronge then combine to give us the dumbest contention one could imagine. Percy first cites his list of anomalies as a reason why "acceptable" images would be difficult to guarantee, hence the strawman "need" to fake them in advance.

Stronge continues - quoted in full:-

"Some think it's highly likely that surrogate astronauts were actually sent to the Moon, while the named NASA astronauts were obliged to play out the role of space heroes, far nearer to home remaining in the relative safety of low Earth orbit. As actors in a drama, the named astronauts represented the greatest achievement of mankind whilst others unknown travelled beyond the confines of their home planet for the first time, to all intents and purposes naked before creation as we shall see in a moment."

Hogwash.

So the film now presents its trump card - we went to the Moon, but faked the pics, images and the actual men who did it!

This according to Percy, is because of the inability to guarantee the pictures and images would be good enough? Who are these "some people"? Why would they think such a ludicrous thing?
Hoax believers are very fond of quoting this film as evidence of Apollo as being faked, I wonder if they agree with the assessment the film actually makes!

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 7

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minute 118-120 We now move on to what I can only describe as a laughable contention from the film. This is where they suggest that a 10mph electric Lunar Rover should somehow produce huge "rooster tails" on Earth, because the footage we see on Apollo shows them and according to the film maker they aren't high enough!

The whole concept ignores the fundamental reason behind them being made in the first place, 1/6th gravity. On the Moon an object will have 1/6th the weight but the same mass. Now the Lunar Rover still needs to accelerate that mass to overcome inertia, but it has 1/6th the traction as on Earth. The actual mechanism involved to eject material from behind a vehicle also relies on the wheel spin speed. Whilst the wheel is in contact with the ground, there is less chance of the wheel obtaining enough speed to eject surface material, as there is when it rises (free of friction to accelerate). This is why most of the arcs are produced when it comes down after a bump in the terrain. The 1/6th gravity contributes quite significantly to the bouncing effect of the rover.

I have made a video debunking this section of the film:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAhuN6VPA


Minute 120-122 Percy starts the most famous clip from this film by making an incorrect statement. He says "astronauts moving in slow motion is another hallmark of the Apollo footage". This gives the viewer the idea that something has been slowed down.

Gravitational acceleration on the Moon will cause all objects to rise higher and for longer when even the slightest vertical movement is made. Together with less traction to move the 350lbs of mass, a restrictive suit has less traction to stop or change direction.

A short extract from a study explains this:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9076966

"We investigated the effect of reduced gravity on the human walk-run gait transition speed and interpreted the results using an inverted-pendulum mechanical model.

We simulated reduced gravity using an apparatus that applied a nearly constant upward force at the center of mass, and the subjects walked and ran on a motorized treadmill. In the inverted pendulum model for walking, gravity provides the centripetal force needed to keep the pendulum in contact with the ground. The ratio of the centripetal and gravitational forces (mv2/L)/(mg) reduces to the dimensionless Froude number (v2/gL). Applying this model to a walking human, m is body mass, v is forward velocity, L is leg length and g is gravity. In normal gravity, humans and other bipeds with different leg lengths all choose to switch from a walk to a run at different absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number (0.5). We found that, at lower levels of gravity, the walk-run transition occurred at progressively slower absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number. This supports the hypothesis that the walk-run transition is triggered by the dynamics of an inverted-pendulum system."

We are told that astronauts never jump as high as they should do in 1/6th gravity, and later we are told they are on wires! Go figure that one out.

We are then treated to one of the worst examples of modern "special effects" by showing a man falling through some sort of wormhole suspended on wires. Bunkum.

I have already addressed some of this section:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/06/gravity-and-motion-and-apollo-moon.html

Here is a video I made showing the sheer deception used by David Percy. The video shows how Percy has taken a small clip, deliberately avoided the sections either side of it, and made erroneous claims as to the motion sped up by 200% reflects Earth gravity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vawJhSnFcQ0

Now, the obvious lens flare from Apollo 14 that is alleged to be a wire, and the "ping" on Apollo 17! The Apollo 14 clip is a very over exposed piece of footage. Everything about the shot shows this clearly. The "ping" occurs exactly where the radio antenna sits, and the secondary reflection is not vertical. It is the most obvious case of a lens flare you could get. Quite why they would need to use wires on Apollo 14 in the first place makes no sense. There is not an awful lot of activity from what I can recall.

The Apollo 17 clip is an internal reflection probably made during the copying process. It has no such anomaly on the original footage. The "ping" is in the shape of the reflection seen a split second before, from the radio antenna.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqY1cYJEP_A

The section where he deals with the astronaut unable to jump high on the Moon, is a complete strawman argument. Here it is explained:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAz5OIzQsU

Percy continues by suggesting a "floaty effect" and a "dangly effect" of the John Young jump, then asks us to compare it with the Apollo gravity testing rig. I cannot fathom how somebody could suggest that a purpose built rig with sideways, vertical and forward stabilizers very clearly visible, could be compares to the mechanical motion from using thin wires. It is a ludicrous suggestion. Forwards and lateral mechanical motion would dimply be jerky and unresponsive due to the wire taking 5/6th (or whatever figure is claimed by hoax believers!) weight off of the astronauts.

Percy shows a small clip from Apollo 16, where one astronaut helps the other astronaut up by pushing his hand. Since the astronaut weighs 60lbs, the idea that somebody could not do this is absurd. This is a fairly simple thing to do on Earth, where people are far heavier. Bunkum.

A collection of videos - Wires and jumping debunked:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSroT3RkmQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjEItn1sSQg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBICR4PTLfc

A video showing the Apollo 17 astronauts trying to jump up high and falling over (obscured a bit by the Lunar rover):-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16D0hmLt-S0


Minute 122-124 Percy pads the film out here by waffling about how the film could have been altered to vary the speed. Since his theory about double speed is shot to pieces by watching any number of clips at double speed, this is just a means to reaffirm in the casual viewer, that his "analysis" was correct. He shows the John Young clip at double speed and tells us it looks like it was on Earth. No, it does not. His fall to the surface is still too slow for Earth gravity.

Here it is at correct Earth freefall speed, with absurd motion:-

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


Minute 124-127 We are now shown the hammer and feather experiment on the Moon, where the idea is suggested that it is very easy to fake. Then David Percy gives us firstly his "ahaa!" moment by showing the clip of "From the Earth to the Moon" where there is an edit! Followed by a doctored experiment of his own on Earth.

Here is a video showing more deception by him:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXVMnA1Xp5Y

1. The Apollo experiment corresponds to Lunar gravity.
2. The Earth experiment does not correspond to Earth gravity!
3. The Earth hammer hits the fround first.
4. The feather on the Earth experiment is weighted and bounces!
5. The hand holding the feather on Earth is lower.
6. The Earth feather drops predominantly vertically.
7. The slowed down Earth footage does not correspond to Lunar gravity.
8. Footage of "From the Earth to the Moon" has an edit in their depiction.
9. The speeded up Apollo footage, at 200% and 150% does not equate to Earth gravity.
10. The speeded up clip looks bizarre and does not show normal motion.

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 4

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 69-70 Percy reminds us of the "designer continuity error" on the Apollo 16 jump salute with the PLSS flap, where I showed him to be lying! He then points out a photograph taken with the Earth and flag in shot on Apollo 17 and indicates how difficult it would be without a viewfinder. Difficult is not impossible, nevertheless We are left with the implied suggestion.

Perhaps this charlatan could have looked at the previous image in that roll of film where Schmitt also tried to do the same shot? Here it is badly framed sideways on, with the tiniest bit of the Earth visible on the edge of the flag.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20383HR.jpg


Minutes 70-72  Percy now shows us his assessment of the Apollo 17 flag billowing "positive" ie. bulging towards the stills camera, and to his "trained eye" also billowing positive in the opposite direction to the TV camera.

It is an optical illusion, perfectly explained here:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/2flags3.htm

With a demonstration pictorially on this page:-

http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/2flags4.htm

And visually here:-

He continues with just a bizarre summary of what his optical illusion actually means! Whistleblowing flag movers, and the Schmitt "Earth photgraph" interpreted by him as "No departure from Earth by the named astronaut in this photograph". I kid you not, he actually does say that hogwash!

Always we have the reinforcing of the "evidence" with repetition and referbacks, instilling in the viewer a sense of wonder at this "mass of hoax proof".


Minutes 72-74 Moving on to the question of why there is only one Hasselblad image of Armstrong on the Moon, Ronnie Stronge then speculates that it was because he was a reclusive man and maybe felt "guilt"! He says "was he even on the Moon"? The idea that they had one surface camera, and that Armstrong was doing most of the photography probably never occurred to them(though given the previous demonstrations of subterfuge, I suspect they did)! This is a laboured, irrelevant, contrived piece of nonsense.


Minutes 75-77 The next contention presented is "sound and light". Here we are shown footage of a bob sleigh powering down the run, vibrating as it moves along the surface. The adrenalin and excitement are highlighted as the film tells us how dangerous this is. Then on to the Apollo 11 descent where professional astronauts are cool, calm and collected as they call out descent readings. The film explains about the engine thrust and how it should have produced massive vibrations, yet clearly ignores the fact that there is no sound in a vacuum! The idea that the engine would shake the craft, the way a ground contacting bob sleigh in an atmosphere would do, is quite ludicrous.

Ronnie Stronge tells us that it is hard to believe we would not have heard any vibration or noise from the engine, yet anybody who has flown in an aircraft knows that the only noise we hear comes from external sound waves. This point is quite laboured and steeped in ignorance. The comparison is made to the Space Shuttle in LEO where supposedly astronauts can feel the thrusters firing, yet fails to point out that feeling motion is not the same as feeling engine vibration, that would at most have had only a gentle effect on the hull.

A throwaway reference is made to the "flimsy" Lunar Module, where no evidence is presented as to how this conclusion is made. The external mylar and kapton is often cited by conspiracy theorists as proof of the LM as bing a "tin-can", yet this machine was built to a very high specification by a dedicated team. The idea that they would create a "flimsy" craft, knowingly, yet the hundreds of personnel involved in its design and build would stay quiet about it is another piece of hogwash.


Minutes 77-79 David Percy now gives us the benefit of his "research" where he cites a mock-up pan of what the Surveyor III craft would look like to Apollo 12 (taken from the film "Conquest of Space"), and he then concludes it is the actual Apollo 12 descent footage!! Unbelievable subterfuge. The mock-up bears no resemblance to any of the Apollo 12 Surveyor III photographs. I'm surprised he didn't point this out as one of his dumb "inconsistencies"!

Here is the Apollo 12 full descent footage:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbj8Zo053Lc


Minutes 80-82 The Apollo 12 TV camera fail, is highlighted as "suspicious" by David Percy. He determines that the camera couldn't have failed, because a later mission did the same thing with no problems. Now, gee Percy, maybe they learned from their mistakes d'ya think?

http://next.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12.tvtrbls.html

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

He carries on rambling about continuing lens flares indicating that the camera must have been still working! Lens flares are internal reflections from THE LENS, so any direct flared light would be reflected onto the vidicon screen. Direct light itself was not registered for the burnt out part of the tube. He continues by saying the blacked out portion of the tube was varied over time, which to him suggests it is still functional, when in reality, as is likely, the areas that were not burnt completely would restore some functionality over time.
Continuing, he now claims that Apollo 16 should have known not to point the camera into the Sun. So wh
en being directed by Houston, why would they ask such a thing? Simple, the camera had safeguards built in (as a result of Apollo 12), so why would they know that it was now completely inadvisable. They were guidelines only, and since Houston was directing them, it was a logical question. A trivial and meaningless point by Percy.


Minutes 82-86 This piece of the film is one gigantic rambling chunk of nonsense, Ronnie Stronge starts talking about 2001 a space ODYSSEY(the name of the CSM) and thinks it significant that they played the theme tune moments before the accident with the oxygen stirring tanks, He then suggests the song "The Dawning of the Age of Aquarius" (the name of the LM) being played is also symbolic of the need to use the LM after the accident. Just pure bunkum! He even alludes to the term "Houston we have a problem" as being from the film 2001 and being the work of a secret "whistleblower"!


Minutes 86-87 Mary Bennett makes her entrance and advises us that the blue Sunlight and Earthlight refracted and over exposed through the LM windows is evidence of the craft being in Low Earth Orbit, when it is the coatings used on the windows. Once again we have a referback to the supposedly "already proven" Apollo 11 in LEO (when weather patterns and numerous other things prove it wasn't!) as another example of this.

Debunked here again:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDo9Gyy_W6Q

Here is a section from that video showing how the bright Earth light appears blue, even at distance:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gDo9Gyy_W6Q&feature=player_detailpage#t=116s


Minute 87-89 Percy suggests that the photograph of the damaged Apollo 13 CSM is identical to one where the cover is removed on another photograph. Irrelevant really what he thinks, the Odyssey photograph shows damage. Another daft contention. Ronnie Stronge makes an assertion that "many experts" claim, such an explosion would throw the craft "way off course". Hogwash. Who are these "many experts" and where are their computations?

We now have Mary Bennett and her "dance through space" speech, where she tells us that the Apollo 13 craft was scheduled to land in darkness, because it was just barely emerging from the terminator when the craft was over 19,000 miles on its way back to Earth. She says that Apollo 13 had just left Lunar orbit whilst it was still dark.

Let's examine this. Firstly, Apollo 13 never went into orbit!! She has the audacity to tell us how anybody with "rudimentary knowledge of astronomy or an ephemeris" could check this, but makes such a basic, bad error. The craft went around the Moon on a free-return-trajectory. This means it did not fire retro to slow its speed to acquire orbit, but was on a speed and course that took it around the Moon far quicker than normal. It also fired its engine to achieve escape velocity.

This means it hit 19,000 miles away from the Moon barely before it would have even performed one orbital rotation! Apollo 13 was scheduled to be in lunar orbit for 26 hours prior to landing. The actual sunrise terminator moves some 13 degrees in longitude between lunar orbital insertion and the landing.

Mary Bennett - epic fail.


Part 5.....

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.....

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 2

I want to briefly touch on another obvious point that this film creates in the viewer's mind. The old adage "no smoke without fire". By creating such a long padded out film, those who have no skills pertaining to what is suggested, or the inclination to check them out, are left with the overwhelming conclusion that "there must be something to it", because there is so much "evidence".

However, when you dissect each point one by one, it is patently obvious that this is merely a business venture that exploits those who take little convincing.

Continuing Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 26-28 Percy shows us a modern composite of a Honda commercial and begs the question of the viewer. Nowhere has he demonstrated the same effect in an Apollo picture, yet he leaves the impression that he has. He cites a ludicrous example from Apollo 17, again missing the multiple light sources equals multiple shadows fact.

Here is a link to the high resolution picture:-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20425HR.jpg

The rocks that he says have different shadow directions are in undulating areas, where the shadow falls down subtle small slopes. Anybody looking at that picture who thinks it is a composite from 1972, is either lying, uninformed about 70s technology or just plain wrong.

Here are some Earth shadows demonstrating his whole contention as just a pack of lies:-

Minutes 28-29 He looks at the famous C rock picture itself clearly on a slope with undulations and draws these same idiotic shadow conclusions.Then he parrots the theory about the letter "C" (a piece of lint on a copy of the original that has no "C"!). He postulates that the "C" is a prop, and stands for either "center" or some rambling about it meaning light, since C is the constant for the speed of light!! Just pure bunkum.

Completely debunked here:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEygpL7r6Pk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DtzBMIKIp8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxwL4DCzUN4


Minute 29  Bizzarely the film starts talking about the speed of light constant varying with local gravity fields!?? I can only assume they are trying to bamboozle those viewers who have no real scientific background.


Minutes 29-31 The film lays the premise that backlighting had to have been used, since objects would show up as black with the light source behind them. This is patently wrong. Percy uses an Earth shot, where the backlight shows up in the visor as an example, yet as expected could find no examples of pictures with any such backlighting reflections in the visor. Further, any backlighting not from the surface, would wash out the shadows. Always in every shot, we have crisp dark shadows, something you simply would not get outdoors with an atmosphere either.

The backlighting is from surface reflection. I already analysed that on Link 2 of this page:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links.html


Minutes 32-33  Percy makes the astonishing comparison of the light capabilities of a modified 10 frames per second TV camera which had a high intensity night lens, to a Hasselblad stills camera which has variable shutter and aperture! He makes the claim that because one had a night lens, so should the other. Bunkum. Actually he is just lying, this man is supposed to be a cameraman and would know this.


Minutes 33-49 This is more about supposed backlighting, again covered in detail on the same Link 2 here:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links.html

As further demonstration of the surface being the backlight source, the picture directly before Percy's example where he cites something that should be in shadow, actually shows the bottom of the PLSS much brighter than other parts of his suit. In addition it is much brighter than the actual area we would expect to be bright, if Groves "analysis" of his phantom light source was correct!

Here is a link to the actual picture:-
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5863HR.jpg

Here is why Groves analysis is contrived hogwash:-

Minutes 50-51 The presenter Ronnie Stronge now offers more conjecture aimed at swaying the audience. He presents a "case proven" on the supposed fake images with vague strawman references saying how even one suspect photograph proves the case. Since I have shown that no such proof has been given, we can assume that it is aimed at promoting the idea in the viewer that it has been.


Minutes 51-55  We now have possibly the most contrived, dishonest and ludicrous of statements in this whole film. A woman nobody has heard of, talking about a coke bottle that nobody else saw, not reported in any publication, and supposedly put there by a Goldstone whistleblower!! Bunkum of the highest order.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14523

"Una Ronald claims to have “stayed up late” to watch the live broadcast of the Apollo 11 moonwalk when living in or near Perth, Western Australia. She was amazed to see a “coke bottle” kicked across the lunar surface. This object was only seen during the live broadcast and was removed from replays in the days following. She also claims to have seen, about 7 to 10 days later, several letters mentioning the same thing in her local paper (The West Australian).

This claim has many irregularities, and researchers have discovered what might be an explanation. To begin, it is claimed that she “stayed up” to watch the live broadcast. This might have been the case in the United States, but it was not in Perth. The first step onto the Moon occurred at 2.56am on 21 July 1969 – Greenwich Mean Time (GMT). Perth is 8 hours ahead of GMT, so it occurred at 10.56am in Perth. That’s in the morning.

The moonwalk video was actually received by ground stations in the eastern states before being transmitted to Perth (see http://www.honeysucklecreek.net/Apollo_11/index.html  for more details).

The claim regarding the newspaper reports are also incorrect. For at least two weeks following the broadcast, there were no articles or letters regarding sightings of a “coke bottle” in either The West Australian or the Daily News, the only two daily newspapers in Perth at the time. I have personally checked this, and any interested party can examine copies of the various editions of the papers on microfiche at the Batte library (State Reference Library) in Perth.

What Una Ronald probably saw was a reflection of Buzz Aldrin’s visor, reflected inside the television camera lens. This effect is known as catadioptrism, or “ghosting”."

Explained here:-
http://www.clavius.org/cokebottle.html

I should point out the continual references being made to "people in the know" having the opportunity to "whistleblow"! Hoax believers cite that it would take only a handful of people with knowledge of this "hoax" to pull such a thing off, yet here we have all these numerous people supposedly with first hand knowledge of it. None of whom has ever come forward, made a deathbed confession or said anything about it whatsoever to anybody. Bunkum.


Minutes 55-56 Bill Kaysing gives us his opinion with no references or proof as per usual. Kaysing already discussed in Link 1 of this analysis:-
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/some-cosmored-hoax-links_16.html


Minutes 56-57 Begs the question about what "we know" about Apollo 11 TV transmissions(this is the referback method, meaning his debunked "transparency on the window" nonsense) , and then more back references to Coke bottles and whistleblowers.

At this point we are treated to some mysterious music and a few clips of video from Apollo.


Minutes 57-59 Talks about how easy it was to use the camera and align the subject of each photograph. We are told quite correctly that the astronauts spent quite some time practicing with the camera before their missions. His motive in doing this, is to later present the claim that it shouldn't have been possible with "cumbersome" pressurised gloves.

http://history.nasa.gov/spacesuits.pdf

"There are two protective envelopes employed in the space suit: an Inner pressurizable envelope, and an outer thermal and micrometeoroid protective envelope. The inner pressurizable envelope Is called the Torso and Limb Suit Assembly (TLSA); this assembly Interfaces with a detachable helmet, and a pair of removable gloves.

The outer envelope used for thermal and micrometeoroid protection Includes an Integrated Thermal Micrometeoroid Garment (ITMG), a Lunar Extravehicular Visor Assembly (LEVA)..."

Minutes 59-60 Percy cites the example of setting up the TV camera on uneven surface and aligning it, to suggest that it is the same as a chest mounted camera that they had practiced with. He also uses one of his throw away lines to further suggest that all the photography was studio quality and perfectly aligned.

Debunked here:-

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


Part 3.......

What Happened on the Moon Debunked - Part 1

Before I begin to debunk this film, I would point out some common practices used by film makers of this type. The various techniques used are a combination of bare assertions and flawed examples followed by a generalisation referring back to the examples shown, as a means to imply the assertion as being proven. To anybody who has even a modicum of understanding in the various sections of photography, perspective, parallax, physics and logical fallacies, the arguments presented are quickly seen to be nonsense.

I would ask that anybody who watches this film, is observant of these techniques and takes careful note of how they present their so called evidence. There is simply not enough time to do a statement by statement analysis, so I will concentrate primarily in debunking each claim and pointing out how they use subterfuge to apply it to things not mentioned.

Disk 1 of 2

Minutes 1-7 Primarily makes bare assertions and begs numerous questions. It presents one piece of "evidence" from the "genius" Bill Kaysing, who quotes a study in the 50s of how likely it would be to land on the Moon. As though a study made without any real space program in place would be accurate, given the tremendous advances made with Mercury and Gemini, allied with increasingly popular satellite technology. We also have just Kaysing's word on the figures quoted in the study.


Minutes 7-8 Introduces the moronic contention that the flag movements in a vacuum during the act of placing them in the regolith, was down to wind blowing, yet we fail to see any ground disturbance from this implied wind.

Straightforward explanation video:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc_mmtAxjMk
Mythbusters debunk:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhab86KoVjU



Minutes 8-10 David Percy makes more bare assertions about "whistleblowers", fakery and obvious anomalies. He states the inaccurate claim that TV was always filmed off of a screen on Earth, when this was only on Apollo 11 due to the way the signal was sent:-

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


Minutes 10-12 He basically starts to lie. He indicates a "continuity error" occuring on the Apollo 16 mission (one that had a delayed landing of 6hrs due to technical difficulties), concerning a missing flap on the TV footage. One technique he uses at this point is to make a throwaway comment that makes the assumption that it is proven. He states "let's ignore the reasons as to why such a small jump in the 1/6th gravity of the Moon". This is wrong for two reasons.

The jump was certainly not made using maximum effort, and he weighs 360lbs on Earth. Try jumping with somebody on your back on Earth, you probably won't even get off the ground!

Explained here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxAz5OIzQsU

Now this supposed continuity error - a blatant lie shown here:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0OS26q20R0


Minutes 12-17 Percy alleges that a transparency was clipped to the window to fake Apollo 11 half way to the Moon, says the blue glare on the window is the Earth, when it is the coating used to protect it. The whole thing is debunked in the most thorough fashion by proving weather patterns matched the view from the CSM in all 3 transmissions and the Earth disappears to the side as the camera pans back (must be a magic transparency!).

Not only would any craft be clearly visible to the Earth whilst in LEO, its radio signal would disappear with it orbiting every 90 minutes. Bart Sibrel, cited in this clip, made a 10 minute segment of his film alleging it was the Earth itself (not a transparency!) which is just totally impossible. He changed his claims later on (in line with Percy), after being barraged with counter argument showing his stupidity.

Here are numerous videos showing both these contentions are just complete bunkum, and the film makers are lying through deliberate omission!

Video 1:-

Demonstrates that during the footage filmed from the CSM, stills taken from the footage (supposedly a transparency) are moving in line with the Earth rotation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA

Video 2:-

Shows a brief clip from the transmissions that see the Earth disappearing to the side of the window. Very much not like a transparency!

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

Video 3:-

Shows a stunning demonstration of the weather patterns matching the Apollo 11 half way to the Moon video.

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

Video 4:-

A different weather pattern demonstration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3qEoA35cLs
Video 5:-

A thorough debunk of both Sibrel and Percy demonstrating how they lie.

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



Minutes 17-20 Introduces David Groves and Bill Wood, makes more bare assertions and casts "suspicion", nothing really said.


Minutes 20-22 Shows a "contradiction" in the Kodak film used, where a NASA spokesman says it was specially made, and a Kodak man who says it was not. The Kodak man was mistaken. The film implies subterfuge as is the normal theme running through it. Simple mistake from the Kodak man. The narrative is building the strawman that the film could not possibly survive in space because it uses standard available film.

"Kodak Film in Space: John Glenn became the first American to orbit the earth, Kodak film recorded his reactions to traveling through space at 17,400 miles per hour. Kodak was asked by NASA to develop thin new films with special emulsions double-perforated 70mm film, which permitted 160 pictures in color or 200 on black and white. Apollo 8 was one of the first missions to use this film. There were three magazines loaded with 70 mm wide, perforated Kodak Panatomic-X fine-grained, 80 ASA, b/w film, two with Kodak Ektachrome SO-68, one with Kodak Ektachrome SO-121, and one with super light-sensitive Kodak 2485, 16,000 ASA film - which produced 1100 color, black and white, and filtered photographs from the Apollo 8 mission."

Minutes 22-23 I really don't know what the film is suggesting. Jan Lundberg confirms the camera was specially adapted by Hasselblad on NASA's original specification, which they then improved upon.


Minutes 23-24 More deception. Shows photographs where the cross hairs(reticles) appear to disappear "behind" objects. He deliberately uses low resolution photographs, knowing that the higher resolution ones do indeed show the reticles, but fainter on brighter areas where the light has bled on to the film. He makes the strawman statement about how it would be totally impossible for objects to get in front of the reticles, when no such thing ever occurs!

Demonstration of this on Earth:-

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

A good debunking of the subterfuge:-

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


Minute 24 Shows Jan Lundberg appearing to disagree with NASA about the use of Reticles to judge distance by suggesting that stereo-pairs were needed to perform this. They then just lie about there not being any stereo-pair photographs from the mission! The link just above has one of many examples used in the Apollo photographc record.



Minutes 24-26 Percy, continues with his "photagrammetric" bull, citing non parallel shadows as indicative of fakery(bunkum first voiced by Kaysing). To say this is just pure stupidity negates the fact that he is just plain lying. In his main example, he actually draws lines to a point where he says extra lighting had to have been used, but misses the stunningly obvious fact that multiple light sources create multiple shadows!! Also, the lines he uses to create an intersection, actually cross each other in the shot! Just mind numbingly wrong.

Numerous shadow debunking videos and photographs:-

Simple 30 second debunk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATrFuCnW6T8
Mythbusters just nails this totally.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wym04J_3Ls0
Nailed again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy9rkc8jq0k
More simple demonstrations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrPaz3xFIg


These weblinks further explain it, with clear examples showing Percy as a liar:-
http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/trrnshdow.html
http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html
http://www.clavius.org/a11rear.html


This website completely nails a direct example used by the film:-
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/shadows.htm
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/shadows2.htm


Part 2......