Saturday, May 1, 2021

A Very Troubled Individual.

 I now have future plans to continue with debunking disk 2 of the awful David Percy film "What Happened on the Moon", the Bart Sibrel film and the James Collier film. I am currently creating a Mars "fake" blog. Even though the futility of such a project, given the evasion from Cosmored, is now obvious to me. He is seriously one of the most underhand characters I have ever encountered. He makes no effort to "seek the truth". He is simply on a confirmation bias fixation and will do anything, including the most idiotic of explanations, running away, evasion, to avoid seeing how his 20 year project has unravelled completely. 

Hopefully this blog will continue to thwart this crazy person.

These are examples of the forum spamming to this day still occurring:-







I wonder, if like me, you think this behaviour is a symptom of some sort of obsessive-compulsive disorder. It really isn't the action of somebody searching for the truth, but rather one that has an axe to grind.


UPDATE:

The following forum post describes the craziness of this individual and his blatant and ongoing dishonesty.



Cosmored/Fatfreddy88/Drifty/Scott/Rocky has a whole series of evasion tactics :-

1. For images or video: "Nothing that's fakable can be used as proof as it might be fake."

He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own images and videos. He will never actually prove it is faked or offer the number of people involved in such.

2. For websites: "It's possible that your sites are genuine and it's possible that some public-relations agency created them to help fool the public. Something that may or may not be bogus can't be used as proof." Source.
or
"That's a disinfo site."

He will never apply this moronic circular logic to his own appallingly inept websites. He will never address any website that solidly refutes his claims. He never offers any proof that any website is "disinfo" or "public-relations".

3. For Expert Testimony: "Only a person with a high background in photography would be able to deal with it "

For "photography" insert anything. He is a layman on everything associated with space travel so uses this evasion tactic frequently. Basically if he doesn't understand it, it is ignored and of course the person providing the information must automatically be in on the moronic hoax.

4. For Rebuttal: "...so we already know what you posted is sophistry. "
or
"I can't say I'm one hundred percent sure he's a paid disinfo agent but his behavior fits the profile perfectly."

This enables him to completely ignore any response, which he routinely does anyway, but throws this in for effect. Needless to say, he will never offer anything to backup his ad hominem statement.

5. Miscellaneous: ".anyone who sees it will see that he's just a paid sophist."

This is probably the worst one of all. For this enormous diversionary statement, he gets to ignore every single thing written by an expert in almost every aspect of the Apollo MissionsHe gets to ignore a concise website detailing debunks for almost all his total crap. He gets to ignore every post made where he always get his ass handed to him. The basis for this is his "credibility test".

6. Credibility Test: "This calls for a credibility test. XXXXXXX maintains that the Chinese spacewalk was real and not faked in a water tank. Do you agree with him?

This is where the spammer uses one of his pre-determined idiotic conspiracies or erroneous claims as the yardstick for a credibility test. He is the arbitrator of its provenance therefore anyone who disagrees with it can now be referred to as "discredited" and all their rebuttal can be ignored.

7. When all else fails: "I think the rest are moot now that you`ve been discredited and there are a lot of clear anomalies that prove the footage ...."

So when he routinely gets his claim debunked, it is "moot" because of "all the others". It never occurs to him that all the other evidence has been debunked and was also "moot" when it was addressed. When pushed to provide a list of items to address, at all costs he will not do this because it can be seen where they have all been debunked.

8. Just deny everything: "I've never seen it debunked. I've seen people try to obfuscate it and then consider it to have been debunked." or "I can't see what you're referring to."

He's never seen ANYTHING debunked? An utterly ludicrous statement that he uses based on his own inept layman understanding. His ignorance apart, he seeks to pigeon hole every single debunk into responses that he says are diversion, because he says so. Or, he simply denies seeing something that is completely irrefutably obvious.

9. Idiotic Closes: "You'd get laughed out of the debating hall ..."

or

"you're about as impressive as the Black Knight in this video"

The sheer irony of this is always lost on him. If ever there was somebody who behaved like the Black Knight - as his arm gets chopped off it's a "moot point" it would be this serial forum spammer. There is not a debating environment on this planet where this person would show up to. He knows more than anyone that he would get the floor wiped with his drivel.

10. Divert/Obfuscate/Re-spam: This is where he avoids the item completely and gish-gallops away with repeated spam. Almost certainly he will keep avoiding the original claim.

11. Never mind that - look over here:   When this hopeless individual has exhausted his inept repertoire of responses comes his most used spam. He resorts to spamming his wall of crap and ignoring the main issue!

"Anyway, there's a ton of proof that the missions were faked and zero proof that they were real."

"This lame stand of your totally exposes you as a shill*"

"It just makes you look like a horse's a-s and the viewers can see it. I don't see any point in my continuing to reiterate this."

What a sad, sad liar this person is. They have been humiliated completely on dozens of subjects, thousands of times on Apollo, yet they spew this cut and paste hogwash almost every time.

12. Credibility Referbacks:   When this hopeless individual has no answers he often resorts to just one liners concerning previous bullshit "Credibility Tests". 

"You've already said some pretty lame things so your judgement is obviously flawed."

"....said the Man who tried to obfuscate the clear evidence of the Chinese Spacewalk"

13. Moronic Translations:   This is the ridiculous post where he interprets his crazy viewpoint on something regardless of how many times it has already been addressed. It usually has some bearing on his equally moronic "Credibility Tests". 

"Translation: The proof that the Chinese spacewalk is so clear that I'll just look silly if I try to obfuscate it so I'd better avoid addressing it."


This person has been doing all of the above across 100's of forums for (best guess) coming up to 17 years. He cuts and pastes duplicate posts, responses, key phrases and dismissal videos. He determines any one or more of the above and posts them out, then slams a huge post with repeated and debunked bullshit. There is simply no level of response that can get through to somebody who has terminal Dunning and Kruger syndrome.

Friday, April 30, 2021

The Apollo Moon Rocks - Idiotic Website

A ridiculous and thoroughly ignorant website:


The following website is used by the serial forum spammer because he thinks it actually offers tangible arguments. All excerpts from the website will be in italics and grey background.



"The proof that the "moon landing" was in the moon hall: sand and dust are the same

It seems strange, but sand and dust in the "training" have the same graining size as in the "moon landing". And this is impossible (Wisnewski, p.174)

So this is another proof that the "moon landings" all were in the halls.

This is NO conspiracy theory, but these are the facts, you stupid Wikipedia."


From the tone of the dialog it can quickly be deduced that we are not dealing with an intelligent argument. He claims the soil grain size in testing is the same as the soil samples, from a bare assertion reference and then concludes it is impossible. Then from this insane circular logic it becomes "proof".

He then refers to Wikipedia, which is obviously the limit of his actual research capabilities.


"Examples of "moonstones": Stones should give an impression

When you are asking for "moonstone" in the Internet (in German: "Mondgestein"), then you should have the searching word "moonstone", "moon stone" or surprisingly the best searching word is "lunar sample".

Funnily enough the research almost always knows what kind of stone it is and can compare the stones with stones from the Earth, or the stones are almost identical.

And there are mad indications that "moonstones" would be worth more than gold. So, there exist fantasies that there are things on the moon more worth than gold..."



There appears to be no substance to any of that garbage. Gold is deemed as some unsurpassable element by this person, clearly the rarity of lunar samples is what makes them valuable. There then follows some pictures that offer no arguments just meaningless observations.


"Generally: "Moonstones" cannot be proved

"Moonstones" have no possibility to be compared on moon itself, because there is no possibility of a neutral control on the "moon". So, it's permitted for anybody to claim this or that stone would come from the "moon". Also when certain "moon probes" are said having landed on the moon also this is not controllable. And it's not possible to control if these "moon probes" have brought stones or dust from the "moon" to the Earth or not either. At the end the super powers "USA" and "SU" claim together to the public that "moonstones" would be "very similar" to "Earth stones". This "similarity" brings up some new questions (Wisnewski, p.209).

[All in all all shown "moonstones" could be also from the Earth. The indications that "moonstones" would eventually be more worth than "gold" lets rise the fantasy for the greedy, capitalistic society at the same time. When the "moonstones" would be from the Earth so one had lost more than "gold"...]"

Absolutely absurd speculative and very ignorant statements. Summarizing this involves pointing out the samples contain ZERO evidence of terrestrial weathering, contain numerous solar isotopes including helium-3 on outer skin from solar wind, show evidence of formation in low gravity, contain many tiny impact craters from micro-meteorites and collectively cannot be from Earth or meteorites. The author presumes once again to quote as reference, a rather uninformed individual "Wisnewski" who is given to numerous bare assertions with no evidence to support them!

The idea that these samples are more valuable than gold is hardly an economical goal considering the cost of retrieving the damn things.



"The stage-managed race for "moonstones"

According to the access into the falsification practice with the planet machinery "LOLA" at Langley and according to the possibilities of radio communication not over some 100 km all flights of the "moon probes" are a lie. And because the transport of "moonstones" was not a neutral, controllable procedure, and because according to the technical data of the little aberration of the landings from the landing points and because of the cosmic radiation (sun storms with many sunspots) the Apollo flights cannot have been performed, the official data about "moonstones" do not seem very reliable. By the "moonstones" one lie supports the other one, in case of the "moonstones" in cooperation with the "Soviet Union".

There is no substance in that paragraph at all - conspiracy garbage and bare assertion. He basically says radio communication over 100km is impossible. Just plain stupid.



With the secrecy and with the term "conspiracy theory" against all critics the cock-and-bull story of the moonstones is defended successfully in the propaganda and in the media...

Bare assertion nonsense.


13 July 1969 Start of the "SU" "lunar probe" Luna 15 with the aim of a landing "on the moon" on 21st July  (Wisnewski, p.210)

No claim - just a reference.


16 July 1969 
Start of Apollo 11 with the aim of a landing "on the moon" on 21st July
(Wisnewski, p.210) 
But until now the "USA" have not even brought one single "lunar probe" to the moon and brought back (Wisnewski, p.210).

No claim - just a reference.

21 July 1969 
"SU": The "lunar probe" is said have crashed "on the moon"
The reasons for the crash are "not known" (Wisnewski, p.210-211).

No claim - just a reference.

24 July 1969 
Apollo 11 claims they had brought "moonstones" (soil samples) "from the moon" all in all 20 kg "moonstones" (Wisnewski, p.209,210).

No claim - just a reference.

since 24 July 1969 
The research on the "moonstones" is only for "elected people"
Research with the "moonstones" is only possible with a proposal and with a detailed justification of the project. Then some milligram "moonstone" are released (Wisnewski, p.211).

No claim - just a reference. But quite rightly NASA only allows qualified people to examine the samples.

14 to 24 November 1969 
Apollo 12 claims having brought back parts of "lunar probe" "Surveyor 3" "from the moon" Astronauts from Apollo 12 claim they had brought back parts of the "lunar probe" Surveyor 3, among others the little camera. But according to indications of NASA the camera shall have contained a terrestrial bacterium which had survived the "stay on the moon".

Nonsense claim - what is "terrestrial bacterium"? If NASA faked bringing back Surveyor parts then it can easily fake bullshit bacterium.

(In: David, Leonard: Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets; www.space.com; 26.3.2001; www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html (August 2006); Wisnewski, S.216)

No claim - just a reference.


[Then there is the proof that the "lunar probe" Surveyor 3 had never been "on the moon", and that is - again - NO conspiracy theory, but this is logic, you stupid Wikipedia].

No claim - just idiotic bare assertion.

12 July 1970 
"SU": Start of the "lunar probe" "Luna 16" with the aim of a landing "on the moon" (Wisnewski, p.211)

No claim - just a reference.

24 July 1970 
"SU": Flight back of the "lunar probe" "Luna 16" "from the moon" and landing on Earth with ca. 100 gr "moonstone" This is the official data (Wisnewski, p.211).

No claim - just a reference.

since 1970 
The superpowers comparing their "moonstones" Now funnily enough the officially hostile superpowers are comparing their "moonstones" and "accept the authenticity of the Apollo material" of each other. (In: www.clavius.org; Wisnewski, p.211).

No claim - just a reference. A hint of sarcasm and stupid implied bare assertion.

The "SU" legalizes the "American" "moon landings" and gets wheat for it All in all the "Soviet Union" legalizes the "moon landings" of the "USA" by the declaration that the "moonstones" are the same. At the same time "SU" suffers bad harvests and is depends on wheat deliveries from the West. The "Soviet" regime has no other choice than to do the favour to the "USA" to recognize the "moonstones" and with it the "moon landings" (Wisnewski, p.212).

This is the bullshit "wheat" claim - occurring AFTER Apollo had concluded!

Great Grain Robbery - Wikipedia

1972
Researchers claim having found "moon meteorites" in the Antarctic
But the claim for moon meteorites is impossible because until now (2006) nobody can go on the moon and control what "moonstones" really are. The claim is another lie which should support the lie having brought "moonstones" to the Earth (Wisnewski, p.209).

[And the media, greedy for sensations, report the moon meteorites as true fact and rise the number of copies with it...]

This is the ignorant claim that geologists lack the skill to deduce that a sample is from the Moon and not a meteorite. With no terrestrial weathering, solar isotopes, significant exterior(and interior)helioum-3, zap pits, evidence of formation in low gravity and with no heat damage from entry to Earth!

since 1972 
NASA has stored officially 382 kg "moonstones"
The storing of the 382 kg "moonstones" at the NASA is in boxes filled with nitrogen (Wisnewski, p.214). Nobody has an access, and all is kept "secret" (Wisnewski, p.215).

The "moonstones" are protected from all events, storms and tornadoes...

(In: David, Leonard: Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets; www.space.com; 26.3.2001; www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html (August 2006); Wisnewski, S.216)

No claim - just a reference.

[Earth stones become "moonstones" by special storing...]

No claim - just a stupid inference.


The new theory about the formation of the moon: The collision theory

Up to the "moon landings" there are different theories for the formation of the moon. Now the "research" detects that the "moonstones" would be pretty "similar" to the Earth stones.

Since this claim there is only one single theory about the formation of the moon: the collision theory. A little planet is said have hit the Earth and sunk in the Earth. Then a big part of the Earth shall have split and shall have formed a moon in space (Wisnewski, p.213).

No claim - just a reference.

Add to this there shall be lots of Earth stones on the moon surface: When asteroids hit the Earth some Earth stones shall have been shot to the moon always again. This stones shot to the moon shall be on the moon's surface in peaces. John Armstrong from the University of Washington at Seattle claims having calculated that by this on a square mile of moon surface 5 tons of Earth stones are lying around .(In: Britt, Robert Roy: Moon Holds Earth's Ancient Secrets; www.space.com, 23.7.2002; Wisnewski, p.213)

No claim - just a reference - the chances of an asteroid of Earth material striking the Moon are very high in early formation.


So: Earth stones were brought "from the moon"

An idiotic conclusion. 


The "moon astronauts" shall have collected Earth stones on the moon? When this is true it's not necessary to fly to the moon to find "moonstones". But this conclusion is not allowed officially until today (August 2006) in the media. But the collision theory should explain the similarity of Earth stones and moonstones. The articles in the encyclopedias must all be adapted to this NASA theory...

Basically this fool is offering his ignorant claim again that Moon rocks are from Earth. With no terrestrial weathering, solar isotopes, significant exterior(and interior)helioum-3, zap pits, evidence of formation in low gravity and with no heat damage from entry to Earth!


(In: Heck, Philipp: Der Mond - unser geheimnisvoller Nachbar. Entstehung, Missionen, Aufbau [The moon - our mysterious neighbour. Building, missions, construction];  http://lexikon.astronomie.info/ 7.6.2002; Wisnewski, S.213)"

No claim - just a reference.


1978-1982
Indexing of the "moonstones" - the "moonstones" are living...

  


But Andrew Steele, an astro biologist at the University of Portsmouth in England, detects with his microscopic research that there is terrestrial life in the "moonstones" to be found:
-- brush hairs /-- plastic parts /-- nylon parts /-- Teflon parts
-- terrestrial little animals, some of them "pretty snotty".
So, there is the question how the ultra cleaned storage at the NASA looks like. Because the many terrestrial contaminations can only come from the Earth from a time after the building of the moon. The website www.space.com indicates such events as "dirty little secrets".


This is hearsay and the conclusion from the article is really stupid. If any such contamination were found on the sample in question, there is nothing to discount local recent contamination.


The question if the "moonstones" come from the Earth is not allowed of course...
(In:-- Wisnewski, p.215-216) The contradiction: "moonstones" are not "similar"
According to the indications of this article "moonstones" are not at all similar to the Earth stones:
-- "moonstones" shall be very dry
-- "moonstones" shall contain no water molecules
-- "moonstones" shall have no oxidation
-- "moonstones" shall not contain any iron
-- "moonstones" shall be easy to distinguish from Earth stones.
Original text: "Compared with terrestrial samples, all lunar rocks are oddballs because they are so dry," Ryder said. "They contain no molecules of water, they're not oxidized and they contain no ferric iron. They're easy to distinguish from rocks on Earth."(Hoversten, Paul: 30 Years Later, Moon Rocks Retain Their Secrets; 23.7.2002; Wisnewski, p.213)

No claim - just a reference.


Conclusion: All thesis about "moonstones" are worthless
By this any thesis about "moonstones" is invalid because the statements are absolutely controversial that no thesis is reliable any more. But the media reported all as a sensation to rise their number of copies and to rise their number of viewers, and the "research" has opened a new researching field "moonstones" which is paid by the tax payer again with millions of $ and Euros... for nothing.
(Conclusion Palomino)
This is NO conspiracy theory, stupid journalist, but these are facts.
-- David, Leonard: Apollo Moon Rocks: Dirty Little Secrets; www.space.com; 26.3.2001; www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html

No claim - just bare assertion gibberish. That webpage appears to have been written by a very stupid person.

Sunday, April 18, 2021

Direct Apollo Proof - Ignored by the serial forum spammer

This page deals with forum posts itemising some notable proof of a Moon landing. Needless to say the spammer ignores, denies or offers a ludicrous response. 

Number 1: This shows a sequence where the reflection from the Sun is blocked out completely by a very narrow rod. This 100% refutes the stupid claim that it was some sort of massive light.

[​IMG]

Number 2: Demonstrates 100% that as the light levels in the camera are altered by aperture, so does the size of the blooming on the visor.

[​IMG]

Number 3: This shows a clear parabolic arc of dust between John Young's boots that is 100% irrefutably rising and falling at the same time as he is. PROVING that he must be on the Moon.

[​IMG]

Number 4: This is a clear indicator of simultaneous soil dropping at the same speed as the jumper. This is 100% proof he is on the Moon.

[​IMG]

Number 5:
This animation is the supposed "duplicate" background claim from the SFS. It shows that the distant mountains are actually just viewed from a more rotated vantage point. He actually denied that they are different and from obviously different places.

[​IMG]

Number 6:
Here we have one of my favorites. The cloth from the ceiling, moving TOWARDS the approaching object and not doing so until it is virtually level. Applied to Apollo 15 flag.

[​IMG]

Saturday, August 20, 2011

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!

Thursday, August 11, 2011

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.

Wednesday, August 3, 2011

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....

Monday, August 1, 2011

The Apollo 17 Flag

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