Thread: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Originally Posted by Scott

There's nothing here that directly affects the movement of the jacket corner.

That is profoundly wrong.

The whole scenario affects the corner. You seem to be somewhat obsessed with the corner itself as though it has some sort of independent movement. It is part of his jacket.

When the jacket moves, the corner moves. When rippling occurs, the tendency of a fabric would be to unripple, since it is not it's natural state.

When contact occurs from an object it will cause inertial motion to the jacket, when the object swings away, it pulls the fabric back. The swinging object will cause gentle air currents which will have a minor effect. The movement of the jacket in and out will also produce small air currents.

In addition to the swinging object, we have the lateral motion of his torso as each knee comes up alternately. We have the upward motion it induces, followed by immediate downforce as he pushes with his arms on the bulkhead above.

We have even more lateral and vertical rotation in his shoulders as his knees come up and arms push down.

Every single thing involved in his movement causes inertial forces that affect his jacket.

The hose is too far above the corner to cause it to go back down when it stops going up.

That is a completely irrelevant point. The semi-rigid hose is what is causing the attachment to impact his lower jacket, as it pulls on it. It also flexes with his body motion and causes it to swing inwards and outwards.

The bulge would not be caused by zero-G.

Making a blanket statement of opinion. The jacket has clearly air buffered at the back, because of earlier movement in the cabin with it unfastened.

Jackets do not puff up and billow like that in gravity. Weight will pull the fabric downwards and much tighter against a body.

Originally Posted by reference youtube

From my comments page on video number 5:-

You said "In gravity his jacket would rest on his back".

You then said "If the jacket is loose, it will bounce up and down in zero-G. If it's ballooned with air pressure, it will stay ballooned whether he's in gravity or zero-G."

Now, I suggest you stop and think about what you are saying, because in addition to contradicting yourself and trying to wriggle out of it, you now suggest that the trapped air in his back is under some sort of pressure?

Air does not magically pressurise when it is trapped. Higher pressure only occurs with something to compress it, and in an enclosed environment. May i suggest that his jacket has no magic compressor attached to it, nor is it enclosed. The jacket clearly billows as he jogs up and down.

Question: Why do you assert that a loose jacket will bounce up and down in zero-g, but a corner attached to the jacket will not perform this same thing?

Question: What is causing the jacket to be puffed up with air?

Please think carefully before answering those questions.

There seems to be something holding his jacket down in the back.

That is your opinion, and I fail to see what you base it upon. I don't also see how it has any relevance. Most jackets of that type would have a fold and stitched area at the base to give it shape. So what?

It's pulling the back of his jacket and causing wrinkles.

You are suggesting that something that is holding his jacket is in fact pulling it and causing wrinkles? Seriously?

I don't see anything that I would attribute to zero-G.

And there lies your main problem. You are simply denying something, because it destroys your contention. With Collins clearly in space and weightless, your argument no longer holds water.

Since you have been making this same argument for many years on several forums, I believe you do not have the integrity to finally admit, that after all those comments and assertions you are completely wrong.

To anybody watching those videos, there are clearly signs of zero-g.

The dogtags you allege are bouncing:- Video 2 and 4 shows them floating in front of his upper chest/ neck area. Video 4 repeats the passage over and over and clearly shows them making no contact with his chest at all, and moving side to side. Impossible with gravity in play.

The cuffs you insisted were resting on wrists:- Video 3 and 5 shows them floating with minimal arm movement, not in contact with any part of his wrist.
Impossible with gravity in play.

The back and shoulder area:- Demonstrated unequivocably to be puffed up, billowing with movement and under no downward pull.
Impossible with gravity in play.

He rises off of the floor:- This occurs twice, and each time he makes no discernible pushing motion with his legs, rises slowly, then gently descends.
Impossible with gravity in play.

The main evidence is the corner and there's no identifiable force making the jacket corner stop going up and go back down except for gravity.

I keep seeing you say this. The forces have been identified above. Since we have clear signs of zero-g, your argument is baseless. Repetitive opinion, does not represent proof.

Here is my opinion. You have confessed to having no scientific qualifications, you clearly do not understand inertial motion, you consistently ignore stunningly obvious signs of zero-g, you make assertions that are groundless and parrot the same nonsense over and over. The idea never occurs to you that you are way beyond hopelessly wrong, as I believe you would see it as a weakness to admit that.

There's nothing his arms are doing that would cause the corner of the jacket to stop and go back down.

The corner never does that. It never stops and goes back down. It is in constant motion.

The same goes for his torso and his legs.

So you contend that lateral and vertical motion of his torso and legs makes no difference to the dynamics of his overall motion? That is just daft.

The movement from them doesn't arrive to the jacket corner except when it is pulled upward.

Technically there is no "upward". The corner has numerous forces making it move continuously.

The material is too loose to push it back down.

No idea what you mean. Rippling fabric will tend to straighten to its natural state.

I was able to duplicate the movement of the dogtags with some keys around my neck. I jogged in place and added a little extra forward movement to my upper body. I also duplicated the movement of the jacket corner by putting a light jacket on a hanger and bouncing it up and down.

I do not believe you. I am making a video about this, as soon as my nephew can get around here for me to film doing this. I have performed this very thing myself, and have not managed at any time to keep the items in the air for more than a split second, and only side to side with extremely exaggerated neck movement.

There is a very easy way to resolve this, film it, or ask somebody to film it, and put it up for all to see.

As soon as all movement stops, the cuffs immediately rest on their upper wrists. I don't see anything that looks like zero-G cuff-wise.

You are in denial. The film clearly shows the sleeves loosely floating, not touching his wrist at all, with very little arm movement.

Please address my last post.

Video 1:
The lady in question is tethered by a device to stop her lifting. Collins was not.
The lady in question is actually running on a treadmill, Collins was jogging on the spot.

The tags are changing direction, moving with her body. There is no object striking them.

In short, no comparison at all.

Video 2:

The motion of his jacket is predominatly in a horizontal direction until he starts to run. There are similarities in the motion of his jacket and Collins', as you would expect since his jacket is connected to his body and moving about.

No object is impacting his jacket.

Video 3:

The lady is moving extremely slowly, just floating. She has a waist pouch just above her backside, which assists in allowing air into the lower part of her jacket. She is not jogging and has no object impacting her.



Now a final question.

Question: What did you mean by this statement.

"If it turns out that there really is some floating, it can be explained by their being in a diving plane faking zero-G."

Now, the next item in this "Mountain of crushing evidence".

The Apollo 15 flag movement.

I have uploaded 7 videos on youtube analysing this subject. There are two main issues to deal with, namely the initial movement, and the subsequent movement after Dave Scott has passed by the flag.

Video 1:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kalT4NGdDsk"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery‬‏[/ame]

This video simply highlights the initial movement.

Video 2:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uhMQXRegc"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 2‬‏[/ame]

In this video, I demonstrate that Jarrah White is self debunking his own claims. He runs past his own badly hung flag, yet fails to move it until he is level with it. He is considerably closer than Dave Scott was to the Apollo 15 flag. There is the barest of movements as he draws level.

Video 3:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0RsDqmPa_s"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 3‬‏[/ame]

In this video I show the original Apollo 15 flag moving for 30 seconds. Using Jarrah's 66% slowed down footage theory, that equates to 20 seconds.
JW then proceeds to run past his own flag several times, yet is only able to move his flag for 4-5 seconds. That equates to 6-7.5 seconds adjusted up 150%.
With White's flag, there is a totally different billowing movement, a rapid stop, and indeed a much more aggresive motion. No gentle back and forth prolonged swaying as per Apollo 15 flag.

Video 4:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJyv4TYpTKo"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 4‬‏[/ame]

This video shows a wide book being dropped from 1 metre and failing to move a plastic bag until it is a few inches away from it.

Video 5:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4gbMT-Zs2Y"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 5‬‏[/ame]

In this video, I isolate several frames and show the flag with movement and Dave Scott at least four feet away. I show several color filtered shots that highlight the actual flagpole itself moving, that is clearly impossible. This one video debunks the "wall of air" contention completely, since air will only be pushed a few inches in front of a body in motion. The plastic bag demonstrated this.

Video 6:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ888vXaKNM"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 6‬‏[/ame]

In this video I take it a step further. Using frame grabs, I show Dave Scott about 6 feet away from the flag, with clear movement.

Video 7:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JixGapxKURc"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 7‬‏[/ame]

This final video is my personal favorite. If you watch no other video, watch this one.

I show JW debunking himself in the most totally conclusive way. Simpler if you just watch it.


Summary:
There are two possible explanations for the initial movement.

The movement is a camera blooming effect, caused by Dave Scott entering the frame and the camera blooming with CRT effect to compensate.
It is consistent with the whole flag shifting right, including the flagpole itself, and also consistent with slightly more movement to the edge caused by the wide angle lens' natural distortion to objects at its edge.

The movement could also be caused by ground vibration, since the flagpole is seated into the regolith, which has a consistency similar to sandstone just below it's surface.

I tend to favor the former of these two, but I am open to the other.

What I am not open to, is a mystery wall of air pushing against a nylon flag from 6 feet away, 4 feet away, or even 2 feet away.


The movement of the flag as the astronaut passes, is simply caused by his arm brushing it. I am aware of two debunking videos explaining it perfectly, but would rather just rely on Mr Debunkhimself for the final say.


From the spurs forum:-





Question: How can air move a flag from 6 feet away?

Question: Do you dispute that the astronaut brushed the flag with his arm as he ran past?

Before I continue with the "mountain of evidence"


I made this short simple video to demonstrate some of the basic steps needed to carry out this preposterous hoax. It speaks volumes, yet barely scratches the surface of what would be involved:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVJt857e7Q"]YouTube - ‪If the Moon landings were hoaxed, then all this is necessary.....‬‏[/ame]

YouTube - ‪Apollo_11__The_TV_Tran smission_Conspiracy_Theorists_ Hate_.mp4‬‏
(00:50 time mark)

The lady in question is tethered by a device to stop her lifting. Collins was not.
The lady in question is actually running on a treadmill, Collins was jogging on the spot.

The tags are changing direction, moving with her body. There is no object striking them.

In short, no comparison at all.

YouTube - ‪Our World: Exercise Equipment‬‏
(3:17 time mark)

The point is that the straps have no tendency to go downward the way Collins' jacket corner does. When the woman's straps are pulled upward, they continue going upward until they are pulled back downward by her downward movement. When Collins' jacket corner is pulled upward, it goes up, stops, and goes back down When there's nothing pulling it back down. The upper part of the jacket is too loose to push it back down. It goes down at the precise point where gravity would make it go down.

The motion of his jacket is predominatly in a horizontal direction until he starts to run. There are similarities in the motion of his jacket and Collins', as you would expect since his jacket is connected to his body and moving about.

YouTube - ‪ISS space station treadmill running‬‏

When he starts to run, there is clear up and down movement. The corners want to stay in a hanging position just like Collins' does.

The lady is moving extremely slowly, just floating. She has a waist pouch just above her backside, which assists in allowing air into the lower part of her jacket. She is not jogging and has no object impacting her.

YouTube - ‪Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station‬‏

The corners of her jacket have no tendency to go down the way the corner of Collins' jacket does. There's clearly no up or down.

In this link there are some comparisons of hair moving in both zero-G and in gravity.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-l...ml#post3319015

It's very clear when something is moving in gravity or zero-gravity. In gravity, when the movement stops, all objects want to go to a hanging position. In zero-G, when the moving stops, things just float where they are.

Collins' jacket corner is clearly in gravity. This one piece of evidence is so clear that it closes the whole case by itself.

Originally Posted by Scott

Collins' jacket corner is clearly in gravity. This one piece of evidence is so clear that it closes the whole case by itself.

You have failed to answer my post again, and ignored the questions posed. You may get away with this with other people, but not with me.

Answer the questions I asked.


There is no tendency at all for Collins' jacket corner to go down, it moves in line with the inertial motions imparted on it.

As for closing the case, you haven't the remotest idea what you are talking about. Outright denial of clear weightless evidence amounts to a definite sign of cognitive dysfunction.

It would take two hours to address ever question you've asked and this is the middle of the work week. That's why I only addressed the main issues. I assure you that you look very silly when you say that the corner of Collins' jacket has no tendency at all to go down.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc"]YouTube - ‪Apollo_11__The_TV_Tran smission_Conspiracy_Theorists_ Hate_.mp4‬‏[/ame]

It swings around like a pendulum-like a child's swing; that would only be possible in gravity.


Concerning ther flag.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 15 flag waving‬‏[/ame]

It's never completely still. There's always a slight movement which is probably due to slight drafts in the studio caused by people walking around.

This video of yours just captures a part of that movement.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ888vXaKNM"]YouTube - ‪The Apollo 15 flag mystery - part 6‬‏[/ame]

Look at the original. Put it on full screen and use the mouse to put the arrow on the corner. The slight movement can be seen.

The main movement starts much later as can be seen in these two videos.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dW9qcL4LiUg"]YouTube - ‪Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement‬‏[/ame]
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0"]YouTube - ‪The flag that moved‬‏[/ame]

This is a pretty lame attempt at obfuscation.

Originally Posted by Scott

There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

I would just point out the absurdity of that statement. Finding cherry picked motion differences between the first Apollo motion and a later Apollo mission is not a valid comparison, since there are fundamental differences between what the astronauts are doing, and why.

The Apollo 11 clip used, is where Buzz Aldrin is performing mobility tests on the Lunar surface. He is not attempting to do anything other than test how to move about on the Lunar surface. The camera used has a 10 frame per second rate, has fewer horizontal lines, and is black and white. On a first mission to the Moon, one would expect, by any stretch of the imagination, that the astronauts would be moving with a lot more care than later missions.

Comparing it to the last mission of Apollo, belies the fact that during the other missions, they were able to verify the safety and efficacy of the equipment and suits, were a bit more sure with their footing and were a little more adventurous as a result.

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity.

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11.

Hypothesis:- A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

The clip used by most hoax believers(HBs) is the one that shows that very mobility test where Buzz Aldrin gently runs towards the camera. Sped up 200% the clip resembles Earth motion. I cannot deny that fact, though to a trained eye, his steps fall just a shade too slowly to the surface for Lunar gravity.

Now, here is a video that refutes the idea that speeded up footage of 200% was used on all missions (this was made by David Percy in the very clip quoted by Scott in his post). The video includes a clip from Apollo 11, where Aldrin retrieves the Solar wind experiment and moves with absurd speed and body motion.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBICR4PTLfc"]YouTube - ‪Moon Hoax Theory Lies: Wire Supports and Slow Motion‬‏[/ame]

Now, since that video was placed on youtube, Scott(Cosmored) has made allegations that it was incorrectly sped up and that subterfuge was used. This, despite refusing to verify the allegation by doing it himself.

I took it upon myself to do just that.

Here is the clip in question, normal speed 30.72 seconds:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njdQ0Y1Yyo8"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 11 clip 2 normal speed‬‏[/ame]

Here is the clip in question, double speed 15.36 seconds:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1HvJ0WXkuo"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 11 clip 2 double speed‬‏[/ame]

Question: Is the motion 200% of that clip consistent with your hypothesis?

I would suggest that it makes a mockery of your "theory".

The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. Later, they improved their methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed.

OK, let's examine that.

Video 1:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq6yYQYoX_A"]YouTube - ‪Apollo speeded up theory completely debunked‬‏[/ame]

In this video, I show 3 objects being thrown. I determine the time from apex to surface and calculate the gravitational acceleration as equating to that of the Moon. I then calculate the necessary gravitational acceleration corresponding to speeding the clips up 150% and show that the gravitational accelerationis completely untenable for the heights and times relating to the 3 objects.

Question: Were inanimate objects on wires?

Please offer an explanation for why these objects do not correspond to Earth gravity when using your 150% theory.

Video 2:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKpZM0gqugs"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 16 full dust analysis‬‏[/ame]

Using this clip (watch?v=kibAjb6qjtQ) showing normal speed, I demonstrate the motion of a dust wave as being fully consistent with Lunar gravity. I show how a very accurate time was taken, and an equally accurate height. I demonstrate that the rise to apex time for your 150% theory is completely wrong. I further demonstrate that the distance the dust wave moves, has a truly preposterous initial velocity for Earth gravity from a sideways flick of the boot. I finally show the footage at speed that would make the rise to apex equate to Earth gravity (245%), that is ludicrous motion.

Question: Was the dust on wires?

Please offer an explanation for why a dust wave does not equate to Earth gravity when sped up 150%. Explain also how a wave could be kicked like that with a casual flick of the boot.

Video 3:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD_O4pNnCQM"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 17 EVA1 - analysis of bag drop‬‏[/ame]

In this video I demonstrate Gene Cernan bunny hopping on the Moon, and take one of his jumps to show Lunar gravity. I slowed down the film to gain an accurate time. The result of the equation to change this to 150% is untenable.

Question: Are you suggesting that Cernan, a few hundred yards away from the camera was indoors and wearing a wire?

Question: Do you think a man on Earth could bunny hop those distances, travelling down a hill, with no arm movement to increase distance between jumps?

Please explain why your theory does not fit with that footage.

When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.

I am not sure which clip you mean - Cernan or Young. I shall address them both.

Video 4:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSuvW0FRd-U"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 17 - analysis of another jump sequence‬‏[/ame]

You are contradicting the theory of the person that made the clip (who says that he did the necessary calculations) of 200%!

This video shows Cernan's "Hippity Hoppity" jumping sequence. Once again demonstrating consistency with Lunar motion. His natural forward motion is not impeded as his centre of gravity changes, indicating a complete absence of support.

The video then shows that not only is David Percy's theory completely wrong, and to a trained eye, visually so....it also shows that a 150% theory is also wrong.

Question: If you maintain that non-visible wires were used, please account for an absence of retrograde motion (click here for an example)always caused by them.

Question: How could anything track and match the distance he covered with a perfectly vertical wire?


John Young's jump has been exhaustively analysed. David Percy on the one hand says wire supports were used, then makes the observation that they never jump high enough!

David Percy is a deceptive businessman, and I have made a video showing a blatant example of this:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vawJhSnFcQ0"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 17 - Moon Hoax film makers are corrupt‬‏[/ame]

The video shows how Percy has taken a small clip, deliberately avoided the sections either side of it, and made erroneous claims as to the motion sped up 200% reflects Earth gravity.

and a faster slow-motion

You do say some incredibly daft things.

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.

The second video on the link you posted has been removed. Find another thing to compare it to and I shall dissect your argument.


Now closing this reply, I would like to briefly address the obvious lens flare from Apollo 14 that is alleged to be a wire, and the "ping" on Apollo 17!

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

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

Here is a video I made on this contention:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqY1cYJEP_A"]YouTube - ‪Apollo radio antennae and corrupt hoax film makers‬‏[/ame]


That is conclusive as proof could be of the consistency of Lunar gravity, and the untenable position of speeded up footage.

Please answer all the questions I have highlighted, and respond to the points I have asked you to.

Originally Posted by Scott

It would take two hours to address ever question you've asked and this is the middle of the work week.

It doesn't stop you from blasting your wall of spam onto hundreds of forums and expecting others to do the same for you!

Now, answer all my questions.

That's why I only addressed the main issues.

You addressed only issues that you could contradict with just your opinion. You avoid the questions, because they involve taking a stance that you know I will take apart.

I assure you that you look very silly when you say that the corner of Collins' jacket has no tendency at all to go down.

Hotair. The videos show weightlessness.

It swings around like a pendulum-like a child's swing; that would only be possible in gravity.

It swings like a weightless jacket with named and identified forces acting upon it. This is not debate, this is denial.

The flag I will respond to, when you answer the questions raised in my first post.

I couldn't give two hoots whether you have time now. When you do have time, answer them properly.

You asked me here for a debate, all I see is avoidance, denial, bluster and ignorant assertions. I will answer every thing you have contended in your opening wall-of-spam and take it apart.

First of all, this video which was obviously taken in gravity closes the whole case.
YouTube - ‪Apollo_11__The_TV_Tran smission_Conspiracy_Theorists_ Hate_.mp4‬‏
(00:50 time mark)

Your analysis of the movement of Collins' jacket corner has totally destroyed your credibility.

It's very easy to tell what movements are in zero-G and what are in gravity. I'll post these again to make sure everybody sees them.

YouTube - ‪Our World: Exercise Equipment‬‏
(3:17 time mark)

The straps in the above video have no tendency to go down and only go down when pushed or pulled by a visible force. There is an unseen force causing the corner of Collins' jacket to go downward and that force cannot be seen in the above video. It goes downward in the same way gravity would make it go downward. That unseen force is gravity.

YouTube - ‪ISS space station treadmill running‬‏

The movement of the jacket corners in the above video move exactly the way Collins' jacket corner does because they are both in gravity.


YouTube - ‪Discovery Crew Enters International Space Station‬‏

The corners of this astronaut's jacket have no tendency to go downward as she is in real zero-gravity. Watch what happens at the 8:00 time mark.

So the case is closed. If they really went to the moon, they wouldn't have had to fake this footage. We can discuss the rest of the evidence but the discussion will be about how they faked it–not whether they faked it. After your saying that Collins' jacket corner has no tendency to go down, nobody is going to take anything you say seriously as you showed that you are not a truth-seeker when you said that.

I dealt with the issue this video of yours deals with in post #5.
YouTube - ‪If the Moon landings were hoaxed, then all this is necessary.....‬‏

(link to post #5)
The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio


Anyone who watches the Apollo 11 footage and the later footage will see a difference in body movements (see post #2).

Here's another video that shows the wires used in the later missions.
YouTube - ‪Man On The Moon? Part 5: The Smoking Gun (Wires) HD‬‏

The Apollo 11 clip used, is where Buzz Aldrin is performing mobility tests on the Lunar surface. He is not attempting to do anything other than test how to move about on the Lunar surface. The camera used has a 10 frame per second rate, has fewer horizontal lines, and is black and white. On a first mission to the Moon, one would expect, by any stretch of the imagination, that the astronauts would be moving with a lot more care than later missions.

Comparing it to the last mission of Apollo, belies the fact that during the other missions, they were able to verify the safety and efficacy of the equipment and suits, were a bit more sure with their footing and were a little more adventurous as a result.

That's not the explanation they gave at the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/inde...ay&thread=1021

Look at reply #28.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/inde...1&page=2#30073

To reduce the amout of data sent back in the TV signal, and to simplify the camera equipment, the video took a series of frames in the separate colours. It took a green frame, a blue frame and a red frame, and it did it sequentially. These were cobined back here on Earth for a colour image to be formed. But, because it took each colour frame sequentially, if movement was fast enough you see a rainbow effect where the different colour frames do not fully overlay.

That rainbow effect happens to give a very nice indication of the frame rate, and hence a verifiable check of whether or not it was recorded and played back at different rates.

However, I predict a response along the lines of 'how am I supposed to verify that' or 'NASA made a special camera to avoid this signature effect giving the game away' or some other such nonsense.

Please tell us why they didn't give the explanation that you gave and why you didn't give the explanation that they gave.

Now, here is a video that refutes the idea that speeded up footage of 200% was used on all missions (this was made by David Percy in the very clip quoted by Scott in his post). The video includes a clip from Apollo 11, where Aldrin retrieves the Solar wind experiment and moves with absurd speed and body motion.

Yes. Percy was wrong about that. Hoax-believers have made some mistakes. Correcting this mistake doesn't disprove the whole hoax theory though.

Once again you post without answering the simple questions I highlighted.

Here they are again:-

Question: Why do you assert that a loose jacket will bounce up and down in zero-g, but a corner attached to the jacket will not perform this same thing?

Question: What is causing the jacket to be puffed up with air?

Question: What did you mean by this statement.

"If it turns out that there really is some floating, it can be explained by their being in a diving plane faking zero-G."



Question: How can air move a flag from 6 feet away?

Question: Do you dispute that the astronaut brushed the flag with his arm as he ran past?

Once you answer these, we can move on. As for you closing the case and judging other people's credibility by your own inept ignorant standards, the less said about that the better.