Thread: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Originally Posted by Scott

There is no blast crater under the lander.
http://thoughtworld.files.wordpress....7/picture1.jpg

That is discussed in this five part video series...

Whenever I come across this argument, I quickly realise that this is somebody who has carried out zero research on the subject, and somebody who has no idea how a controlled descent to the Moon's surface was carried out.

The level of complexity to hoax so many missions is beyond staggering. I will not go into detail to list the numerous complex requirements. Suffice to say, NASA supposedly went to the trouble of manufacturing film and video to match prevailing weather patterns on route to the Moon, but didn't bother doing a simple crater? Something that could be dug up in 20 minutes!

I will simply discuss Apollo 11, since for one main reason, this is the most relevant. Namely, not cutting off the descent engine at the correct time.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

"Let's consider several facts: (1) Although the Lunar Module descent engine was capable of 10,000 lbs of thrust (the usual hoax advocate's claim), it was throttled down to below 3,000 lbs as it neared the lunar surface. While still several feet above the ground, the descent engine was shut down as probes, extending 5 feet below the footpads, sensed contact with the surface. (2) The LM descended at an angle, moving laterally across the ground. When the astronauts identified a suitable landing site, the LM leveled off and dropped to the surface. The LM did not hover over its final landing site for any significant length of time. (3) The Moon's surface is covered by a rocky material called lunar regolith, which consists of fine dust particles, glass spheres and a jumble of large boulders and rocky debris. Lunar regolith has many unique properties, the most obvious being that the particles are very jagged, which causes them to interlock. When subjected to pressure, the regolith will resist, almost like solid rock. (4) In a vacuum exhaust gases expand rapidly once exiting the engine nozzle."

At the start of the EVA, this is what Neil Armstrong had to say:-
109:26:16 Armstrong: Okay. The descent engine did not leave a crater of any size. It has about 1 foot clearance on the ground. We're essentially on a very level place here. I can see some evidence of rays emanating from the descent engine, but a very insignificant amount.

Then they took several pictures of underneath the Lunar Module.

The suggestion is, that the finest minds in science, remembered to "fake" gravity, the telemetry data, weather patterns to match et al. - but forgot to put a crater in, after talking about it on live TV, and photographing it.

That is just plain dumb.

The contentions made by Jarrah White taken apart:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Mrdkw26QD0"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: No Crater Addendum: Critique #03: Soft Landing‬‏[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K66YpKaimdI"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: No Crater Addendum: Critique #02: Concrete Science‬‏[/ame]

Hey Betamax

You have an authoritative patronizing attitude but you've said some pretty lame things. I think this calls for an objectivity test.

The Chinese obviously faked their spacewalk in a water tank. NASA's official position is that it was real. You already said it was real once in the comment section of one of your YouTube videos which destroyed your credibility. Why don't you tell everybody your position on the Chinese spacewalk here too? Most pro-Apollo posters try to avoid addressing this issue because they have to choose between supporting the NASA position and looking silly, or saying that the Chinese spacewalk was obvioulsy faked which they can't do.

I think you'll find some lame excuse to avoid addressing this. In the comment sections of your YouTube videos you deleted all of my posts in which I'd asked you to address this if I remember correctly with the lame excuse that it was off-topic.

Let's see if he refuses to address this. Let's hear the opinions of all the pro-Apollo people here on the Chinese spacewalk.

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

In this video the safety cable is obviously buoyant. It has a distinct tendency to to upward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=gMxQEHfU6hM

Watch it at these time marks.
0:50
2:10
3:00
3:10
6:08
6:44
6:53

It's going upward because it's slightly lighter than water.

At the thirty second mark in this clip the astronaut moves the flag from right to left.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvpPknmHGAM

The flag flutters the way it would in a medium such as water.

The fast flag movement can be explained by sped-up video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBL98p0wZ7g
(1:55 time mark)

Once again, you fail to reply to the numerous posts I have made, instead turning on your self appointed objectivity test based on some moronic youtuber who alleges China used a swimming pool to fake a spacewalk!

Open a new thread, I will answer it.

In the meantime you have some issues that you have repeatedly refused to answer:-

Apollo 15 flag

1. Cite your evidence for the "atmosphere explanation/wall of air". Find an example where this occurs.

2. I showed a video where a plastic bag shows movement only when a large surface area book is a few inches away. Explain.

3. I showed JW's flag showing no movement before he was level with it, despite it being perpendicular to his line of approach, as opposed to 40 degrees away from him, as per the Apollo 15 flag. Explain.

4. I showed a video where the actual flagpole itself shifts right. Explain.

5. I showed a video where no movement on JW's bedsheet occurs when he is more than 1 foot away. He also walks past the sheet, and once again, no movement. Explain.

6. I showed a video demonstrating a huge difference in the motion and speed of diminished motion of JW's flag, compared to the Apollo 15 flag. One moves for 7.5 seconds adjusted up. One moves for 20 seconds adjusted down. White's flag is cloth and clearly heavier. Explain.

7. JW demonstrated that Scott was easily close enough to brush the flag with his arm, as did youtubers Davewatcher and Shanedk. You disagree with Jarrah White here?


Gravity and Motion

You have offered no reply to this at all.

1. I show that your contention about Apollo 11 is nonsense, with a clip double speed looking ludicrous. The EVA was continuous footage, the piece you showed was during a gentle mobility test. Explain.

2. The rest of the videos, demonstrating objects thrown and dust kicked etc. that make a mockery of your wires nonsense. Explain.


The last post about entry level HB ignorance - the blast crater - also completely ignored.

You seem incapable of admitting your mistakes, debating properly or offering anything other than hotair, bluster and abject denial.

some moronic youtuber who alleges China used a swimming pool to fake a spacewalk!

You've just shown that you're not a serious debater. You don't even believe your own arguments. People have seen the evidence and they've seen that the people who say Apollo happened fail objectivity tests. You'll never recognize it but you've lost.

I know you're going to claim victory but the Black Knight in this video claims victory too.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RZ-hYPAMFQ"]YouTube - ‪Black Knight Holy Grail‬‏[/ame]

Anyone can hang a piece of light fabric from a ceiling light and trot by it at about a forty degree angle which is about the same angle from which the Apollo astronaut approached the Apollo flag and see that it behaves the same way as the Apollo flag behaved.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymwE1sNm82Y"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 15 flag waving‬‏[/ame]

This video shows when the flag started to move and that he was too far away from it to touch it when it started to move. It was made by a pro-Apollo person.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFMpmjEv9o0"]YouTube - ‪The flag that moved‬‏[/ame]

This is such clear evidence that they were in gravity when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon that the simple fact that you're trying to obfuscate the anomaly destroys your credibility.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fqdB1b53jc"]YouTube - ‪Apollo_11__The_TV_Tran smission_Conspiracy_Theorists_ Hate_.mp4‬‏[/ame]
(00:50 time mark)

You said the Chinese spacewalk was real so nothing you say now really matters. You're not a serious poster. You're just a very persistent obfuscator who always makes the last post. Your authoritative patronizing attitude doesn't matter either because a lame argument put forth in an authoritative patronizing manner is still lame.

You are a fairly good sophist but there's a point at which things are so clear that sophistry is ineffective. The moving flag and the swinging jacket corner are two of those cases.

Originally Posted by Scott

You've just shown that you're not a serious debater.

I am not the one avoiding questions pertaining to this debate.

You don't even believe your own arguments.

I sure do. If, on the other hand, you actually still believe your own inept arguments as opposed to just appearing to be a forum troll, then there is little point in debating directly with you.

People have seen the evidence and they've seen that the people who say Apollo happened fail objectivity tests.

An objectivity test where your ignorant conclusion is the benchmark, shows you failed your own test.

The bubbles are condensation turned to ice, they go in various directions, they are not curved, they accelerate since they appear to have been expelled from the cargo bay in a direction towards Earth, still subject to Earth gravity, and now moving towards it, they accelerate accordingly. The cables are tightly wound on a drum when they are made. In space, they have nothing to stop them from their natural tendency to acquire that position, called shape memory.

The flag underwater would not be able to be twirled quickly whilst open, would always be pushed around the stick holding it as viscosity prevents any free motion as shown. Completely brainless video, and you bought it.

Credibility test - meh!

You'll never recognize it but you've lost.

Meh.

I will carry on debunking your nonsense, bit by bit, compiling an online record of it on my blog, then I will ensure that as many of my subscribers as possible are able to find it and pass it on.

Collins' jacket = weightless
Apollo 15 flag = camera anomaly, or possibly ground vibration
Ballistic Motion = fully consistent with Lunar gravity
Blast Crater = Plain dumb
China fakery = I will be polite and just say incorrect.

I have a question. If the uSA was able to go to the moon with primitive technology and a few months of planning 40 years ago, why can't they go to the moon today whith higher technology, 40 years to plan, and better space craft technology?

Also, why do they only go in circles around the earth's aptmosphere for the past 50 years?

What is the purpose of that? Makes no sense or logic to me.

Originally Posted by Scott

Look at the size of the reflection of the sun in the astronaut's visor at the beginning of this video.......

Now look at the reflection of the sun in the visor in the picture at the top of this page.
http://www.sciencephotogallery.com/l...dia&xm=1694861

It's pretty clear that the reflection in the Apollo astronaut's visor is that of a big light. Here's an article about that.
http://www.aulis.com/sunsize.htm

Before I begin disassembling this over blown nonsense, I want to quickly touch on something pertaining to the person who has performed a most embarassingly

inept photographic analysis at Aulis.

Namely Jack White.

Here is a short excerpt from the House Select Committee concerning supposed discrepancies with backyard photos and Oswalds rifle, this is what he said:-

Mr. WHITE. As I said, I am not a scientist. I don't indulge in that sort of thing. [...]

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, I just have one question.

Mr. WHITE. All right.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. When you did this study, did you compute photogrammetrically the effect of tilt on the way that the length of an object appears in a

photograph?

Mr. WHITE. I conducted a study by photographing a yardstick from three different-

Mr. GOLDSMITH. Mr. White, answer my question. Did you compute photogrammetrically----

Mr. WHITE. What is "photogrammetrically"? Describe to me what "photogrammetrically" is.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I just have one more question Mr. White. Do you know what photogrammetry is?

Mr. WHITE. No.

Mr. GOLDSMITH. I have no further questions. Thank you.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm

Now, the non scientist, who doesn't know what photogrammetry is!!....then proceeds to make the most inept of studies on the Apollo records.

In this post I shall simply refute his conclusion of the "superlight" theory to light the Apollo video footage. Here is a youtube video I made on the

subject:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWyjuCGEODU"]YouTube - ‪Apollo Landings Debunking the "Superlight" contention‬‏[/ame]

Another youtuber has performed an analysis of studio lighting to show how shadows behave with lighting. To suggest a studio light could mimic the

luminosity of the Sun, which in turn is the only thing that could light such vast areas, is simply ludicrous.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ONk27fN5rg"]YouTube - ‪Apollo in a studio simulation debunked 2‬‏[/ame]


Finally, at the end of that page quoted in the "wall of spam", the ineptitude continues with a simply daft analysis of the Heiligenschein effect caused by

the volcanic nature of the Lunar surface.

http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/Retro...tion+phenomena


Amazingly he comments about shadow directions, converging (due in fact to the depression in the surface). Now I wonder in any way, how he would account for

single solid dark shadows, with the implicit suggestion that more than one light source was used???



Same thing occurs on Earth, when the Sun is low, and the grass has dew(droplets, similar in reflectivity to the volcanic beads on the Moon).

Originally Posted by Clint Torres

I have a question.

And I have some back for you..

If the uSA was able to go to the moon with primitive technology and a few months of planning 40 years ago

Why did you load your question with such an inaccurate description? First up, do you really think the 60's were 'primitive'? How old are you? Just as a single example, what sort of technology was in, say, the X-15 aircraft? That was 1959!

The Apollo program was a logical and planned continuation of the Mercury and Gemini programs, and it did NOT take a few 'months'. That is simply a ludicrous assertion.
Mercury - 1958-1963
Gemini - 1962-1966
Apollo - 1960-1975
Further, Kennedy's famous speech was in 1961, 8 years before Apollo 11, and the Apollo program was well into its official planning stages in 1960, and was in effect being planned much earlier than that anyway.

So, would you like to now comment on your 'few months' claim, and also why you would plunge into this discussion with such little knowledge of the space program?

why can't they go to the moon today whith higher technology, 40 years to plan, and better space craft technology?

Because we already went, the political (and public) motivation (inc. the cold war thing) is not there, and the funding isn't there either. You tell us, WHY should we go there, and not, say, direct the funding towards longer term goals, like a manned flight to Mars, or perhaps on building hospitals? Do you truly think we are not able to do it with current technology?

If so, please elaborate and be prepared to defend the claim.

BTW, why don't we have supersonic aircraft flying the Atlantic any more? - Ah, then Concorde must have been a MYTH...

Also, why do they only go in circles around the earth's aptmosphere for the past 50 years?

(Sounds like the same question, repeated for emphasis perhaps?) So, that's all we've done, is it? No Pioneer, no Mars rovers, no Hubble, no SOHO/Stereo, no Cassini/Huygens, no Messenger, no ICE, no Deep Impact, no Dawn, no StarDust, no Hayabusa, no Chandrayaan, no Jaxa-Selene... (I've barely started..)

Makes no sense or logic to me.

Well, knowing a little more about the topic, it all makes sense to me. Even if I wish it were different. In simple terms, we got there in 1969, but by 1975 and Apollo 17, the hard work was done, nothing particularly spectacular was found, the need to continue was debatable and funding was pulled.

People would rather watch I Love Lucy, as the old saying goes... Being a devil's advocate, I think if it wasn't for the drama of Apollo 13 and the way it renewed interest somewhat, they probably would have pulled the plug even earlier...

Hey college boys if it is fake why dindt soviet scientists with tons of degrees in astronomy noted anything?

Originally Posted by Scott

At bottom of this page there's a picture of the astronaut's visor that has in it the reflection of what looks like some kind of studio light.
http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_9.html

"Some kind of studio" light being a Fresnel, as suggested by the image. Once again your capacity for research is below poor, or you just haven't got around to amending your standard cut and paste forum post.

For many reasons this contention is simply wrong:-

1. A spotlight would not show up against a dark background in a visor when it was switched off. If there was sufficient light to illuminate it, the cables and lighting rig to support it, would also show up.

2. The "flaps" are known in the lighting industry as "barn doors". According to the visor, these barn doors are longer than the width of the light! That is not how these lights are made. The barn doors are used to limit light spillage, but why would you do that, when the objective would be to light as much as possible? A fresnel without barn doors would always be used, but obviously would be nowhere near bright enough for the job. Makes no sense.

3. There are no pictures in the Apollo records where a spotlight, capable of lighting only a small area, is apparent. Always we have a single shadow, crisp and dark, and a fully evenly lit terrain, so why would such a light even be suggested as necessary?

4. Should such a light be used as a fill light, there would be washed out and multiple shadows.

5. Having a light at eye level on a wide angled shot with distance perspective and a low angled Sun is simply a ludicrous suggestion.

6. The reflection suggests a fresnel light that is absolutely enormous in size. A 180 degree visor reflection would show even the largest fresnel as really small. I cite the size of the so called "superlight", not much different in apparent size as the "fresnel". Fail.


The so called "studio light" is in fact a simple mark on the visor, located at the point where Conrad would push his visor up, or pull it down. A similar mark is seen on several other of the EVA pictures. Since the picture used is the only front-on shot, the other pictures with the same mark, only show a partial of this smudge on the visor.

Here is a small compilation of 3 side shots that show the "barn doors" attributed to the "studio light".



They appear in the same place on the visor, over multiple different angles, and the mark is the same shape on all pictures. Clearly, it is a smudge on the visor.

Here are the ALSJ links to examine the numerous pictures with the smudge:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-47-6919HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7071HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7074HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7133HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-48-7134HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7307HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7308HR.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/AS12-49-7309HR.jpg