The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

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_Transmission_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.

 

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.

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".

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.

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.

You do say some incredibly daft things.

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.

 

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.

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.

Hotair. The videos show weightlessness.

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_Transmission_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)
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989732


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

That's not the explanation they gave at the Clavius forum.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021

Look at reply #28.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1021&page=2#30073

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

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.

 

Betamax, may I congratulate you on the thoroughness of your replies - your patience/diligence far exceeds mine!

Just curious.. Is there anyone else who is swayed by Scott/Cosmored's opinion, and can perhaps help him with the questions he is arduously avoiding?

 

That is not the 'Clavius' forum. There is no Clavius forum. The author of Clavius sometimes used to post there, however.

That would possibly be because two different things were being discussed. The first was an absolutely correct reference to the 10 fps, 320 line video used in Apollo 11.

The second was a reference to the color transmissions used in later Apollo mission EVA's, and the way the separate RGB frames can be used to verify the *actual* frame rates to verify the video speed.

The fact that you didn't 'get' that tells me you are having serious problems understanding even the basics, and are prepared to grab at anything in the attempt to change the subject, without taking any care whatsoever.

I'm afraid that sort of blatant ERROR (or is it a deliberate misrepresentation?) doesn't help your cause.

Oh, the irony. Yes, they sure have. And still do, right, 'Scott/Cosmored'? And like the one you just made, those mistakes are not only incredibly basic, they are littered throughout every ridiculous claim.

Frankly, Scott, if I was an Apollo denier, I would be asking you to please stop 'helping' - this is just getting embarrassing.

 

You found time to make a random post here, where you offered an ad hominem, but strangely avoided answering these rather simple questions.

Now kindly address them, then I can answer your last post. I already have it typed up, but am certainly not posting it, so you can go off on a tangent and avoid this one again.

 

Those weren't really serious questions. You're just tap dancing around. That's why I posted on some 9/11 threads here and on some other forums yesterday instead of this thread. You've already shown that you're not a serious poster by your insistance that the movement of the corner of Collins' jacket in this clip is consistent with zero-G.
YouTube - ‪Apollo_11__The_TV_Transmission_Conspiracy_Theorists_Hate_.mp4‬‏
(50 second time mark)

It's so obvious that he's in strong gravity that the best sophist in the world couldn't convince a ten-year-old that the movement is consistent with zero-G.

The evidence of fakery is so clear that the only thing you can do to sway people's opinions is to try to keep people from seeing it. You can't do that here though because most of the evidence is on the first page. I'll discuss the evidence with you anyway but I'm not giving this thread my highest priority.

You're being deliberately obtuse and trying to muddy the waters here. That's why I wasn't in a hurry to respond.

You're discussing this from post #21.

A billowing jacket is not a sign of zero-G. If something is billowing, there's something under it. When I look at the footage closely, I see that it's attached to his belt, or something near he belt. The tightness can be seen between his armpit and the place where it's attached. I wouldn't say it's billowing. If something is billowing, it's because there's something under it such as air. The fabric in the middle of his back is loose so it's bouncing against his back. This will happen in gravity.

All you seem to be doing by making a big deal of this issue is drawing attention away from the most (*)(*)(*)(*)ing evidence of gravity which is the way the jacket corner stops going up and comes back down when there's no visible force acting on it. It does that exactly when gravity would make it do that. You're having a hard time obfuscating this one.

If you insist you see signs of gravity, there's the possibility that this footage was taken in a plane that was in a shallow dive for a few moments when he wasn't jogging. I don't see anything I'd call a sign of zero-G though.

It can't. I never said it could. I addressed this in post #26.

(from post #26)

Of course I do. I dealt with that in post #26 too.

These two videos show that the flag started moving before he got close enough to touch it.
YouTube - ‪The flag that moved‬‏
YouTube - ‪Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement‬‏

The movement is entirely consistent with the gravity explanation. Anyone can hang a light piece of cloth from a ceiling light and trot by it at about a forth degree angle and watch the same movement at the same distance.

I invited you to post here because you were deleting my posts in the comment section of your YouTube videos. Here's an issue that you deleted there that I'd like you to address here.

You made a snide remark about Claytonstarbar because he alleged NASA had faked some spacewalks in a water tank.
http://www.youtube.com/user/claytonstarbar#p/u

I replied by posting this link.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...n-missions-were-faked-studio.html#post3989735

You deleted it so I posted it again. Then you deleted it again and you also deleted your original post with the snide remark. You deleted the whole issue. I'd like you to address it now.

Also, explain why you deleted my post when all I'd done was respond to an issue you yourself had raised.

 

Why do you think nobody believes you now or ever will?

Do you think you're smarter than everybody else?

 

Bare assertion does not equate to proof. Repeatedly denying clear evidence of weightlessness is just mind numbing ignorance.

Bare assertion by way of a diversion. My analysis has really done for your case. People who simply type "Michael Collins Jacket" into youtube now find all my videos and a playlist of them.

You are completely busted.

Quite correct.

Yes, you do that. Demonstrating a pathetic attempt to obfuscate previous posts, showing your prediliction for spamming, and once again confirming that you do not have any concept of the word "evidence".

Sadly, it was never open. You lost this argument the moment you decided that only you, were able to see this stunning non-anomaly, and every single person is wrong.

Quite correct. They went to the Moon and didn't have to fake that footage.

They didn't need to fake this Apollo 11 footage either:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdOYRU2g0zE"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 11 zero gravity demonstrations‬‏[/ame]

Or this complete footage, including the jogging, with Collins front jacket floating at 2:19, and him blatantly hovering even more obviously at 2:50 - once again a still arm and a hovering sleeve. Considerably longer than 30 seconds as would be seen in an airplane, with no 2g seen at all, as one would expect from the peaks and troughs of the parabolic arc.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toaablIJC2Q"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 11 half way to the Moon‬‏[/ame]

Truth seeker? Is that somebody who will never ever, under any circumstances, no matter what, come what may, in a month of Sundays.....ever admit they are wrong?

Is it somebody who despite not knowing anything about motion in micro gravity, maintains that because they have seen some other videos that show no relevant similarities to Apollo 11, decides that 2+2 equals 22?

And sequentially, I will get around to answering that hogwash.

Frightening gullibilty. Mythbusters gave a concise reply to that.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9mYWWHREag"]YouTube - ‪Moon hoax - Wire Supports (Mythbusters) REPLY‬‏[/ame]

One of the very special things about you, is a clear and consistent inability to research your subject. You demonstrate such ignorance it is almost like educating a small child.

My comment was about the Apollo 11 surface camera, whereby the frame rate was dropped to 10 per second, the RGB was dropped completely, and the horizontal lines were dropped. The signal sent back was black and white. The comment you quoted was about the camera itself, before they altered it to allow for enough bandwidth. Are you trying to score irrelevant points here by any chance? You avoided answering the point raised, as seems to be your debating habit.

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

Yet Percy never does "correct it". He says that he did "the necessary work to establish this"!

I will be pressing you further, on the enormous pieces of my posts including the videos, that you haven't replied to. All in due time.

As for your last post, mainly hot air, abject denial and bare assertions.

I will get around to summarising it.

In the meantime, to answer your why did I start deleting your posts?

This:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52dNmDFvxew"]YouTube - ‪This is not truth seeking - this is spamming‬‏[/ame]

 

I posted a link to a summary of Apollo-hoax evidence in the comment section of your pro-Apollo YouTube videos. You deleted them all because you didn't want the viewers to even see the evidence as you know that, as soon as they see it, you've lost.

You also didn't address the questions I asked. Here it is again.

You sidestepped the question because you know it was blatant censorship; you knew you couldn't try to obfuscate this one without looking silly.

That was pretty lame. You raised an issue. Then when it's addressed with clear evidence that you're wrong, you delete the whole discussion and act as if nothing had happened.

You've got zero credibility. It's pretty clear that you know that Apollo was faked as well as the rest of us.

 

Just a quick question, Scott, where ARE those viewers? Where ARE your supporters?

I've asked several times in these threads if anyone else is convinced by your ineptitude, and all I hear is..

crickets.

Can you explain that? Can you also explain why the number of apollo deniers posting at any half decent forum (eg here, BAUT, apollohoax, even ATS & GLP) has dwindled down to just a few lonely fanaticists (and the odd snake oil salesmen trying to milk the last buck out of the gullible)..?

Finally, can you explain why you REFUSE to engage in a step by step analysis of anything?

Actually, you don't need to answer that one. After all, you won't even do it on your very favorite 'proof'...


Can you spell FAIL?

 

I deleted them, because:-

1. They were off topic, when I specifically asked you to address the content of the video.

2. You repeated them almost every post, on every single video of mine, which included 50 or so posts about Chinamen in a swimming pool.

3. I kind of hoped it would annoy you back. You are somebody who spams multiple forums, blogs and youtube, trashing the best thing our country has ever done, with blinding ignorance, deeply flawed understanding, zero research and worst of all a blatant refusal to debate properly and admit when you have been shown to be completely wrong. That kind of bugs me.

And here is my reply again. It is bunkum, and given the level of abject denial you make with every single thing presented to you, I won't even give it air time. I deleted it for the reasons above.

No, I put up a video on a completely unrelated subject.

Talking about bubbles in a water tank, relating to a supposed faked space walk, was off topic and borderline moronic.

Hotair. You have a problem. I recommend you seek psychiatric assistance.

I am as proud of our nation's accomplishment as one could be. As a physicist, I look at things with a scientific scrutiny. There is not a single incident or anomaly in the entire Apollo program that makes me wonder whether it was not done for real.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, getting back to the debate that was never going to be!

You have ignored all the videos I presented refuting your speeded up nonsense. Kindly answer them. I would mention that to date, all you have offered so far is spammed links on my youtube channel.

Link in my signature.


You ignored the request for scientific references or an explanation for how a moving body pushes air from any distance.

You ignored the points raised in the Apollo 15 flag videos, particularly this one:-

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


Replying to your contention that it moves all the time:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nyTBpm5RUk"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 15 flag - non movement during other footage.‬‏[/ame]

The flag issue that you represent, begins its movement 3 frames after the astronaut enters the scene. Immediately prior to that, there is no movement whatsoever.

You have ignored completely my last post above. In particular, the videos refuting your claims.
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-...missions-were-faked-studio-4.html#post4097154

 

Look whose talking.

You haven't been this wrong since you tried to introduce the F16 with a 15' wide fuseloge. LOL

 

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.

 

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_Transmission_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.

 

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

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.

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!

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.

 

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:-

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-Reflection+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).

 

And I have some back for you..

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?

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...

(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..)

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?

 

"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