Moonwalkin'

[modest]

If we were to argue with you the details of your lens-flares and properly-bouncing-astronauts then we would give credibility to your argument merely by assuming it needs debunked.

If you were to say that in a debating hall, the audience would roar with laughter.

 

That's my point cosmored. This doesn't belong in a debating hall - or any serious debate setting. Trying to force it into the sphere of scientific discussion is giving it credibility it doesn't deserve.

 

-modest

[CraigD]

If members of this conspiracy theory community really, strongly believe that the Apollo astronauts never walked on the moon, why not pool resources and participate in the Google Lunar X PRIZE competition? An image of a well-documented lunar artifact such as one of the Apollo lunar retroreflectors showing placement artifacts other than the familiar astronaut footprints would be compelling evidence that they were placed by an unmanned device, supporting claims that a particular Apollo moon landing missions didn’t put human beings on the Moon.

 

Given that arguments based on existing data (essentially all of which has existed since 1974) has failed in the over 30 years that speakers, books, movies and television specials have promoted the idea to convince more than a small percentage (according to reliable survey, less than 6% of all Americans) of their claims, repeating them is not, I think, useful or productive. That readers do not believe human moon visits were faked because they are unaware of the claim, and that thus simply more widely disseminating such material will sway opinion, is, I think, unlikely, as I think only a small percentage of people who are aware of the Apollo missions are unaware of the hoax conspiracy theories.

 

Though it’s a cliché, in this case, “the truth is out there” – “there” in this case being the virtually windless, erosionless surface of the moon. On need only look – which, barring an unexpectedly powerful telescope system becoming available soon, requires landing a camera equipped vehicle near one of the Apollo sites. A sure way to assure that this effort involves no deception - not to mention win a $25,000,000 prize - is to do it yourself. :eek_big:

[REASON]

well I just looked though all of the videos and well let me start out buy saying that I grew up watching this on the TV stayed up all night when they went around the dark side of the Moon for the first time and I have heard all of the conspiracy theories before and even look at their evidents.

 

now, having said that the reflection of the sun on the visors the lack of m moon dust on the lander legs (and no blast hole under lander) the scenery shots with and without lander radiation ...................

 

well to tell you the Truth it makes me wounder now,

I'll have to see of i can do some more research. :)

 

 

I can see why you are questioning this, and I hope it is not true I would hate to think I spent my whole life living a lie. :applause:

 

Not so fast Doug.

 

One thing I noticed immediately about the reflections in the visors is that in each comparison, it was between a more current photo of an astronaut with current high-resolution photographic technology, and visor material that is more advanced in it's reflective quality, and old photos using cameras, film and visors of the Apollo era. It's like comparing apples to oranges. There is no uniform, consistant reflection of the Sun when using varying materials. Are we to believe that there have been no advancements in camera and visor technology in 30 years? Compare the way the reflection of the Sun differs between varying reflective materials such as a mirror compared to plain glass, compared to polished steel. Not to mention camera technology, lens technology, and film technology each of which have an impact on the capture and presentation of light. This type of evidence might be more compelling if it were made between photos of a similar period. And even then, not enough by itself to sway me.

 

Also, if you watch the clips on the big spotlight theory, in one instance, they suggest that it is one big spotlight, and some sort of thermal type imagery reveals the big light bulb inside. In another clip, the giant light is characterized as a conglomerate of numerous lights. Which is it?

 

There is also the presumption of multiple light sources given the divergence of shadows, and the illumination of objects in shadow. But this has been shown to simply be caused by perspective and variations in the terrain. Objects in shadow are simply illuminated by the other true light source, the Moon. Sunlight reflecting off of the lunar surface illuminates the objects in shadow. Simple experiments have been conducted to prove this. Also, if there were multiple light sources as in a studio, there would be multiple shadows, such as you see under a baseball player in the outfield during night games.

 

Believing that there should be a blast crater under the LEM is like believing that you should leave skid marks on the street every time you come to a stop in your car. Considering the low gravity of the Moon, enough thrust to form a blast crater would shoot the lander above the surface, not allowing it to land. There really isn't that much thrust required to land on the Moon. In the video of the Lunar landing, you can clearly see dust streaming away from underneath the lander. But there just isn't enough pressure to form a blast crater as is suggested by HBs.

 

The photos of Lunarscapes with and without the landing craft is simply an example of parallax. Distant objects don't appear to move while closer objects do. It's like my son asking me why it looks like the Moon is moving with us as we drive along. On the Moon, where there is no atmosphere, it is more difficult to distinguish the relative sizes and distance of objects in the landscape. Distant mountains may appear smaller and closer than they actually are. So as the astronaut moves from here to there taking photos, the distant scenery doesn't change relative to closer objects and can make it appear that the closer objects have disappeared. Doesn't this all seem so basic?

 

And cosmos' slow motion theory he keeps referring to doesn't seem to take into consideration the corresponding audio. We are than to believe that there was never any live footage from the Moon because all the audio had to be dubbed in after the production was slowed down, or else the actors had to learn how to speak like Alvin and the Chipmonks during the production so that their voices would seem normal once the video was slowed down. Of course this doesn't explain the interactive conversations between those in Houston and those in the movie studio, and the corresponding video footage at both locations.

 

I could go on-and-on with this stuff. It doesn't matter. Rationale is not at work with Moon hoax believer's. The thrill of believing you're in the know is more compelling than to believe we set foot on the Moon for these people.

 

Pick a topic cosmored. I'll play along. As you can see by my number of posts, I haven't put enough time in on these fruitless efforts.

[Turtle]

I heard a guy* on the radio last night who is the American representative of that Swiss UFO character Billy Meyer, and he said that Billy said, that the aliens said, that only the first mission was faked, Walt Disney was in on it, and the rest of the Moon landings were real. Shhhhh...mum's the word. :) :

 

*TheyFly.com

[CraigD]

I believe Apollo hoax conspiracy theories cast shame not on NASA, Buzz Aldrin, Bart Sibrel, or any of the other agencies connected with it, but rather on the SFX industry, who, despite decades of producing images able to convince reasonable viewers that a sword can be made of light and hosts of other unlikely to physically impossible things, no effects shop has yet, to the best of my knowledge, rendered a physically realistic image of vehicle or astronaut operations on the Moon, leaving 1968’s 2001:A Space Odyssey’s antique effects arguably the best yet.

 

I, for one, would be awed to see the scenes hoax conspiracy theorists believe were made in a movie studio be made now, either with actors and full size or miniature models in a studio, or virtually. In particular, this shot (2MB .mpg video) of a rover kicking up fine dust that falls like sand would be quite an accomplishment to do in any manner short of shooting it in an actual vacuum (or actually, even doing it that way).

[modest]

I, for one, would be awed to see the scenes hoax conspiracy theorists believe were made in a movie studio be made now, either with actors and full size or miniature models in a studio, or virtually.

 

I found particularly funny the weightless scenes in 'Space Cowboys'. Actors seem to think weightless means slow motion. I think 'Apollo 13' obviously had the best weightless effects - they were shot in NASA's Vomit Comet which is a plane (currently a McDonnell Douglas C-9B Skytrain II) that dives simulating weightlessness for 25 seconds at a time. Movies that can't afford the Vomit Comet are so painfully obvious in their efforts. Some even create ridiculous story lines to avoid the problem. In 'Armageddon' the crew stops at Mir to refuel. They induce some kind of spin to give the scene artificial gravity. How else are they going to have actors running around in a suspense-filled panic?

 

In any case, you are quite right. The videos of Apollo both on the way to the moon and on the moon are not reproducible to date. Attempts at such things are noticeable to date. It would seem to a moon-hoax-conspiracy-theorist all things are possible that lead to a conspiracy and nothing is possible that leads to a real landing.

 

-modest

[cosmored]

Pick a topic cosmored. I'll play along.

 

Do you think Jay Windley and his friends were right, or wrong in this thread.

ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

 

They said that after treating sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it that just transporting and placing the dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

 

This tells you who Jay Windley is.

Clavius: Conspiracy - about the author

[freeztar]

Do you think Jay Windley and his friends were right, or wrong in this thread.

ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

 

They said that after treating sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it that just transporting and placing the dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

 

Yes.

 

Here are some quotes from your link:

 

I'm further agreeing that the material in the Grand Prix video clearly cannot be sand, for it is visibly impressible. And since you are the one proposing that a dustless impressible particulate was created and used for this purpose, it is your burden of proof to show that it can be done and that it was in fact done.

 

But wait, if we are in fantasy land, why don't we just say that NASA engineered a new kind of sand that doesn't create dust at all! NASA can do anything so long as it doesn't involve technology that could actually take them to the moon.

 

It's really great that people can think the way you do rocky. It makes perfect sense in that weird little brain of yours that NASA could literally fake anything they wanted but at the same time couldn't use those talents towards actually going to the moon.

 

Then do it. Make some of this magical dust-free sand and show us footage of a vehicle driving on it in Earth's atmosphere without leaving a cloud of dust.

 

And then this humorous response to the anti-HB's:

I guess I should just post stuff for the viewers to see and forget about you people. I know you're going to deny everything hell-or-high-water. I never hoped to make you admit anything. All I ever hoped to do was find an anomaly that was so clear that when you tried to explain it away, you'd look silly--this rover footage is it. You all look very silly trying to explain this away.

:)

Oh, that's rich! ;)

 

So cosmo, why did you get banned from that site?

[REASON]

Do you think Jay Windley and his friends were right, or wrong in this thread.

ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

 

They said that after treating sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it that just transporting and placing the dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

 

This tells you who Jay Windley is.

Clavius: Conspiracy - about the author

 

Well cos, that's a pretty broad question. First of all, I'm not an engineer or any kind of soils specialist, so I have to defer to experts in the field on this one. When I don't have particular definitive evidence, I rely on reason and common sense in the formulation of my opinions.

 

So in regard to the transportation of soils, I would say yes, it is reasonable to conclude that friction among particles of soil could generate finer dust size particles. How much? Who knows? Depends on how far they had to carry it. Depends on how bumpy the road was. Depends on the type of soil used. Is it stictly sand? Sandy clay? Loamy sand? What size of soil particles are the HB's suggesting were used? What is the cleansing process that they are suggesting was used? Has this cleansing process been reproduced in controlled experiments to verify the ability to produce dust free sand that can be transported and driven over while still maintaining a dust free characteristic? Have the results of this study been published for peer review in order to demonstrate the validity of the theory? Have there been any efforts to reproduce the conditions where sand was cleaned, transported to a location, and placed so that a simulation could be produced using a mock rover driving over the pure sand, and producing video footage of the event that has been slowed to simulate a Moon appearance for comparison to the Apollo footage to show that it could have been faked?

 

If not, why should I or anyone else for that matter, believe that this explanation is more reasonable and plausible than to accept that what we are actually seeing is the behavior of Moon dust in a low gravity, vacuum environment?

 

Even if a simulation could be done on Earth, does this prove that the Apollo missions were therefore simulations? Is this potential really enough to warrant the utter suspention of belief in the legitimacy of NASA and the entire Apollo program? It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than this to convince me.

 

And by the way, I went to K-State so Jay's credentials look pretty good as far as I can tell. :)

[cosmored]

Well cos, that's a pretty broad question. First of all, I'm not an engineer or any kind of soils specialist, so I have to defer to experts in the field on this one. When I don't have particular definitive evidence, I rely on reason and common sense in the formulation of my opinions.

I think that if a group of scientist put their minds to it, they could manage to create some dust-free sand and manage to transport it and place it without creating enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Jay and his friends say that's impossible. What do you say?

 

And by the way, I went to K-State so Jay's crudentials look pretty good as far as I can tell.

Of course he has good credentials. The question is whether or not he's a con-artist.

 

Rules of Disinformation

(excerpt)

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

4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

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

Look what Jay Windley says here.

 

ApolloHoax.net - Rover Footage Filmed on Earth

(excerpt)

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

Sand can be sifted and then rinsed as many times as necessary until there are no dust-sized particles.

 

Until you try to move it, whereupon more dust is created.

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

 

ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

(excerpt)

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

He didn't realize that he was talking to people who actually are qualified in these fields and actually know what they're talking about.

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

 

This was discussed on a geology forum.

 

A strange scenario re sifted sand | GeologyRocks

 

Jay and his friends seem to have been caught in a big lie. That in itself is is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax. The real proof is the video evidence.

 

One thing I noticed immediately about the reflections in the visors is that in each comparison, it was between a more current photo of an astronaut with current high-resolution photographic technology, and visor material that is more advanced in it's reflective quality, and old photos using cameras, film and visors of the Apollo era.

I've seen pictures of reflections of lights on convex surfaces all my life and the only factor I've ever seen to affect the size of the reflection is the curvature of the surface.

 

I've looked at a few of these sites and I didn't see anything like you describe.

reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

[REASON]

I think that if a group of scientist put their minds to it, they could manage to create some dust-free sand and manage to transport it and place it without creating enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Jay and his friends say that's impossible. What do you say?

 

I say that like you, my opinion on the matter would amount to nothing more than a guess. It's beside the point anyway and you know it. This cleaned and transported sand idea is not intended to be evidence of a hoax. It is intended as a means to try and explain away actual video evidence that displays the behavior of dust on the Moon. It's a way out, nothing more. But a way out proves nothing. It could easily be said that it is possible for aliens from another world to exist. But that wouldn't qualify as evidence in support of someone's claim that they had been abducted by aliens.

 

 

Of course he has good credentials. The question is whether or not he's a con-artist.

 

I would say having good credentials lends credence to the prospect that someone is not a con-artist. But you will project what is necessary to support and protect your beliefs.

 

I've seen pictures of reflections of lights on convex surfaces all my life and the only factor I've ever seen to affect the size of the reflection is the curvature of the surface.

 

That is correct, if you're referring to light sources of relatively equal size. So do you have any information as to the relative curvature of Apollo era visors and Shuttle era visors, or do you believe that they are still wearing the same space suits? If the curvature between the differing visors is the same, than it may imply that the hoax perpetrators, with everything that they would have had to account for with no previous experience on the Moon, neglected one of the most obvious.....how large should the Sun appear in the sky.

 

I've looked at a few of these sites and I didn't see anything like you describe.

 

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

[CraigD]

Do you think Jay Windley and his friends were right, or wrong in this thread.

ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

 

They said that after treating sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it that just transporting and placing the dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

The only scientifically sound comment I can offer on this issues is: “try it and see”.

 

A person hypothesizing that one can remove the dust-size particles of sand so that a vehicle can kick up plumes of it that fall to earth at nearly the same rate, allowing a movie sequence like the Apollo 16 “grand prix” to be made on earth should follow the procedure - “get some sand and sift it and wash it so there wouldn't be any particles small enough to float in the air.”, then driving over it in a spinning-wheeled vehicle, or otherwise kicking it up, and see if the resulting video looks like the 1972 video.

 

In general, an effective way to prove any recorded evidence is a hoax is to make a hoax recording, and show an audience that the two are similar in all important details. This approach serves debunkers of in many areas of interest well, especially stage magicians such as James Randi who use it to show that the supernatural powers claimed by some people can be done using non-supernatural techniques. Sincere moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists would, I think, do better to take this approach than the rhetorical ones with which most of us associate them.

 

I’m surprised that it-is-a-hoax proponents offer such an elaborate argument, rather than a simpler explanation that NASA, with it’s tremendous financial and engineering resources, built a movie studio-size vacuum chamber, and shot hoax videos in a moderately hard vacuum indistinguishable on film from the moon’s.

[cosmored]

This cleaned and transported sand idea is not intended to be evidence of a hoax. It is intended as a means to try and explain away actual video evidence that displays the behavior of dust on the Moon. It's a way out, nothing more. But a way out proves nothing.

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.

 

I would say having good credentials lends credence to the prospect that someone is not a con-artist. But you will project what is necessary to support and protect your beliefs.

The fact that he was caught in a lie shows he's a con artist.

 

So do you have any information as to the relative curvature of Apollo era visors and Shuttle era visors, or do you believe that they are still wearing the same space suits?

The difference in curvature between the two helmets is not great enough to cause such a big difference in the size of the reflection of the sun.

 

I've looked at a few of these sites and I didn't see anything like you describe.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

I entered "Reflections convex surfaces" into Google and got this list of science sites

 

reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

 

Those sites explained reflections on convex surfaces. The only factor they talked about was curvature of the surface.

 

Nothing you talked about here was mentioned.

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/12863-moonwalkin-8.html#post204345

 

A person hypothesizing that one can remove the dust-size particles of sand so that a vehicle can kick up plumes of it that fall to earth at nearly the same rate

 

Are you saying the dirt is falling at the same rate at which it is launched?

YouTube - Apollo 16 Grand Prix http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npARfNtO7u8

YouTube - Was Moon Landing Faked? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZxdPP7DdieI

 

We have to look at the sand that was launced at a low angle. It's hard to follow the trajectory of the sand that is launched at a low angle as the camera is looking at it at an angle that is less than ninety degrees.

It looks to me just like any rooster tail behind a vehicle I've seen on earth.

[freeztar]

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.

 

Were they caught in a big lie? Can you prove that?

 

The fact that he was caught in a lie shows he's a con artist.

Apples are not bananas.

A does not necessarily equal B.

 

The difference in curvature between the two helmets is not great enough to cause such a big difference in the size of the reflection of the sun.

Do you have physical measurements demonstrating this?

 

I entered "Reflections convex surfaces" into Google and got this list of science sites

 

reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

 

Those sites explained reflections on convex surfaces. The only factor they talked about was curvature of the surface.

 

The first link in that google search list should be sufficient for understanding how changing the center of curvature and focal point can produce different results. Angle of incidence is also important. Have you considered all of this?

 

Are you saying the dirt is falling at the same rate at which it is launched?

 

First of all, it is not "dirt", it is lunar regolith.

 

Have you ever put your fingers in ash and rubbed them together? If you do, then you can often times see your fingerprint as the dust is so fine, it seeps into the miniature cracks and crevices of your skin. Much of the surface of the moon is composed of a very fine powder, as evidenced from the rover videos.

 

In Earth's atmosphere, this fine dust would hang in the air as "clouds" for FAR longer than shown on the NASA videos.

 

The argument that it should fall as quickly as it comes up is flawed. The spinning tires are kicking up the regolith at a velocity that accelerates the dust far past the "downward" acceleration of the moon's gravity. The result of this is the dust going up fast and then falling down slower as the Moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's.

YouTube - Was Moon Landing Faked?

This guy is a character.

 

He questions why there are no stars seen in the background of the photos. I imagine this has everything to do with photography. If they used a tripod and a longer shutter speed, I imagine we would have seen quite the starfield.

 

Bottom line is, if there were stars in the background of all the pics, it would simply be attributed to NASA's movie set with a black backdrop embedded with thousands of LEDs. The HBs would simply shift the focus. :doh:

 

We have to look at the sand that was launced at a low angle. It's hard to follow the trajectory of the sand that is launched at a low angle as the camera is looking at it at an angle that is less than ninety degrees.

It looks to me just like any rooster tail behind a vehicle I've seen on earth.

 

Looks to me to abide the laws of physics I'd expect on the moon.

[modest]

I wonder how the USSR's Luna 16 (as well as later probes) returned lunar samples that are geologically nearly identical to Apollo's return samples a year earlier? I can't think of a conspiracy explanation for this. Is the contention that none of the samples came from the moon? If so, they all would need to have been faked by the same person or group of people to maintain consistency between them. How is that in any way possible?

 

-modest

[REASON]

I believe Freeztar sufficiently answered your last post cosmo but I'd like to expound on a couple of points.

 

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.

 

What's to recognize, your notion that his stating on a Clavious forum that the transportation and placement of cleaned sand would create dust is illogical, so therefore it is a fact that he is a liar? What does it say to you that nobody seems to want to recognize that? How about for no other reason than it's simply rude to call someone a liar when you can't support such a claim. You have avoided my question as to whether there's been any research done to confirm this allegation. I presume there is zero. So again, what's to recognize?

 

Who is Jay Windley compared to the entire Apollo program anyway? Why is this so important for you? Maybe, since virtually every bit of hoax theory evidence you have been hanging on to has been debunked with simple, rational, reasonable, scientific explanations that confirm the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings, this issue is one of the last remaining strands you have to hold on to before you plummet back to reality. Well take my advice. Just let it go. Trying to hang on mentally to this utterly flimsy and unsupported hoax conspiracy claim has got to be driving you nuts. :eek2:

 

 

The fact that he was caught in a lie shows he's a con artist.

 

Again, there's no fact he was lying, just your claim that he was. What's your motivation for making such a claim? And being caught in lie doesn't make someone a "con artist." Everybody's human, everybody lies to some extent, and everyone's gotten cought in a lie at some point in their lives. This doesn't make everyone con artists. If we were all con artists, you wouldn't be able to recognize someone specifically as a con artist. Con artist is a tag you have applied in an effort to discredit him. So what! It literally does not bolster your hoax claim.

 

 

The difference in curvature between the two helmets is not great enough to cause such a big difference in the size of the reflection of the sun.

 

This statement is simply not good enough. Freeztar asked if you had any physical measurements to demonstrate this. I can safely presume that if you did, you would have presented it gleefully, but since you didn't, you don't, rendering your claim unsubstantiated and invalid.

 

 

I entered "Reflections convex surfaces" into Google and got this list of science sites

 

reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

 

Those sites explained reflections on convex surfaces. The only factor they talked about was curvature of the surface.

 

Nothing you talked about here was mentioned.

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/12863-moonwalkin-8.html#post204345

 

That's because those sites only deal with reflections on convex surfaces. In my post, I addressed other aspects of the Lies In Your Visors clip beyond the relative size of the solar reflections.

 

Since I'm asserting that the comparitive photos in the clip are from different eras of the space program, a proposition that can be supported by the equipment in the pictures, the quality of the photographic equipment including lenses, film, and resolution will also have a direct affect on the presentation and clarity of those reflected solar images.

 

And, since the reflection of sunlight appears differently depending on the reflective surface, an advancement in the reflective materials used on more recent visors, combined with more advanced photograhic techniques, could produce a higher resolution, truer representation of the sun, than a solar reflection from the Apollo era. I wouldn't expect those sites to make mention of these issues.

 

These are tricks designed to appeal to the average person's ill-informed common sense. They are unsubstantiated claims that are miniscule in comparison to the enormous weight of the entire Apollo program and the testimony of thousands of people involved in what was an historic scientific achievement.

 

I understand being skeptical by nature. I am too. But skepticism becomes delusion when it cannot be legitimately substantiated. It would be in your interest to personally reflect on what it actually is that drives your need to continually believe in this particular conspiracy considering that there is literally no legitimate evidence in support of it.

[cosmored]

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.

Were they caught in a big lie? Can you prove that?

You seem to be playing games here. I explained the situation. Instead of pretending you don't see it, you should be analyzing it.

 

It's all explained here.

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/12863-moonwalkin-8.html#post204636

 

Look what Jay says and then look at the link to the geology forum.

 

The fact that he was caught in a lie shows he's a con artist.

Apples are not bananas.

A does not necessarily equal B.

If he's seeking the truth, why did he lie? This is pretty serious. He's a scientist who's supposed to be explaining why the evidence shows they went to the moon and he tells an obvious lie about science. You can play this down all you want but this is glaring evidence that he's owned and he knows the moon missions were faked.

 

This explains who Jay Windley is.

Clavius: Conspiracy - about the author

 

The difference in curvature between the two helmets is not great enough to cause such a big difference in the size of the reflection of the sun.

Do you have physical measurements demonstrating this?

 

Look at the curvature of the two visors.

http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t173/Michaelstmark/A5.jpg

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11nogold5903.jpg

 

The difference in the size of the reflection is five-fold or more. That's impossible. Precise calculations are only necessary when things are too close to be obvious.

Compare the size of the reflection in the shuttle visor in the above link with the reflection of the visor in the first ten seconds of this video.

YouTube - Moon Landing: Apollo 17 http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=e6c60m3JbKw&NR=1

 

This is from Apollo 12. It looks just like the shuttle reflection.

http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/images/centenary_4.jpg

 

Was this one taken in the desert and the other clip taken in a studio?

 

There is a picture of area 51 taken by a Soviet satellite in this video at the 10 minute 28 second mark. It shows craters.

Man didnt land on the moon http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736

 

According to the hoax theory some of the footage was taken in a studio and some was taken in the desert.

 

APOLLO FAKE

The footage in the desert was taken with a camera with a special lens.

 

 

I entered "Reflections convex surfaces" into Google and got this list of science sites

 

reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

 

Those sites explained reflections on convex surfaces. The only factor they talked about was curvature of the surface.

The first link in that google search list should be sufficient for understanding how changing the center of curvature and focal point can produce different results. Angle of incidence is also important. Have you considered all of this?

I don't see anything in here that would explain a more than five fold difference.

Reflection and Image Formation for Convex Mirrors

 

First of all, it is not "dirt", it is lunar regolith.

You're playing games again. I know that moon soil is called regolith. I'm talking about simulated moon soil. What we're discussing here is whether it's possible to sift and wash sand to make it dust-free so that there are no dust clouds when it is driven over even though it's in atmosphere. You know this.

 

Have you ever put your fingers in ash and rubbed them together? If you do, then you can often times see your fingerprint as the dust is so fine, it seeps into the miniature cracks and crevices of your skin. Much of the surface of the moon is composed of a very fine powder, as evidenced from the rover videos.

 

In Earth's atmosphere, this fine dust would hang in the air as "clouds" for FAR longer than shown on the NASA videos.

You ignored the point I made about sifting and washing sand to make it dust-free so it there would not be any dust floating in the atmosphere in the studio so it would appear to be a vacuum. You're playing games.

 

The argument that it should fall as quickly as it comes up is flawed. The spinning tires are kicking up the regolith at a velocity that accelerates the dust far past the "downward" acceleration of the moon's gravity. The result of this is the dust going up fast and then falling down slower as the Moon's gravity is 1/6 of Earth's.

My understanding is that in a vacuum the speed of an object doesn't change after it's launched.

 

Look at the diagrams where it shows how to calculate the range and height of trajectories in this link.

Trajectories

 

The horizontal speed should be constant in a vacuum. Something launched should form a perfect parabola. It's hard to see the soil that is launched at a lower angle in this video.

YouTube - Apollo 16 Grand Prix http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npARfNtO7u8

 

When I first saw the video I mistakenly thought that the soil was moving according to the arrows in this picture.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/grandprix01.jpg

 

It was explained to me that the soil is moving according to the arrows in this picture.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/gp_frames_2.jpg

 

It's hard to get a good look at what's happening in the video unless we can look at it a frame at a time to follow the trajectory of some soil that is launched at a low angle so we can see if it follows a parabolic arc.

 

He questions why there are no stars seen in the background of the photos. I imagine this has everything to do with photography. If they used a tripod and a longer shutter speed, I imagine we would have seen quite the starfield.

I don't have any experience in photography so I'm not using the no-stars argument to further my case that they didn't go to the moon. The answer that stars need a longer exposure time does make sense.

 

There are some suspicious contradictions about seeing stars though.

 

FLY SOUTH AVIATION NEWS AFRICA

LiveLeak.com - No stars visible on Moon? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=503_1188041042&c=1

YouTube - Phil Plaits Lying Bullshit PT.3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQXDuBKvaI4

Never A Straight Answer -- NASA and Lunar Mysteries

(excerpt)

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

If one were to add up all the astronauts’ stated observations of the appearance of space above the atmosphere one would come to the conclusion that they were either crazy, incompetent or they never went, or, perhaps some of them were lying??? Alan Sheppard, first American to be catapulted up reported seeing no stars, ditto for Virgil Grissom. John Glenn reported seeing some brighter stars only (and he saw those weird “fireflies”).

To quote some astronauts on the subject:

Neil Armstrong: “The sky is black, you know,” “It’s a very dark sky.”

Mike Collins on Gemini 10:: “My God, the stars are everywhere: above me on all sides, even below me somewhat, down there next to that obscure horizon. The stars are bright and they are steady.” This was written 14 years after, and remember that the Gemini 10 space walk photo shown here has now been proven fake.

Mike Collins on Apollo 11: “I can’t see the earth, only the black starless sky behind the Agena,... As I slowly cartwheel away from the Agena, I see nothing but the black sky for several seconds...” “What I see is disappointing for only the brightest stars are visible through the telescope, and it is difficult to recognize them when they are not accompanied by the dimmer stars...”

Gene Cernan on Apollo 17: “When the sunlight comes through the blackness of space, it’s black. I didn’t say it’s dark, I said black. So black you can’t even conceive how black it is in your mind. The sunlight doesn’t strike on anything, so all you see is black.”

Yuri Gagarin, first Russian cosmonaut: “Astonishingly bright cold stars could be seen through the windows.”

Prof. August Piccard on his high altitude balloon flight circa 1938 (many miles up with special heated suit) said that the sky turned from blue to deep violet to black. It is said that he claimed the sun disappeared as he got to the higher altitudes, though I have been unable to locate this exact reference.

My own investigations of NASA, circa 1987, revealed people who claimed that the stars could not be seen in space, but that special diffraction gratings were being developed to attempt to see them. This was from the period from Sheppard on to Skylab. I later spoke with John Bartoe who was up on an early shuttle flight and he laughed at this, said he couldn’t believe that anyone in NASA would say that because he was in space and the stars were brighter than they are on Earth! (They must have slipped him a working diffraction grating.) I called back my contact in NASA and he told me “Sir, the astronaut is a trained observer and is reporting what he saw, but the information I gave you (about the blackness of space) was essentially correct.” I spoke with the man who developed the film for NASA for 25 years and he told me that the astronauts weren’t even sure if they could see the sun, that it may have been the appearance of the sun on their windows!

The fact is that there are no visible light photographs of the sun, the stars, or any planets (other than the Earth & Moon, and not including specific probes sent to those planets) available in any NASA photo catalog. The fact that no stars appear on any photos was one of the main pillars of evidence for Bill Kaysing’s book. René is the source of the astronauts quotes as above and feels that there must be some serious problem with this selective star-blindness. As there is no definite answer available to us right now as to whether or not we can see the stars in space, I would have to say that we cannot base our conclusion as to the validity of the Apollo flights on the evidence of the appearance (or non-appearance) of stars in NASA photos.

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

BBC - Science & Nature - Space - Vostok 1

(Look in the box with the astronaut's face)

 

Here's a good thread I found about the stars issue.

NASA Exposes Their Apollo Moon Landing Hoax! - The Education Forum

 

I wonder how the USSR's Luna 16 (as well as later probes) returned lunar samples that are geologically nearly identical to Apollo's return samples a year earlier?

Maybe the Russians were cooperating with NASA in order to get good prices on grain sales.

 

I posted this earlier in the thread.

 

Uncle Sam: How the Cold War worked

Deterring Democracy: Chapter 1 [1/20]

 

Nardwuar vs Bill Kaysing

(excerpt)

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

Well, why did they keep faking the Apollo flights, I still don't understand. Did the Soviet Union know it was faked? Why did they keep shut up if they knew it was faked? 'Cause a lot of people would think they kept the moon race going to prove the U.S. was better than the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union knew, why did they let the U.S. get away with this?

Well, I'll tell you - at the highest levels there is a coalition between governments. In other words, the Soviets said, if you won't tell on us - and they faked most of their space exploration flights - we won't tell on you. It's as simple as that. See, what Apollo is, is the beginning of the end of the ability of the government to hoodwink and bamboozle and manipulate the people. More and more people are becoming aware in the U.S. that the government is totally and completely public enemy number one.

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

 

I asked this to see if you people can be objective about the fact that Jay Windley and some of the other regular pro-Apollo posters at the Clavius forum were caught in a big lie. So far nobody seems to want to recognize that.

 

What's to recognize, your notion that his stating on a Clavius forum that the transportation and placement of cleaned sand would create dust is illogical, so therefore it is a fact that he is a liar

It's very logical. He said that after treating sand to make it dust-free that just transporting and placing it would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That's so basically wrong that almost any high school science student knows it.

 

How about for no other reason than it's simply rude to call someone a liar when you can't support such a claim. You have avoided my question as to whether there's been any research done to confirm this allegation. I presume there is zero.

I asked some people with backgrounds in geology and they thought is was so basically wrong that they laughed.

I posted this thread from a geology forum.

A strange scenario re sifted sand | GeologyRocks

 

I guess you didn't see it.

 

Who is Jay Windley compared to the entire Apollo program anyway?

The fact that he's there lying about science at all is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax. Why all these attempts at damage-control if there's no damage to control?

 

Maybe, since virtually every bit of hoax theory evidence you have been hanging on to has been debunked with simple, rational, reasonable, scientific explanations that confirm the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings, this issue is one of the last remaining strands you have to hold on to before you plummet back to reality.

There's lots of evidence that hasn't been debunked.

 

This for instance.

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

YouTube - Apollo 15 waving flag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

 

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

 

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.

YouTube - Moon Hoax- Apollos Atmospheric Moon http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

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

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

 

YouTube - Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - InfoDebug.com http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

 

What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

 

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.

Man didnt land on the moon http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736&q=apollo

 

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.

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

More in this link to post #46 of this thread.

http://hypography.com/forums/strange-claims-forum/12863-moonwalkin-5.html#post203675

 

And, since the reflection of sunlight appears differently depending on the reflective surface, an advancement in the reflective materials used on more recent visors, combined with more advanced photograhic techniques, could produce a higher resolution, truer representation of the sun, than a solar reflection from the Apollo era. I wouldn't expect those sites to make mention of these issues.

You sound like you think you've debunked this issue. All you've done is put forth another possible explanation. That is not debunking.

 

Why is the reflection in this visor similar to the reflection in the shuttle astronauts' visors?

http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/images/centenary_4.jpg

 

Here's a good thread I found about this issue.

One Giant Spotlight For All Mankind - The Education Forum

 

It's got a lot of good info.

 

They are unsubstantiated claims that are miniscule in comparison to the enormous weight of the entire Apollo program and the testimony of thousands of people involved in what was an historic scientific achievement.

Lots of the people in the Apollo program were probably fooled too. This means nothing. All the data they say they learned is bogus. It would be easy to create bogus data--in fact it would have to be part of a conspiracy al big as this one.

 

I understand being skeptical by nature. I am too. But skepticism becomes delusion when it cannot be legitimately substantiated. It would be in your interest to personally reflect on what it actually is that drives your need to continually believe in this particular conspiracy considering that there is literally no legitimate evidence in support of it.

Not recognizing the evidence doesn't make it go away.

 

Somebody please post just one thing that conclusively proves that they really went to the moon. I've never seen anything yet that proves we went but I've seen lots of proof that at least some of the footage was taken on earth.