The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

I wonder which version of the word "plausible" you are referring to. I would suggest the one bolded below.

plau·si·ble (plôz-bl)
adj.
1. Seemingly or apparently valid, likely, or acceptable; credible: a plausible excuse.
2. Giving a deceptive impression of truth or reliability.
3. Disingenuously smooth; fast-talking:

Making a bare assertion, and using Jarrah White videos to back up your statement demonstrates that you rely on them for your proof. I shall address the assertions made by JW accordingly.


Assertion 1 - Nasa rocks contain water.

This assertion is made as a means to imply that, as both Earth and Moon rocks contain water, Apollo samples could simply just be faked from Earth rocks. Bunkum.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vJH6lemd_k"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #01: Water in Moon Rocks‬‏[/ame]

The article he quoted from:-

http://www.space.com/5603-water-discovered-moon-samples.html

In typical JW fashion, he finds a story with a headline designed to capture audience interest and suggests it as a blanket statement. He then accuses numerous people of lying when they made the statement that there was no water found in the Apollo samples, whilst deliberately not quoting back this passage from the article:-

"For the past four decades, the limit for detecting water in lunar samples was about 50 parts per million (ppm) at best, said Erik Hauri, geochemist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, D.C. and co-author on the study. We developed a way to detect as little as 5 ppm of water.

The group found up to 46 ppm of water within the glass beads. Saal and his collaborators then used modeling to estimate how much water originally existed in the magma within the moon's interior, knowing some water would have escaped the molten droplets as a gas on the surface."

He then compunds this by suggesting that they knew all along about the presence of water, by indicating that Dr Mark Norman of NASA had previously said there was "almost no water in the samples. The samples came back with trace elements of water, but since no mica, clay minerals or hydrous iron oxides, minerals that would be present if water had played a part, the trace water was assumed to be caused by condensation from the containers used during transport, since it was barely detectable.

And, as for this being some sort of conspiracy of silence, the findings were presented to his peers at conference in 1970!
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/167/3918/538.short

Summary:

1. The water found in the volcanic beads is at trace level, ie. 50 or parts per million.

2. The beads are clearly formed in 1/6th gravity, as many are perfectly spherical. This does not occur with those found on Earth.

3. White implies that all the rocks contain water, when it has only been found within the volcanic beads.


Assertion 2 - Earth and Moon rocks have identical elements and isotopes.

White makes this assertion once again to imply that NASA's rocks could have been altered Earth rocks, cooked in a ceramic oven! Bunkum.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41eaDU8aflo"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #02: Same as Earth Rocks‬‏[/ame]

Summary:

1. Elements very common in Earth rocks are absent or in very small amounts: quartz, calcite, magnetite, micas, amphiboles, and sulfide minerals.

2. The Oxygen isotope ratio is the same for Moon rocks and Earth rocks. But this is the only isotope ratio that is the same.

3. He deliberately fails to point out that amongst others, Neon 21 and Argon 38 isotopes are found in Moon rocks but not in Earth rocks.

4. He observes similar elements to Earth rocks, but fails to point out the stunning major point, they occur in hugely different proportions.

5. Whilst making his point on isotopes, he doesn't notice his source demonstrates that meteorites found on Earth have radically different isotopes to Earth and Moon rocks. Including the one he refers to, the oxygen isotope.

http://genesismission.jpl.nasa.gov/gm2/news/features/isotopes.htm


Assertion 3 - The Apollo Moon rocks were "doped with helium 3".

First off, we need to establish that Helium 3 occurs very little on Earth. It is found in only trace amounts. Most of the Helium-3 on Earth, identifiable through deep surface spectroscopy, is well below the surface.

To suggest Helium-3 is easy to make, and easy to impregante rocks with it, is utter baloney. Were such a device available, the whole energy crisis would be solved overnight!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjCSLzH2ZTo"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #03A: Moon Rock Potpourri‬‏[/ame]

I will cover this point further, on another of the ignorant assertions made by this person in part 2.

 

Assertion 4 - Materials not found in Earth rocks are common to meteorites

Now the sideways shuffle is implied. He has so far, indicated that the Apollo rocks are from Earth, now he is moving to the assertion that they are in fact a combination of Earth rocks and meteorites! Bunkum.

We have already established that Earth rock have the same oxygen isotope ratios as Moon rocks, and that neither have anywhere like the same ratios as those found in non-lunar meteorites. So wherever this contention goes, it is already doomed to failure.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xvgM5FTTu4"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #03B: More on Isotopes & Meteorites‬‏[/ame]

Summary:

1. Meteorites not of Lunar origin differ both chemically and mineralogically from Earth and Moon rocks.

2. The oxygen isotope ratios are completely different.


Assertion 5 - Von Braun collected the Moon rocks from Antarctica


Let's put this into perspective. If such an expedition was undertaken, would NASA send a rocket engineer and the technical team, or would he send recognised geologists? Why would they highly publicise such an event, if the objective was to gather meteorites for fakery?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzKOgFvy56o"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #04A: Wernher von Braun Part A‬‏[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVe2LqgOn_U"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #04B: Wernher von Braun Part B‬‏[/ame]

http://www.depts.ttu.edu/communications/vistas/archive/05-spring/stories/theory.php

"On Antarctica, decades ago, Admiral Byrd named a 4,085-foot-high summit “Mount Wade” after the geologist. Among the letters that Chatterjee first found upon arrival at Texas Tech was one addressed to Wade from Wernher von Braun (1912-1977), one of the most important rocket developers of all time. Von Braun was searching for a secretive locale to help train the United States’ earliest astronauts. Wade pointed von Braun to Antarctica."

JW cites wikipedia, which is updated by members of the public. Somebody had added the incorrect paragraph suggesting that the one week trip was a meteorite gathering expedition! It was later removed, as it originated from the mockumentary by Aren Ranen "Did We Go?"!

White then alleges that wikipedia was adjusted to cover this up! The original note was added with a citation for an edition of Popular Science, when the edition quoted, had no reference to meteorite gathering whatsoever! Indeed, it classified the trip exactly as it was stated:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=kCEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA114#v=onepage&q&f=false

White claims that Antarctica was a veritable goldmine of meteorites since 1912 when only 4 had been found between that time and the Antarctic expedition in 1967 - none resembling a Moon rock. In that same period of time, many more were found in places such as Texas!!



In 1969, Japan found only 9 meteorites during their own Antarctica meteorite gathering mission! In total, 129 meteorites ever found, after analysis, show that they originate from the Moon and only 29 from that total came from Antarctica. The first one to actually be found as a Moon rock was in 1979 and recognised as such after elemental ratio tests were finalised in 1982.

http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm


Assertion 6 - Meteorites were made to look like Moon by removing the outer melted layer.


A ceramicist could not simply chip away at meteorites and make them look like moon rocks. There would be obvious tool marks left behind and it would rob the meteorites of most of their Helium-3. It's a moot point anyway, because meteorites and moon rocks have different oxygen isotope ratios.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pUNyFhSDTc"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #05: Helium-3 & Fusion Crust‬‏[/ame]

Any tool used would leave trace amounts of metal and would be impossible to miss. The most concentrated portion of helium-3 is located on the outside of the rock from constant solar wind ions allowing a shallow penetration of the rock. Chipping away the outer layer would indicate no such evidence of solar wind induced helium-3, and that in itself would be evidence of tampering.

Since non lunar meteorites have completely different elemental and isotope ratios, predominantly oxygen, it would make no difference anyway!

Neon 21 and Argon 38 are two other isotopes found in Lunar rocks. JW completely ignores these and other isotopes, iuncluding the difference in the oxygen isotopes ratio, he already debunked himself on that during part of an interview he quoted.

Even now, we don't have particle accelerators powerful enough to soak rocks with high energy atomic nuclei to duplicate the effect of millions of years of solar radiation, cosmic or otherwise!

 

Just so you know... "They" do have a machine to make Helium-3.

By "they" I mean the lizard people that the moon hoaxers think run the world. "They" just keep it all from us so "they" can keep us down.

At least until Rowdy Roddy Piper shows up with the special sunglasses that lets him see which ones are the lizard people.

But I might be conflating the moon hoaxers' theories with something else I have seen... Conspiracy theories are so wacky these days it's tough to remember.

 

Assertion 7 - Nasa's moon rocks have different elements and isotopes

Here we have a statement that shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter, by demonstrating that JW doesn't know there are different types of isotopes for different elements. He previously got this wrong by assuming the same oxygen isotope ratios, meant all isotope ratios were the same!

White fails to grasp that this one point alone debunks his whole case. Moon rocks with solar isotopes, Earth rocks without them.


Assertion 8 - Significant signs of oxidation

JW doesn't understand the process of oxidation and how oxides are formed.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i71ncUGDHvI"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #06: Oxidation‬‏[/ame]

Earth rocks undergo weathering causing secondary minerals, which is completely absent from NASA's moon rocks. Two major minerals found in Moon rocks plagioclase and olivine would be completely or partially replaced by chlorites which are virtually absent in Moon rocks. Mica, another common weathering induced mineral is completely absent from Moon rocks. Iron found in the Moon rocks, shows no sign whatsoever of rust, or ferric oxide.



Assertion 9 - Only a handful of pro-Nasa geologists have looked at the rocks

A staggering statement that even a scant amount of research demonstrates as complete baloney.

http://www.universetoday.com/35404/after-40-years-moon-rocks-still-revealing-secrets/



Assertion 10 - They were shot with aluminum pellets to simulate zap pits

Unbelievable statement.

The zap pits are visible under magnification and have been made from high impact collision from something only micrograms in size. If this was done with some kind of magic gun to fire single microgram pellets! , they would need to be of a composition that would not be easily identifiable.


Assertion 11 - The soviets faked theirs by using scrapes from NASA rocks given to them.

Take careful note of what JW says here. He is saying that the Soviets could have taken scrapings from the samples given by NASA. Even though they both have amazing similarities, there are also many differences, as you would expect. More on this later.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-0UCj6XFK4"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #09: Made In the U.S.S.R.‬‏[/ame]

http://curator.jsc.nasa.gov/lunar/soils/soils_hb.pdf

Variable titanium oxide, how did NASA get the percentages right for 94/95 clementine ratio reflectance values? Is the entire clementine team in on the fake, or the numerous people who have studied the clementine readings?

 

Assertion 12 - Smart-1 uncovered minerals and rocks different to nasa rocks

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHJ_7FtiCBE"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #10A: SMART-1 & New Minerals‬‏[/ame]

He states the probe performed a soil analysis?? See the description of the equipment on board to see that this is more baloney:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SMART-1



Assertion 13 - Smart-1 agree with soviet samples and both are different to NASA

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwikhjO93Ec"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #10B: SMART-1 & Luna Probes‬‏[/ame]

Let me restate that one again:-

JW "So it seems the actual Moon rocks are different to the Apollo Moon samples, but not the Soviet samples"

JW "The Soviets could have used the Apollo samples and scraped off grains to fake their own samples"

You just cannot make up this level of ignorance and contradiction.

Some SMART-1 information:
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMWX03VRRE_index_0.html


Assertion 14 - An Apollo photograph shows a "C" on it as used by stage props

Entry level hoax belief, and one of the easiest of them all to disprove. The "C" is a hair or piece of lint on the lens, as a copy was made of the picture. No such markings appear on the original picture, or more importantly, the frame before on the same magazine.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEygpL7r6Pk"]YouTube - ‪Apollo 16 and the C Rock‬‏[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxwL4DCzUN4"]YouTube - ‪Letters from the Moon - The "C" Rock Reloaded‬‏[/ame]


Conclusion:

There simply is no case to defend with the Apollo Moon rocks. There are so many reasons why they were not possible to fake, yet still HBs cling to this idea that somehow, magic machines, fooled the entire geology community!

We have no explanation at all for the Apollo core samples up to 2 metres long.

There is no doubt where the rocks came from:-

 

Assertion 9 and 10 videos didn't come out on the post - visible on the quote above.


Here is a playlist of all the videos:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wokRKCKueLY&feature=mh_lolz&list=PL6918CBFA6F1ED8CE"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #00: Introduction‬‏[/ame]

 

It's worth noting that Phil Webb's analysis and deBUNKing of JWs BUNK has to date been exemplary - as far as I can see, faultless.

In comparison to JW, who, last time I looked, still has the video up that shows he can't even count, let alone all the others. How can someone know so little of the topics he makes videos about? Well, I think I can explain..

Its seems to be the consensus now that JW was indeed once a hoax believer, but has since realised his error. So why does he continue? Because he is trapped in his own little world and web of lies, with no way to escape. He can't disavow his videos (which is why the "I can't count" vid has, embarrassingly, stayed up) without making a complete and utter dimwit of himself. So now he is simply trolling onwards as if it was some kind of game. And I suspect his entire existence is based on the Youtube idiocy, and his belief that he has a genuine band of followers (when they are mainly just *more* trolls, you know - the ones who hang out at Youtube and egg on the lunatics..). It does appear that the poor guy has no other life (except the hobbies listed on his page - go read them for yourself, and see if you can keep from cringing..). Every single one of his 'anomalies' has been addressed in painstaking detail (and I'm still polishing up a new page or three on the Radiation issue) and shown to be born of nothing but pure ignorance and deliberate falsehoods.

I almost feel sorry for JW. I don't feel sorry for his 'supporters', as if there are any *genuine* ones, then they deserve the rewards of their ignorance. But for him.. it must be soul-destroying to have to keep up this pretence.

Anyway, Scott, what do you reckon? Is JW serious, or trolling? Not that I think anyone will be swayed by your opinion, but put it out there anyway..

And do you have anything to refute (that means with citations, logic, maths, etc) Phil Webb's stuff?

Because you certainly aren't getting anywhere with Betamax's...

 

A series by Jarrah White spanning from the Columbia shuttle disaster onwards? How does that explain anything? It has no bearing whatsoever on the cold war between the USA and Russia during the space race of the 60s and early 70s.

Profoundly circular reasoning, from a gentleman who was embittered by the USA government's Vietnam involvement. He starts by offering questions that are incorrect, then offers his opinion as a solution to his own theory!

This man also believes there should be stars seen on photographs and video. As is usual with Kaysing, he cites no references whatsoever. Just blind, unadulterated, ignorant bare assertion.

He worked from 1957-63 in the publication section of Rocketdyne. Kaysing would have had no involvement with the planning of Apollo as Rocketdyne was a sub-contractor for some of the engines used, and had no direct access to NASA's technical overview. The fact that he left in 1963, many years before even Apollo 1, discounts his over inflated opinion as just hype to sell his book!

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/kaysing.html

Kaysing also said this:-

"What motivated me to spill the beans was a young man from the Vietnam wars by the name of John Grant. He said that he was sent to Vietnam to kill people with no good reason and he also got a heroin habit, and he says, "Bill," he says, "what I want you to do is blow the whistle on this rotten, corrupt government." He says, "Why don't you say something outrageous, like, we never went to the moon?" So I attribute my interest in this project to John Grant."

Putting this into perspective, Kaysing decided to say something outrageous to get back at the American government. The idea that this man would have any insider knowledge at all on any aspect of Apollo is ludicrous. His secondary goal was to make money by concocting a book littered with ignorance, unsupported opinion, no references to anything he says, with some of the most easily disprovable nonsense one could ever see.

I have bolded the salient part to that quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_manned_lunar_programs

During the entire Apollo program and for some years after, Russia spent a considerable amount of money on its own Lunar program.

The idea that the Soviets supposedly knew about the Moon landings being faked, and kept quiet because we gave them grain shipments as humanitarian aid, is one of Rene's more notable quotes of stupidity.

Whilst these "secret" shipments continued, they continued their own Moon program, busily blowing up multi-billion pound rockets, right up until 1972. Billions of pounds that could have fed them 20 times over.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m79UO4HOQmc"]YouTube - ‪Soviet N1 moon rocket exploding‬‏[/ame]

That is his opinion. He cites no references at all.

Conclusion:
A country that continues to spend billions of pounds on its own program, suggests strongly that they were going to try a Moon landing. To suggest that they did so to help cover up the Apollo landings is just insane.

The question is, why would a country with any degree of doubt as to the viability of a project (ie. the evil space radiation!), together with a supposed famine, spend so much money secretively on its own Lunar landing program.

The Soviets had superb tracking capabilities.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbiyAIqciU8"]YouTube - ‪MoonFaker: Exhibit D: Critique #18: Stupid Soviets‬‏[/ame]

They had every possible motivation to expose any hoax. The goal of reaching the Moon first was very much a political one.

The leverage the Soviets would have over the USA in simply threatening to expose a hoax would never end. They could do whatever they wished for as long as they wished it for. To suggest a grain shipment would buy off their permanent silence is quite frankly pathetic.

Bottom line, the Soviets would either have the USA permanently in their pocket, or more likely, they would yell "hoax" from every possible direction in consumate detail.

 

An amazing statement. As though the internet does not exist, with absoulutely anything of note not able to go instantly viral amongst conspiracy theorists.

The first link highlights a whole barrage of articles, freely available and from multiple sources from people who to the best of my knowledge are alive and well, and in no danger of being killed for their crime of disagreeing with the mainstream.

The idea that a lawyer statement would not be read out in public, and have a devastating effect is laughable. The idea that the implied death of their immediate family would result should they do so, once again is quite ludicrous.

A simple anonymous letter or a pre-recorded video would be in the public domain so fast it would never be stopped.

The Whitehouse was not even able to stop the tidal wave from a simple act of oral sex from an intern. It was completely powerless to stop an impeachment of Nixon from an investigation that supposedly could never go to press, namely Watergate.

The journalist John Pilger is a man who very much goes against the supposed status quo, very much alive, and seemingly in no danger.

The second link provided, has Noam Chomsky, a very opionated man, who has no trouble whatsoever saying exactly what he wants when he wants. With numerous film clips all over the internet, namely the ones quoted on youtube, he doesn't strike me as somebody who is not able to get a message out.

Is he still alive? How odd that somebody like that hasn't been "bumped off"!

Video 1, the supposed media controlled Fox TV!! Their ignorance littered throughout the show, that particular clip concentrates on alleging that Gus Grissom was supposedly murdered, by sabotaging the Apollo program itself and casting the most intense scrutiny on the whole thing. Far simpler to have some sort of accident away from the spotlight. His son suspects foul play, but the investigation carried out by numerous NASA employees found no such evidence. Unless they are all to be added to the cover up of a murder, and future cover up of a "hoax", this is just nonsense!

We are being asked to believe that NASA employees, who supposedly knew even at that stage, that there was no chance of making the journey to the Moon, actually carried out a triple murder and covered it up. Bunkum.

We then have the secondary claim that Thomas Baron was also murdered in his car. This despite the fact that he had already presented his full report to congress!

http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/baron.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Baron

Video 2 is just opinionated crap, where a tin-foil hat should be worn during viewing. He alleges that several test pilots who died doing their jobs were outspoken about Apollo, yet offers no proof. More nonsense about Grissom again, but this time he insists it was a masonic ceremony. Bunkum.

 

I was debunking this pathetic wall of spam in sequence, but my impatience to destroy Cosmored's "credibility test", got the better of me!

Before I begin debunking this, the user who made this, freely admits he has been given a "good run for his money" and concedes in this video that many of his points have been debunked.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U54siu8cEe0"]YouTube - ‪Re: China's Spacewalk Was Fake‬‏[/ame]

I will pay particular attention to those that he insists have not.


Underwater Footage

During underwater footage in weightless training, the surface will reflect the light and cause shimmering lights on all surfaces.

A good example of this is the cylindrical object in this video, shimmering as light is refracted all around it:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tTU8U7y0CUI#t=25s

There is no evidence of this in the entire Chinese spacewalk. They would have had to have used a sealed chamber painted black to avoid all light reflection and surface wave refraction.


Item 1 - The "Bubbles"

These are not bubbles. It is a combination of small loose assorted items, pieces of paper and frozen condensation. Many times in space, the introduction of a vacuum causes parts of the various coatings on the interior to freeze and break away.

Here is a video showing them exiting the hatch and always at different angles:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE"]YouTube - ‪About paper and bubbles of ShenzhouVII‬‏[/ame]


The statement about there being zero gravity is just plain wrong. Zero-g means zero g-forces not zero gravity. This whole idea about accelerating objects is so easy to explain. The gravitational force at that altitude is circa 9 metres per second squared. Any object expelled towards the Earth, will still have orbital velocity, but as it now has slight downward velocity, it will accelerate accordingly.

The idea that objects should not exit the hatch after 10 minutes is invalid. He implies that it is due only to the very slight pressure release(usually residual air pressure) that the objects are expelled in the first place, when it is also that in moving about inside the craft, they have impacted the inside and deflected through the hatch. As seen in the video above, even the paper accelerates - wet sodden paper does not float!

It must also be pointed out that due to the way a wide angled lens shows movement at its edge, it naturally appears to move slightly quicker.


Item 2 - Wave Blowers

Complete hogwash! Neutral buoyancy is established using weights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_Buoyancy_Laboratory
"The principle of neutral buoyancy is used to simulate the weightless environment of space. First the suited astronauts or equipment is lowered into the pool using an overhead crane. Once this is done the suited astronauts weighted in the water by support divers so that they experience no buoyant force and no rotational moment about their center of mass."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_buoyancy
"Neutral buoyancy is a condition in which a physical body's mass equals the mass it displaces in a surrounding medium. This offsets the force of gravity that would otherwise cause the object to sink. An object that has neutral buoyancy will neither sink nor rise."

This video demonstrates that very principle:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZDSFi5y_nk"]YouTube - ‪NASA Spacesuits/Spacewalks : Weightless Environment Training Facility‬‏[/ame]


This video shows tether cables with no tendency to rise and also demonstrates always in every example, the bubbles rise vertically.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvQEbP1s4pc"]YouTube - ‪Surface Interval Clothing: Nasa Dive Video‬‏[/ame]

Further, a waveblower would set up a continuous current and would not magically disappear once it hits an object. if there were 2, one either side as suggested, there would now be cross currents. These in turn would cause significant instability of anything caught in its wake. There are no signs of turbulence you would expect from water movement, or no additional light refraction.

Wave blowers are introduced by the film maker to explain why the "bubbles" don't rise vertically, a logical fallacy and bunkum.


Item 3 - The Mission Commander "slip-up"

Is the film maker saying there is no water inside the hatch then?! The communication is actually pretty garbled. The Mandarin word for water is pronounced "shuway" I can't hear that said.

But some comments on the video disagree with the film maker:-




Item 4 - Odd row of lights

They are located here:-



Here is a short excerpt referring to them:-

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-09/28/content_10130548.htm
"Zhang Tao, a technician with the Shanghai Institute of Technical Physics under the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said the Shenzhou-7 mission's success marks China's space program has "entered a new stage." Zhang was in charge of developing the illumination lamp on the exterior of the Shenzhou-7 vessel."


Item 5 - The Markings on the Craft at take-off

He compares Shenzhou 1 launch with wider thruster displacement to Shenzhou 7. Shenzhou 1 has a noticeably more split triple exhaust, Shenzhou 7 is more combined - it has a bigger payload and more thrust. There is also a much bigger surface smoke cloud on the Shenzhou 1 launch. Here they are side by side:-



He says the photograph used by China Weekly shows different markings. It's just a low resolution version of the original. The markings are the same!



Item 6 - What is lighting the craft?

Of course it's Earthlight! The Earth has an albedo of 35%, meaning it reflects that percentage of light cast upon it. We can clearly see it is daylight.


Item 7 - The flag moves like it does in water!

This is complete nonsense. A flat fabric will not move that way in a viscous medium. The drag co-efficient of water would simply not allow it to rotate unrestricted. The fabric would simply wrap around the small pole. The references to there being no noticeable movement of the astronauts hand, ignore any movement made by simply moving the finger and thumb. He indicates that the flag is moved by water movement which is simply bunkum, water doesn't rotate a flag like that, it is simply impossible. The movement was supposedly down to the mysterious wave blowers!


Item 8 - Astronauts always keep hold of the rails.

Whenever astronauts let go in other space walks, they are either tethered, or have attitude control thrusters on their suits. Inexperienced astronauts could be forgiven for taking care. The narrator suggests they don't let go, because the water will sweep them upwards, yet it has no such effect on their position. If there was a mystery wave blower current, their legs would be swept upwards!


Item 9 - Supposedly static Earth position.

For hours he says? How about 20 minutes maximum, as is the duration of this spacewalk.

The craft thrusters initiate a rotation about its horizontal axis that matches its orb-rate around the Earth. It is used on most satellites, as opposed to something like the Hubble which has a stellar inertial orbit.

Explained here:-
http://www.ehartwell.com/afj/Orb-rate_explanation


Item 10 - The fast moving clouds.

I slapped my forehead at this statement! The clouds aren't moving!! The craft is orbiting at circa 17,000 mph on a 42 degree inclined orbit.

 

Item 11 - Transmission quality.

The video is very good, as one would expect from the technology that comes out of the Far East, however only the audio recorded on the surface appears to be pretty good quality. Astronaut comms aren't that good, but they have a very good background noise supression system. A rather labored point, perhaps trying to demonstrate the clarity was because it was on Earth, when they could simply have added some video distortion to the picture, had they deemed it necessary. Bunkum.


Item 12 - Pre launch document released early.

Somebody put out the press release early. The actual dialogue quoted appears to be fairly standard, and obviously something rehearsed in their genuine underwater facilites. Embarrassing for China, but hardly a unique event to have a pre-prepared press release in news reporting of big events.



Item 13 - China faked the Chang'e photographs.

It was actually just one picture that sent tongues wagging. Completely wrong, the Chinese picture is taken at a different angle, and actually has a newly formed crater on its picture that can easily be verified. If this find had any credence, it would have had all the mad conspiracy theorists scrambling for more evidence. None was found, just this one picture. A leap of faith logical fallacy argument based on a single photograph.

Here is the picture against the NASA one:-




Item 14 - The arc of the Earth.

He compares the relative Earth arcs of the Shenzhou spacewalk with other footage, and says Earth's arc is different!

The Chinese spacewalk is closer footage than the example given and has a wider angled lens.


Item 15 - The clouds are speeding up.

This is more bunkum to explain both the motion of the flag and the space debris. He uses a short passage where the cloud cover appears to brighten up very quickly. This is light striking the solid cloud and diffusing it. The camera is set for near field operation so sees it over exposed. The craft as stated is orbiting at 17,000mph.


Item 16 - The floating cables.

He says the astronauts air is provided in the tether cables!! He then says the astronaut is holding it down to stop it floating up!

The tethers have shape memory caused by them being wound on drums during manufacture. The only tendency the cable has in an unrestricted vacuum is to assume that curled position from being wound around a large drum. There are numerous examples where it makes this same movement in a horizontal vector in relation to the camera. Bunkum.


Item 17 - The "missing" outer atmosphere halo.

He talks about the blue halo missing from the footage showing the outer part of the Earth's atmosphere that scatters blue light.

The halo is visible under most, but not all conditions, as shown by the examples below. The camera for Shenzhou 7 was set to expose for sharp nearfield and in digital quality, the Earth in the background is consequently over exposed and a little out of focus.



Watch 10 seconds of this video from the time marker 13:21. The first view has no halo, the second has a huge halo.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72OLN4lBpSQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=802s



Item 18 - The Earth moves.

Says the earth moves up and down a tiny bit, and questions how does that happen in space.

The craft follows an elliptical orbit, it has very small corrections made at intervals to its forward orb-rate rotation. Perhaps he should have asked this basic question before adding it into his video?



Item 19 - The change in degrees towards the Sun.

He talks of a 120 degree sun angle change in the 15 minutes we see the craft!!

A standard 90 minute orbit makes a 60 degree orbital change in 15 minutes not 120 degrees. However, the craft is following a 42 degree orbit so that equates to nearer 40 degrees. Just really bad math and ignorance of the orbital path.


Item 20 - The supposedly lit piece of the craft.

He says the Sun angle never changes on both cameras, then indicates that it lights up part of the craft and then back off again. He says it is impossible, especially at 90 minutes per orbit.

If we assume that the area he highlights as being lit is done so by the Sun, when the light recedes, one would expect the top part to be still illuminated last of all. But it isn't as this screenshot indicates:-



The screenshots show the light is coming from the opposite direction, the Earth, as the bottom part is lit last of all! Simple attitude control would account for this, as previously explained. In addition, 10 minutes later on during the space walk, we see the Sun angle has changed accordingly, representing what we would expect to see:-




Item 21 - The extra astronaut.

He says there are 4 distinct voices and only 3 astronauts.

This is just speculation. He begs the question, then plays some different clips, all labelled up for the viewer. Basically he is just clutching at straws.

The voices are all varied volume inflection and clarity. To me, voice 2 is the same as voice 4, just closer to the mike on the clips he plays.



So this is your idea of a credibility test is it!?

Only those with the same ignorance and gullibility as yourself, ie. no reasoning ability, nor any motivation at all to verify that what is said is actually complete bovine excrement, actually pass the test.

Meh!!!

 

You forgot to explain why the object moves along the visor the way a bubble would.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=NVbBFwdmldA
(2:07 time mark)

It has a tendency to go upward. It doesn't follow its original trajectory.

Also, if that's not a bubble, tell us how a bubble would behave?

 

It doesn't move "along the visor", it just follows a path in front of it. It changes size much more than an object in water would do, in a variant drop in water pressure of 2 feet. This indicates a trajectory towards the camera. There is also static charge in a vacuum which is greatly increased due to zero humidity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_electricity#Static_discharge_in_space_exploration

That's your comeback is it? The "bubble" that isn't round or curved that happens to come from near his body?

Have you any idea just how simple it is to remove objects from video using after effects?

Why? It isn't a bubble, and how a bubble behaves is irrelevant!

It would probably adhere to his visor then rise vertically with little visible expansion in such a short distance. It would be of a curved nature, not like this:-




You forgot to acknowledge a single one of my points or offer rebuttal, but then you haven't done that on 90% of my posts, so nothing new there.

 

Luckily for you, you're anonymous. If you're a physics professor, you'll get laughed out of your department if your colleagues and students learn that you said this.

There's really not much else to do on this thread. You weren't able to bury the hoax evidence with lots of trash posts as all the evidence is on page one of the thread. All the Apollo defenders have destroyed their credibility by taking the position that the Chinese spacewalk was real.

This pretty much wraps it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

I guess that the Black Knight is going to press on anyway though.

 

Once again you willfully ignore any real evidence.

There is no evidence that the chinese space walk was faked , only an assertion from you that it was.

In addition it is you ignoring physics in favor of ad hominen.

All of your claims have been shredded and debunked and you know it you just repeat your self.

 

Nothing you say has any credence, you willfully ignore everything presented. Even the maker of that film grudgingly admits he got it wrong!

But all you can come back with is a "bubble" next to his helmet that magically accelerates and grows to 5 times its original size!

I have not met one single physicist in my entire life, student or otherwise, who thinks the Apollo missions were hoaxed. That particular piece of ignorance is solely in the realms of the under achiever.

Adios spammer.

That was your goal, post your spam on page one and hope that others with the same lack of ability to undertand simple physics, or the inclination to read the thread in its entirety would be swayed by your wall of spam.

I am making another video just about you, showing your modus operandi and why you have no intention of debating this. The bottom line is, you sling enough dung and hope some of it sticks, when all you get in reality, is a big mountain of dung.

Bluster avoid, bluster avoid.

You make no attempt at rebuttal on anything I write. That says everything about you as supposedly being a "twoofer".

Bank on it. Not just everything you contend, I will also do numerous follow ups on comments I have gathered from your blog spam, youtube spam and forum spam posts.

People who seek the truth about something do not maintain their position in the face of overwhelming counter evidence.

How ironic that you point that video at people, when it is the most perfectly apt description of yourself.

 

As per your own quoted site:-

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

"5. Side-track opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy..."

"6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer."

Or Both!!

"9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion."

All of the above.

"12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues. "

As witnessed with your vast repeated spam post, that very few people will read, let alone reply to in any great detail.

"15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place."

Now I don't actually attribute this to you, since your conclusions are from others. You just adopt them as your own.

"18. Emotionalise, Antagonise, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated..."

Ad hominems etc.

"25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen."

As witnessed on 95% of the forums you post on, usually after getting your butt kicked, but quite often banned for rule breaking.

 

Link 1:-

This is a youtube search on "Moonfaker" by Jarrah White. I have no intention of debunking every single thing in his hopelessly ignorant videos. I offer instead a youtube search for "Moonfaker critique", where Phil Webb has already debunked a large proportion of them already:-

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=moonfaker+critique&aq=f


Link 2:-

This is a demonstration whereby having a Phd in no way gives you skills in other fields. Hologram image analysis is not photogrammetry.

Before I debunk this rubbish, I want to present a critique on David Groves.

1. He begins by telling us that he is the director for Quantec Image Processing Ltd, a point raised 3 times, as though it has some weight of argument. The company went into liquidation in 1999 and ceased to trade in 2000. The film came out in 2000.

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=1055&page=3#31777

2. Groves performs a heat experiment on the Kodak film, by placing it in an oven!! For those who understand physics, using convection as a means to heat something, when supposedly comparing to the activity in a vacuum where none such convective heat is possible, is just plain stupid.

3. Groves fires a full strength X-ray at the film and concludes that it is a comparison to Solar x-ray, when the x-ray strength from the Sun is less than 1/1000th of a standard x-ray machine! In addition, he lists the energy levels in measurements of REM, when this is a measurement of human tissue exposure, instead of RADS which is the unit he should have used!

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

4. He used the wrong camera, and gave no indication that the magazines had been strengthened as per the ones used on Apollo.

If he is a scientist, he's a pretty poor one, selling out to make a buck!

The actual clip

The video clip is from WHOTM. Groves says he places the secondary light source next to Aldrin, yet ignores the most obvious of all methods to determine where the source is, by eye. As can be seen from this photo close up, the centre of the picture is about 30 centimetres to the left of his boot and it is so stunningly obvious that the hotspot is pointing straight back at the camera! The light source is the spacesuit of Armstrong, lit up like a Christmas Tree from the Sun! The clip even shows the video record with him brightly lit.




Percy, the maker of the film, then compares the TV footage using low bandwidth 10 fps, exposed for the surface, to the picture lit by surface reflected light and exposed accordingly. Just plain daft, as though a TV picture on a Vidicon camera will compare to a Hasselblad still camera!

They then debunk themselves with some "normal" and "backlit" models of the LM. In the backlit versions, we see the ground shadows soften noticeably, and the ladder now casts a solid shadow! Way to go Percy, I'm sure none of the gullible HBs noticed that one!






Percy then goes on to indicate average Lunar albedo as 7%, and says it is "untenable" as a natural light reflector. Bunkum. I wonder how many people think the Moon is not bright enough when viewed from Earth!

http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut26-1.htm

"Our Moon’s average visual albedo is 0.12. The brightness of the Moon changes dramatically as its phase changes. During first and third quarters, the visible Moon is 50% illuminated by the Sun, but its brightness is only about 8% of full Moon -- an increase of 2.7 magnitudes. The Moon’s visual albedo on its illuminated segment gets progressively smaller as the angle between the Earth and Sun on the Moon (phase angle) increases. A major reason for this decrease of visual albedo with increasing phase angle is the greater creation of shadows on the irregular lunar surface, thereby reducing reflected light back to Earth."

Indeed, one of the properties of the Moon, is its propensity to reflect light back at the light source. It is why a full Moon is 8 times brighter than a half Moon.

The natural backlighting of the Moon's surface is obvious to all but blnkered HBs, and corrupt film makers. Remember also, that the average albedo accounts for such things as crater rims, depressions and rocks, which are much lower, so a reasonably open area of surface will be higher than the average.

Percy continues with his ignorance, by showing pictures exposed for the surface, up sun and distant terrain to supposedly demonstrate nearfield under exposed rocks have shadows. Bunkum.

He uses a picture of the LM with a huge over glare from the Sun, indicating a high exposure, to insist it has been filled in with a light. Yet, we see no shadow softening, and no secondary shadows as per his example shown above.

Continuing the clip, we hear the account of HJP Arnold (assistant to MD of Kodak 1966-74) where he makes some observations about the quality of the pictures.

Presumably the film makers used this to suggest that perfect photography was not possible. Despite the hundreds of duff photographs never shown, the hours and hours of practice performed, and preset aperture and exposures calculated, this is just more bunkum.

It did make me smile when I heard what Mr Arnold said:-

"That sequence of images on the Lunar surface, taken mainly by Armstrong of course, with that one camera, which incidentally was left on the Moon, so it's gonna be a marvellous relic for when we eventually get back there of course.... the film came back."

I get the impression he knows we landed on the Moon, and has no trouble believing the film made it back safely!


Percy now moves up a gear to pure subterfuge. He "analyses" the classic Aldrin photo and concludes all sorts of fall off problems, and alignment problems(from David Groves who concludes the camera must have been tilted down!) assuming I suppose that the Moon is as flat as a pancake! He then shows the picture to Jan Lundberg (of Hasselblad) who cannot explain it.
Perhaps if he had used the correct version, rather than a magazine adjusted crap copy, he would have had no problem with it at all?

Here is the photo analysed by somebody who knows what they are doing:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q07Xrsc397E"]YouTube - ‪5903, the "Man On The Moon" Apollo 11 Photograph‬‏[/ame]


Here is why Jan Lundberg was confused:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VZIwtrDsRQ"]YouTube - ‪Moon hoax for faster Dummies‬‏[/ame]

And visually, the picture shown to him, and the proper picture next to each other:-




Link 3:-

This is another clip from the film What Happened on the Moon.

Firstly he looks at a photo of Al Bean and concludes the astronaut was above him in the visor reflection as though it's impossible?? He was in a slightly elevated position. The area they took these photos was undulating and perfectly normal as one would expect from the Moon's surface.

He then concludes that 2 Apollo 11 photographs are suspect, because the horizon is a different level to other shots at different angles. Once again, for some reason, he seems to think the Moon is dead flat! Google Moon shows perfectly the terrain of the Apollo 11 landing site with its undulations, and is fully consistent with what is seen. HBs have no trouble in believing this contention, with David Percy begging the question at every opportunity, yet failing to realise this so simple point. (Due to constraints of pictures in a single post, I will elaborate on this, on the blogpost I make of this point).

This clip from the camera setup, shows the nature of the terrain, clearly undulating and a very wide area. This sequence alone, debunks the stupid "shot in a studio" contention!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=juIX4suNoFs&feature=player_detailpage#t=253s


Link 4:-

This is where I become suspicious of whether you have actually watched this clip. It is a small Real Player version of the film "Was it a Paper Moon", which you include later on in your wall of spam.

I will address that film separately.


Link 5:-

This is where some observant HB has noticed a Mythbusters film with some fleeting scratches on a small piece of film played back through a studio monitor and concludes they are "wires"!

Directly responded to by Mythbusters:-

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

Completely refuted in this clip from a very long wires debunk video:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjEItn1sSQg&feature=player_detailpage#t=44s

Not only does that clip show the two scratches appearing in the exact same frame as each other, but also shows that the scratch doesn't match the astronauts movement. Not wires - scratches. Bunkum.


Link 6:-

Doesn't work. I expect it is a clip from the WHOTM film, and I will address it in one series(including and expanding upon the two clips above).

 

I'm tempted to just plaster some links offering standard rebuttal to the whole lot of them!

Actually, more than tempted, here they are:-

http://www.clavius.org/
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/main.htm
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
http://pirlwww.lpl.arizona.edu/~jscotti/NOT_faked
http://science.howstuffworks.com/moon-landing-hoax.htm/printable
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://homepages.wmich.edu/~korista/moonhoax2.html
http://as204.blogspot.com/
http://www.ka9q.net/crackpots/apollohoax.html
http://www.iangoddard.com/moon01.htm
http://meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/howdoweknow.htm
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/conspiracytheorydidwegotothemoon.htm

Link 1:

Some quotes from the genius Bill Kaysing:-

Mr Kaysing seems to think the maximum possible Lunar surface temperature compares to an oven! There is no air on the Moon, so no convection. The actual surface temperatures on the Moon were not even close to maximum. The smart guys at NASA decided that landing early Lunar morning was a great idea!

He gives no indications or calculations as to how he decides the camera would bake like a cookie. There is only radiated heat from the Sun, and conductive heat for anything heated by it. Since the camera had very few parts in contact with the film, had extra shielding on it, and spent equal amounts of time in the shade, his contention is complete bunkum.

Stars are too faint to be captured without very long exposures. There is also the fact that light pollution from the Lunar day would limit what was possible.

http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Photograph_the_Stars

Charged particles don't cook things. The Apollo missions took 30 degree trajectories around the edges of the belts.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuH4rxda3Z4"]‪TLI Orbit Slice View‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Mr Kaysing doesn't do research, he just makes bare assertions and backs it up with anonymous witness accounts.

No they didn't. The Russians had their own Lunar landing program, they knew the Lunar surface was manageable with the right shielding and spacesuits.

They just spent billions of dollars exploding rockets for fireworks I suppose?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket)

Bill offers no proof of this, just his bare assertion.

Weather patterns match with photography and video footage taken during Lunar coast:-

http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=theories&thread=3132&page=2#90134

Multiple light sources create multiple shadows.

As for parallel shadows, bunkum:-

Bunkum. So stupid it is hardly worth debunking. Even now ISS astronauts talk about the stars. The idea that NASA blew up a shuttle because of one person who was going to reveal this stunningly obvious non secret, is ludicrous.

Yeah? My "friend" went there and measured it and he said it was fine. The photographs of Aldrin exiting kind of confirm that!


Now a bit of fun with Mr Kaysing and getting his story straight:-

That's His Story Part 2
According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts never left the earth.
The Apollo 11 vehicle, or Saturn 5, was sent out of people's sight, and then it was jettisoned into the South Atlantic, where all of the six [sic] that were launched now reside. There were no astronauts, of course, on board. (Nardwuar interview)

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts did leave the earth.
For the Conspiracy Theory show, he says he believes the astronauts lifted into orbit, waited several days, then splashed down in the ocean "as shown on film."

According to Bill Kaysing, the Apollo astronauts might have gone to the moon.
[A] trio of men supposedly made the quarter million mile journey between earth and its satellite. Now whether this journey was made or not, a great many people witness the failure of their leaders.... (We Never Went to the Moon, 2002, p. 70) [/quote]




Link 2:

First video shows the mockumentary about Kubrick directing the landings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_(mockumentary)

That documentary has been suckering in gullible HBs since it was first released. I question anybody's power of discernment when that appears in prime position on their website!

Loads of WHOTM and AFTHOTWTTM

Nothing not covered in those two films, to be addressed in the direct film analysis.



Link 3:

Link doesn't work.



Link 4:

Interview with Bart Sibrel. The liar.

http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/Bart Sibrel.htm


This video demonstrates that Bart Sibrel is very much wrong in his idiotic contentions about the "secret Apollo 11 film"!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T9ZM50n0z4"]‪Lunar Legacy 2/5‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

This video demonstrates that weather patterns match with on board photography and transmitted video, on the Apollo 11 trans lunar coast.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OnZwqc-96Y"]‪Apollo 11: Fingerprints in Deep Space‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Simple but effective video, showing the Earth rotating during a 10 minute video sequence shot during Apollo 11 Lunar coast.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMe4kBklHhA"]‪Apollo 11 - On the way to the Moon‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]


Link 5:

Link doesn't work, why am I not surprised at the presence of long defunct links present in your numerously repeated wall of spam from years gone by!


Link 6:

Aulis - the David Percy team, plus Jack "what is photogrammetry?" White! How poignant, as he presents one inept contention after another.

If I get the time and inclination, I may do a complete point by point rebuttal.

Here is one already done:-

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911


Link 7 and 8:

The same blog in both links. Nothing new, all covered in the list of links I presented above.


Link 9:

Cosmic apollo. Totally debunked here:-

http://www.clavius.org/bibdave32.html

I look at that sight and am appalled at the ignorance shown by the website owner. He actually contradicts himself by claiming we never landed on the Moon, and covering up alien bases we discovered when we landed on the Moon. Bunkum.


Link 10:

Another duff link. Clearly your spam and paste needs a review!


Link 11:

Yeah, needs a review, yet another duff link.


Link 12:

They discussed this at BAUT and ripped it to shreds.

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/94568-McGowan-s-quot-Wagging-the-Moondoggie-quot?

 

Last link doesn't work. No surprise since it is years old repeated spam.

I always have trouble with conspiracy theorists who attribute guilt to somebody because of how they "think" they look! This is especially true when considering HBs who are looking for absolutely anything as some kind of proof for their stupid hoax theory. The conviction rates of criminals would go through the roof if all that was needed was bare assertion to confirm "guilt".


Now, the contention itself. Not only is the full press conference full of light hearted moments, it is probably the first time any of one these 3 men has appeared in front of thousands of people and expected to talk publicly to them. Anybody who has got up to speak to just a room full of people will know that it can be quite nerve wracking and intimidating. These are astronauts, not media savvy people used to appearing in front of large gatherings.

The actual circumstances surrounding the press conference are more than adequate to explain why anybody wouldn't be at their best, if any such explanation were needed.

1. Apollo 11 spends 8 days in space and on the Moon, in itself that is quite a physical exertion, with no normal food, toilet facilities, beds or bathing.

2. Apollo astronauts land back on Earth July 24th and go straight into quarantine for just under 3 weeks.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LpTQdgThBI"]‪Apollo 11 40th Anniversary - The Mobile Quarantine Facility‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFg8aSiDnTU"]‪ABC - NBC News - Apollo 11 - 12/12‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

3. Quarantine ends on August 11th.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNEZZ_mUMWM"]‪Apollo 11 post-mission crew quarantine ends‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

4. Press conference August 12th the day after!

So, no proper R&R, no contact with their family, no time to go outside, no proper downtime and straight into a packed auditorium in front of the world's media. It is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that anybody would be in tip-top condition in those circumstances. Even so, they did a good presentation, answered numerous questions and as can clearly be seen (for anybody who wants to trawl through 90 minutes of this!) there are numerous instances where everybody has a good laugh.

But all HBs can do is say "they look guilty"!

Here are some videos showing the exact opposite of that. Relaxed, proud, happy and with no problem recounting their individual accounts of their missions:-

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4qlZcWWWL0"]‪Neil Armstrong: NASA 50th Anniversary Gala‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A8BEIVa1rM"]‪Apollo 40th Anniversary Press Conference‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bF_VVfB8b8"]‪Apollo 11 Anniversary - CBS News w/Buzz Aldrin, Alan Bean & Charlie Duke‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

Good work Betmax101. But could I just point out, before any other joker does, that in the above quote I'm sure you meant to say:

no problem recounting their individual accounts of their missions

 

From the first link:-

"Things don't seem to have the damping in their motions that would be expected from water immersion...the inertia without friction causes them trouble at several points. There are several instances of "bubbles", but no buoyancy to them...they actually seem to radiate from a projection further on down. Popping flakes of ice/paint/insulation from surfaces heating/cooling, perhaps caught in maneuvering thruster blasts?"

That is actually one point I hadn't considered. There are frequent thruster adjustments to maintain the orb-rate attitude.

"I disgaree, only an "insane conspiracy nut" would see that "something is wrong". A normal person might say "I don't understand why the rope appears to be coming out of the hatch, what explanations could there be?" Or they might realise that almost all pipes, ropes and wires tend to straighten out, as this one is doing, pushin itself out of the container in the process.

Furthermore when a curved rope or cable in a confined area on a spacecraft is suddenly unconfined on one side it might float out. There are some good videos of astronuats on the shuttle fighting with cables coming out of a locker in exactly the same manner."

"As I mentioned above, just because it's weird doesn't mean it's suspicious. Because the cable is weightless, the shape it takes is primarily determined by the shape it had when it was stowed. In this case, the shape of the cable is forcing it into a position "above" the bar to which it's tethered. That's why the cable looks like it's floating."

"Ah, thank you, that is much better. When you stop and start the video in half second increments the right looks angular to me and changes in attitude as well. I think it is a small piece of flat debris, foil, insulation paper maybe. The same appears to be the case on the right hand side one as well. Again, flatness, angularitry and opposite sense of movement are not what you woudl expect from bubbles."

"It appears to be moving in that direction, but that image is a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimension reality. What direction it really is moving it would require photogrammetry."

This post from that thread, which sums it up quite well:-

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/87594-Chinese-space-walk-conspiracy?p=1480461#post1480461


And this one, which I have bolded as it confirms my own analysis totally:-

"Something that is ejected, say, from the capsule by an impulse of escaping gas or a mechanical effect does not fly away from the capsule in a straight line. In fact it enters its own orbit around Earth, very similar in period and other orbital elements to the capsule itself. But what this means is that as the capsule pursues its orbit and the fragment pursues its own very similar (but not identical orbit) the fragment will be seen to move in various directions relative to the capsule. In orbital operations this is known as periodic recontact, and it is something we have to plan for when we schedule intentional ejections."


From the second link:-

"True, but the point is that it was written in advance and we agree that it was sensible to have done so. If you have reports written in advance to cover all of the likely outcomes, it's only a matter of time time before an inappropriate one is released accidentally. If the Nixon administration writes a speech in advance for a contingency, then it's just good thinking. If the Chinese news agency does the same thing, they're typical disinformationists."

"1 meter per frame, 30 frames a second so the "water jet used to achieve neutral boyancy" (Why??? Last time I went diving I managed it with a few weights,) is travelling at 30 meters per second.

Who would believe that?
Are they completely deranged?"

Once again you make your credibility test based on your own ignorance.

As for your opposingdigits, look at your own behaviour!

Click Here

Meh.

If there was damage in the first place! Once again offering your opinion as the finite analysis of something. It's pretty clear they are full of people a quantum leap smarter than yourself, who aren't gullible or ignorant and who don't spend their lives spamming the internet.

One of your other spam sites, offering more Aulis regurgitation. Each of those threads has correct assessments on them. Once again I cite somebody who has refuted this already (though his links to the ALSJ are a little out of date - I may need to rewrite this).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5911

Irrelevant. This is called attacking the messenger. The purpose of which is to indirectly suggest that his extremely competent rebuttals are in some way suspect.

From that link, somebody has also noticed your propensity to spam:-

http://forum.davidicke.com/showpost.php?p=1059060846&postcount=4

That's given me a great idea for the video I was preparing!

"If the webmaster used to work in aerospace, then doesn't that mean he and all the other contributors could be part of the conspiracy?"

"Yes, it's possible but not very rational. The conspiracists wish to divide their opponents into two groups, those who know very little about the moon landings and therefore don't have the knowledge required to see through the holes in the conspiracy theory, and those who know quite a bit about the moon landings and therefore (say the conspiracists) are probably part of the conspiracy. To stack the deck so that all the possibilities point to the conspiracy is to avoid seriously examining the question. Evidence which seriously challenges the conspiracy must be dealt with, regardless of who proposes it.

As a practical matter, the webmaster has never worked for NASA. He has no financial interest in supporting NASA's claims."

 

Whoops, that typo kind of sucks.

Corrected on my blog:-

http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/guilty-astronauts.html

 

Actually what she says is that the scientists who worked at the company she worked at, sold out for money. To use somebody talking about corruption within the Nuclear power industry is completely irrelevant. This tarring of all scientists with the same brush is an act of subterfuge called poisoning the well. It ignores the fact that anybody who makes claims about a hoax is subject to these same parameters.

The startling fact about this "whistleblower", is that she makes a whole lot of money talking about this freely and openly, yet the evil powers haven't seen fit to silence her! Bunkum.

Again you cite an irrelevant case. The safety aspect of using depleted uranium is thought to be questionable. But long term studies suggest otherwise. Scaremongering is very much a popularity grabber these days!

The first case cited April 15, 1999, the second video in 2011. Do you have an updated release from the Rand corporation given the new studies available to them?

http://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P8066.html

Yes. Now all you have to do is to establish any single scientist tied to the Apollo programs who has spoken out about this. There are thousands of retired ones, not needing research grants or money, yet nobody has voiced an alternate opinion to the correct official account. There are millions of physics students throughout the world who offer no objection to the calculus involved in Lunar gravity, space radiation or radio transmissions. There are large numbers of engineers in all countries who also do not dispute the efficacy of the Apollo hardware. Orbital mechanics which is a very complex subject supports all aspects of the Apollo program.

To suggest they are all keeping quiet implies that they are all aware of a hoax and simply doing so to maintain funding and to stay alive. Bunkum.

Meh.

An example where half assed research is presented as fact with no proper peer review. It is difficult to change anything when it is steeped in thousands of such peer-reviewed documents. Let alone by somebody who offers no counter to any of these documents, yet offers "Anti-Darwinian" theories based on suspect research and conclusions.

No, it means that if somebody presents crap unsubstantiated research to people who have previously performed superb research, it will be met with scorn.

Attributing this to finite science like geology has so many logical fallacies I don't know how to label it. How about just plain stupid. I did a full debunk on rock analysis by numerous institutions. The conclusions are nothing to do with keeping a hoax going, and it unintentionally adds a vast number of people to those who are
"keeping the secret"! Geologists have no affinity to government or for that matter NASA. As stated previously, there are numerous now retired people who have examined the rocks.

No deathbed confessions, lawyer letters, whistleblowing tapes or leaked documents. Bunkum.

Watergate and Monicagate to name just two. The modern press is littered with conspiracy stories, often with total scorn, but not always. The idea that somebody coming forward to blow the whistle on Apollo would be ignored is a ludicrous statement. It would make a story that would go viral in seconds.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=William+Schaap++-+The+Media,+CIA,+FBI+&+Disinfo.+&aq=f
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /Propaganda_System_One.html[/quote]

Link 1:-

Somebody does a cartoon about news restriction. Amazing proof.

Link 2:-

More Noam Chomsky and his freely expressed opinions. Still very much alive!

Link 3:-

More people alive and well, freely talking about restrictions in reporting on intelligence services and the CIA level of control. You'd think the evil people they were exposing would have bumped them off wouldn't you?!

Link 4:-

General search on one of the people in link 3 - William Schaap. He is still freely talking, giving his opinion and not being bumped off.

Link 5:-

More Chomsky. Zzzzzz. Same thing, freely expressing his opinion, and still alive. I'm seeing a pattern here.

Link 6:-

Chomsky, yada yada yada.

Link 7/8/9:-

More "media is controlled by the evil powers", and a headline quote from 1880.
Link 10:-

Laura Knight-Jadczyk article. I shall simply state that this lady also postulates that Comet Elenin is the harbinger of doom.

Link 11:-

This is my favorite! The evil Fox news network exposed. This being the same evil Fox news network that ran a documentary of profound stupidity about a supposed Apollo Moon hoax!!

You just cannot make up this level of contradictory stupidity.

Link 12:-

Same as links 7/8/9. Media whistleblowers, loads of articles from people telling their story, who fascinatingly are all still alive.

Link 1:-

Have to laugh here. The evil Fox news network documentary now telling the twoof! More bunkum and speculation already discussed, concerning Apollo 1. As for link 2 below, a repeat link.

Link 2:-

Just a complete repeat of the section about deathbed confessions.
http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.com/2011/07/deathbed-confessions.html

Link 3:-

People who disbelieve the official 911 story, suggested as being murdered to keep them quiet. Yet, hundreds upon hundreds of far more active campaigners remain alive. People who produce films that reach wide audiences, people who write books, people on youtube who churn out thousands of films.

Major campaigners such as Alex Jones and David Icke, website owners, truth organisations. All still very much alive.

continued.....

 

Another wall of spam - wow! It should be taken as read that corruption in government is a given. There are all sorts of behind the scenes activities, subvertive motives and undisclosed operations. It is primarily a matter of establishing and keeping American interest abroad. Some of it sucks badly.

However, your use of it to link to the Apollo Moon landings is a big non-sequitur pile of bovine excrement. Apollo was the most open, detailed, heavily explained series of missions ever performed. There are hundreds of thousands of technical documents, films, photographs, audio and scientific publications.

The presence of this data presents a piece of history that can be analysed to as high a degree as could possibly be made. There is nothing missing from the detail that could be explained by subterfuge. There is no subterfuge that could explain the total detail released. The two go hand in hand.

When any rational person examines the science behind Apollo, there can be no question that the mission detail offers as complete and satisfactory account as any private citizen could require.

Begging the question. They don't. They support it because it wasn't faked.

Scientists around the world know Apollo was not faked. NASA is by no means the only source of data and information from space, and to suggest silence being bought for remaining quiet about a "hoax", involves thousands of complicit scientists, none of which has ever offered whistleblowing testimony upon retirement or deathbed confession.

Yes. No question about it. Human beings are inherently unable to keep secrets.

This is the old "compartmentalising" argument. This completely falls apart under the simple premise, that without direct knowledge, the half million people doing their jobs, would do so to ensure the mission was successful.

The whole scenario about hoaxes is perfectly summed up with this summary from the Clavius website:-

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


Summary:-

This section of the "wall of spam" highlights two points that massively contradict each other.

We have the premise that scientists and governments lie, "demonstrated" with whistleblowers and articles written and spoken by numerous individuals very much alive.

We then have the premise that nobody would speak out about Apollo because they would fear for their lives!

BUNKUM!