A new viewpoint, I think I got it from something on Youtube, or maybe it was from the latest Kecksburg video on TV: Werner Vahn Braum let it slip that the gravity null point between the earth and moon is about 44,000 miles from the surface of the moon. He said this a few weeks after the successful Apollo Moon Mission. Calculations on that basis indicate that the mass of the moon is such that its gravity is considerably more than just 1/6th that of earth's. An expert says that the return liftoff and trajectory rate of the lunar module is clearly not that of a vehicle relying solely on its conventional rocket engine power. Therefore it had to have been augmented by secret technical means such as field propulsion or some form of anti-gravity process. Oddly, Vahn Braun promptly resigned from the space program and went to work for another company (I can't recall the name, maybe General Dynamics or something along that line). All the fuss about video/photo anomalies indicating faked lunar activities is, supposedly, brought about by NASA showing simulations of the real thing in order to avoid revealing existence of secret advanced technology.
The so-called anomalies are generally from unschooled enthusiasts pretending to be photographic and video analysis experts.
Does this mean there aren't any valid anomalies? The status of the reported anomalies is more important than the status of who reported them.
I haven't seen a purported anomaly that couldn't be explained. So many of them are as silly as shadows not behaving the way some amateur expects them to, while others are cleared up simply by viewing the full original image at a higher resolution. You'll notice that the hoax proponents tend to rely on low-quality, truncated images. The one I had the most fun arguing about with someone on another forum, though, was the apparent size of the sun. In any photo where the full disc of the sun is in the frame and unobstructed, you'll see it looking really big.. But then, if it's partially obscured or you see a ray shining into the lens from an angle, it looks much smaller, as you'd expect. It turns out that when it's not obscured and fully in the frame, there's a really bright halo effect around it. I had no clue about that starting out, but the truth became apparent through the debating and researching I was doing. And anyone can go dig through the mission photos from each Apollo mission, along with other data, including video clips, at NASA's Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/
Well done, I guess, since this is not my area of strong focus or expertise. But I do recall the official debunking of the claimed hoaxes, a presentation on TV. They seemed to have covered every single claim except the one about a comparison of photos where hatch marks weren't carrried over like they should have been. Got anything on that?
Von Braun did not "let slip" anything. The Point referred to was the distance from the Moon where the lunar gravity starts to have more effect than the Earth's, supposedly referring to the L1 Lagrange point. Now, if we were talking in terms of a straight line between the two bodies, the conclusion would be that the gravity would indeed be more than 1/6th on the Moon. However, with even a small amount of research, that clearly has not been made, one can see very easily that the Apollo trajectories were long elliptical orbits and very much not straight lines. The point at which the Moon's gravity would have more effect is where the craft lies at a small angle in front of the Moon's orbit - not the L1 lagrange point. This diagram illustrates the path and demonstrates why this claim is bogus:- http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/pics/freereturn.gif
This statement doesn't make the mountain of hoax proof go away and there are scenarios that would explain it. Take a look at the stuff in this post. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=37&p=4731597&viewfull=1#post4731597 (post #1087)
You do not have a mountain of proof. You have nothing but empty bluster. http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/
I see that both of you ignored post #7. http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/302868-real-veil.html#post1062710520 Let's hear you explain the issue of the buoyant safety cables. http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487&page=132&p=6317012&viewfull=1#post6317012 (post #3957) Let's hear you explain the flag movement while you're at it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn6MTrin5eU (2:35 time mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7yc2rVOs00
Oops I don't NEED to explain anything,only a complete nong nong thinks the moon missions were faked in a studio
If you were wondering why he hadn't replied, it was probably because he was busy typing the same spam across 24 videos on youtube! http://www.youtube.com/user/FatFreddy88 "This is off-topic but it's space-related." I pity him, that is just plain crazy behaviuour.
Well funny you should say that. I lived in Australia and we had a local TV station pirate the signal coming in from Parks and Honeysuckle receivers. So if it was all fake I would say the effort to fake it would have been harder than just going up there and doing it
Go pee up a rope,scott/cosmored/fatfreddy88/david c...You keep using the SAME debunked 'info' get a life
