regaurdless of your pompous ignorance the fact remains that the apollo missions do not represent a valid example of the true definition of science-- it has not been repeated for over a generation much less by another independant source as would be the norm required of others in pusuit of validation-- you have no choice but to accept that reality-- imo the biggest smoking gun is the fact that we did not maintain a sustained campaign considering the apparent ease in which it was perceived to have been acomplished-- surely if it had been that easy the moon would have been the 52nd state by now

I think the reasons why the Apollo programme was curtailed have been detailed on this and other forums many times (lack of funding, political will, public support). Of course, there were nine manned missions to the moon which does represent something of a sustained campaign (2 fly-bys, six successful landings, one failed landing).

One thing is certain, to use the fact that they only went to the moon nine times as proof that they never went at all can hardly be classified as a "smoking gun".

Onto your assertion requiring repetition by an independent source as means of validation. That may apply to laboratory experiments where results need to be cross-checked, validated, repeated, etc. It hardly applies to a huge programme like Apollo. Are you seriously suggesting that until a non-US organisation flies men to the moon and verifies that it could indeed be done, Apollo should be regarded as a fake? That's what it sounds like. What about all the evidence supporting the landings, versus the pro-hoax evidence based on faulty assumptions, poor logic and ignorance of scientific and photographic principles? Does that get ignored until someone else repeats the claim? After Apollo 11, mission planners were hardly saying to themselves "OK, we think we landed on the moon, but in the interests of scientific validation we'd best go again just to make sure we really did get there." Fallacy of the faulty analogy I'm afraid.

If someone else claims to land on the moon, what evidence must be presented for you to believe them, given that the huge amount of evidence in favour of Apollo doesn't seem sufficient?

Cheers

On the contrary, the Russian collection of lunar samples with unmanned probes provided excellent confirmation of the validity of the Apollo samples. Remember that the Apollo samples were not what was expected pre-Apollo, as they did not fit any of the three current theories of the moon's origin. It was only in the late 1970s that a new theory that agreed with the Apollo and Russian samples was developed.

So, Apollo returned rocks with unexpected characteristics that were subsequently verified by an independent source - neat work for a hoaxer.

As to not following up the missions, when was the next visit to the South Pole following the Amundsen and Scott expeditions? When will the UK or Australia next conduct a satellite launch? Where is the successor to Concorde? There are plenty of counter-examples to your claim that lack of follow-up indicates a hoax.

You have still failed to produce any actual evidence of a hoax.

Until recently this thread, whilst occasionally heated, has been a civil an intelligent discussion. Several posts recently have been neither of this things.

sunofone
Your recent posts have been nothing short of flame baiting. You have already been warned once over your tactics. This is the second and last friendly warning you will receive. Comments such as the following: constitute a personal attack and are against the terms of service of this board:

Please do not continue to behave in this manner. You would do well to follow the example of turbonium who has earned the respect of those of us who disagree with him because of the articulate and polite manner in which he expresses his opinions.

MID
I fully understand your frustration with sunofone, but please leave the moderating to the moderators. You have made your point about sunofone's posts, there is no need for further comment. If you think he (or any other member) is breaching the terms of service then please hit the report button and explain your misgivings to the moderating team. If you believe that some one is trying to start a flame war the best tactic is not to fan the flames.

This thread WILL remain a civil and intelligent debate. How that is achieved is up to those of us that take part in it. Moderator action is never the desired tactic.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Waspie,
Sorry old chap...it's that moderator/administrator thing rearing its head...(force of habit, as I am one of those folks elsewhere)!

Pompous ignorance is so harsh.
I prefer to call it "Talent on loan from God...half my brain tied behind my back just to make it fair".
(Rush will forgive me...)




...at any rate, I believe Posty and Swanny have addressed these points you make...but I can add something, hopefully not too pompous and ignorant...





You are making a mistake in interpretation here.
Apollo is a valid example of the application of science. It did not represent the discovery of new phenomena, and experimentation upon that phenomena to arrive at a theoretical construct or a new scientific law.

The science behind Apollo was already established long before man went to the Moon. It was not new. What Apollo did was apply sciences by creating new craft and new technologies to allow human beings to apply it in an adventure. That adventure would expand other sciences where further observation and experimentation were necessary to develop more complete understandings, as in selenology, Earth sciences, computer sciences, and in various areas of human medical research as pertains to the environment of space, to name a few.

What Apollo was--was an engineeering project. We knew how to go to the Moon, and anywhere else we wanted to go in the solar system (the science behind that is the same everywhere). What Apollo did was build the tools to allow humans to apply those sciences. People like Ptolemy, Kepler, Newton, Lagrange, Einstein, and Hohmann had figured out the sciences long before men ever went there. We applied their discoveries pragmatically.

We did that. The validation of an engineering project involves the design, fabrication, testing, modification, re-testing, and execution of the planned thing that whatever-it-is was designed to do. That was also fully documented and established with Apollo hardware.

What it did was apply already established and long ago verified science to an end. Celestial mechanics was established centuries ago, and had already been proven out in a variety of scientific laws that withstood scrutiny, experimentation, and various applications long prior to Apollo. We were using it to go to the Moon. Apollo was about the technology designed in order to do the mission. And, since it is the most documented technical endeavor in human history, verified by scientists and engineeers world wide, and demonstrated on live television to the whole world, the idea of independednt verification is a little silly, since it was independently verified by the hundrerds of independent firms who were involved with many aspects of the programs machinery.


You see, the job of engineeers is to take the knowledge of science (already established) and make practical use of it. That's what Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo did.
These projects were the definition of applied science.





Smoking guns, as has been clearly shown before, do not exist in Apollo.
A careful read of the copious amount of information that has appeared here, and on other similar threads would clearly tell you why a sustained campaign was not maintained. It was political and societal and all-too-typical in nature (in other words, public interest, political priorities, and money rule).


We wanted to...but even if we were permitted to, the Moon would not be the 52nd state by now (you really must read the space treaties regarding territorial claims of heavenly bodies....).


Thus,


I shall ask you again to get back on track and repeat again my questions:

Come on, flyingswan. I thought I had long since clarified my intentions regarding this issue. Obviously, I was mistaken.

I assume you're referring to this comment, which I posted back in May....

NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you" during the Gemini program.

It was intended as nothing more than a facetious, tongue-in-cheek remark. I really didn't think it could be taken in any other way. But as MID pointed out... "Maybe a or a might have made your intent clear...?"

I understood MID's contention with my remark - not everyone will "get it" when I make an off-hand, facetious remark (no matter how obvious it may appear to me), without adding a winking/laughing emoticon. So be it - I'm fine with that. And knowing that, it should help me to avoid a similar problem from arising in the future.

But your contention is totally off-base - I was not lying. These are basic definitions of "lie"...

lie: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

Notice the key phrases above - "deliberately presented as being true"... "meant to deceive"

I was not trying to deceive the reader(s) into thinking that my comment was a factual statement.

(Out of curiousity, did you even consider what potential motive there would be for me to lie? How could it possibly benefit my argument, if people were fooled into thinking that NASA coined the phrase "What you don't know can't hurt you"?!? It's ludicrous.)

I didn't want to go off-topic here, but after being accused of lying, I felt it was necessary for me to set the record straight.

'Nuff said...

I'll add my own "two cents" worth, as I see it....

First of all, I don't think the problem is that the post-Apollo generation sees enormous challenges as being insurmountable. I think it's related to the fact that we have become increasingly skeptical of what we are being told by our government(s) and mainstream media. Past generations, up to and including the WWII era, had complete faith and trust in what they were being told by their government and media.

That attitude started to change significantly during the 50's (McCarthyism) and, especially, during the 60's with the Vietnam war.

Then the 70's gave us Watergate, the 80's gave us Iran-Contra, and the 90's gave us Monicagate. WMD's and 9/11 and Iraq war, political payoffs to corporate conflict-of-interests, drug smuggling, open borders, etc. have current public perception of the government at an all-time low.

It's not so much that the post-Apollo generation considers enormous challenges to be insurmountable. It's more that they don't have any faith or belief that their government(s) will take up those challenges in the best interests of the public, instead of creating a cash-cow for their favored corporate interests.

Apollo 16's Charlie Duke said this about the spacesuit's (lack of) flexibility, in an interview...

"So the suit is still as rigid as it is on Earth so you couldn't bend it at the waist, nor could you do a deep knee-bend, you couldn't squat."

http://homepage.mac.com/sjbradshaw/baxteri...ax_duke_iv.html

Looks to me like doing a deep knee-bend wasn't much of a problem, after all...





The interview noted above is one example, but many other articles similarly point out just how little flexibility there was for an Apollo astronaut inside his pressurized spacesuit.

Those comments make sense. The problem is that several of the Apollo video clips appear to contradict that claim, such as the one posted above.

Since both claims cannot be right, either...

1. Duke, and those quoted in other articles, are all wrong, or lying, about how very flexible the spacesuits really were, or...

2. The astronauts in the video clips are not in properly pressurized spacesuits, which is why they were able to do deep knee-bends, etc.

Another clip with a knee-flex, but this time....in mid-air!...



His feet are lifting up, flexing his knees in mid-air, at the same time as he's pushing himself up with his arms.

Hmm..

This is a great clip...



Here are 4 frames from the clip...



How is he able to levitate in mid-air? He didn't push up with his arm. He can't push his entire body into mid-air with just the toes of his left foot.

He's being pulled up.

Depends on how you define a deep knee bend, as opposed to just bending the knee.

Do you mean this?



Or do you mean this?



Of course, it's not really relevant what you or I mean by a "deep-knee bend" or a "squat", it's what Duke meant. My interpretation is that inability to do a deep knee bend, or squat, means this:-



I've never heard anyone say that Apollo suits didn't have some flexibilty in knee joint. Clearly, that flexibility was somewhat restricted.

Sorry Turbs, but it seems another case of using semantics to try and prove your case.

Turbs... you're forgetting a very important factor. Low gravity.

Here's a link to the full clip (it's near the end) - http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16v.1443239.rm

Quite clearly he's pushing forward and upward with his feet while trying to get his balance and stand upright. You can see how far forward he moves, hence how much purchase his feet must have had on the surface, by comparison with the cylindrical object core extraction tube he's just pushed into the ground.

As for just using the toes of his left foot, you can clearly see him slightly bend his knees before straightening them, and propelling himself forward and upwards. he isn't just using his toes - he's using the power in his knees (it's just his toes that are in contact with the surface).

When you say levitating, I hope you don't mean floating in the same spot? He's quite obviously moving forward towards the camera.

As with your dictionary, as I've bolded in the quote, mine also gives definitions of "lie" which do not include an intent to deceive: "anything misleading" and "to give a false impression". Your invented quote certainly misled me at the time, which is why I asked you for the source. I might also point out, without being personal, that it is a common conspiracy theorist tactic to call any apparent contradiction in an official document a lie, regardless of intent.

Fair enough, Turb. I appreciate the two cents.




I was adressing this comment you made,



This seems to indicate that there is some generational doubt regarding the ability to overcome challenges...almost as if it's impossible today to overcome daunting challenges...which might not be that far from the truth in many areas of endeavor today. The extension is that if we can't do it today, how could they have done it back then?
Understanding the challenges, and what was done to overcome them, is a matter of knowledge. The technology developed for that purpose in the 1960s was more than adequate to accomplish the job.


At any rate, I'm interested in what challenges were too difficult to overcome as pertains to Apollo.

Nonetheless, you bring up some interesting points...






I think the attitude started to change significantly after Kennedy was murdered, to be honest with you, and with good reason. However, it has been amplified beyond all reason in the present age, and that is a matter of the deterioration in education that has occurred in profound measure in the post-Apollo generation or so. The lack of science and mathematical education, and the logic, critical, and rational thinking skills that were always part and parcel of such curriculae, have ebbed severely in the past 30 years. That is a recipe for what is sometimes lunacy.

McCarthyism was a complex and rather short lived paranoia which was influenced by many factors. It was not hidden, not a conspiracy. It had many negative manifestations to be sure, but it was not a matter of distrust of government. It was more a matter of seeing clearly what was going on among some people in the government and saying, "Enough is enough."

Viet Nam was also not a hidden matter. It was clearly something we should not have been involved in. It was something that probably wouldn't have happened if Kennedy had lived. It too was in no way a hidden thing. It was right out there in the open.

Watergate was a true conspiracy, the work of a very few, and even that was exposed, as most of these things are. People payed a high price for that. If anything, when the government...at least a small part of it, conspires, Watergate should give us confidence that it won't stand.

Iran Contra was President Reagan's thing. It was clearly seen, and the motivations for it are somewhat understood today, although any discussion of that affair would be complex. Suffice it to say that too, coundn't be hidden. Monicagate was exceeding small scale, and is a non-issue really, and 9-11 is what it was...the problem is, we're looking for something to pin on President Bush regarding that, and there's nothing there that will do so.


We have seen scandals and conflict in government in the past decades, certainly. All of them have been exposed clearly. But the lack of rationality, and the profound suspicion of everything government does that results from that lack, has many attempting to create a scandal in the Bush presidency, which still hasn't worked, has renedered the Democratic party impotent in Congress, and most recently has seen Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid wasting taxpayers money by using the floor of the U.S. Senate to attempt to legislate against a private citizen for remarks he never made (of course, that has been shoved to the back burner and has likely ended Senator Reid's future hopes of re-election).

I think this is all associated with the modern paradigm of escalated mis-trust in governmennt and lack of critical and rational thinking skills.


One must note that the various scandals and mis-conducts that have occurred have all been exposed. They've all been the product of a few people (i.e., a very small group) hiding somthing a wee bit off color, but they never get away with it.

Clinton couldn't even keep his Oval Office trysts with an intern out of the public eye!


But this has escalated into a complete mistrust of government, which is completely unfounded by and large, and an attempt to find something in everything that goes on. The 9-11 mythology is part of that paradigm. People are trying to find something on President Bush, and they can't. In their frustration, they make things up.


This may all seem a little off topic, and in reality it is in a way, but in another, it is not, because the same mindset goes back into a past time and attempts to construct a conspiracy surrounding the Apollo Moon landings.

Despite the fact that it is clear that any conspiracy is necessarily the product of a small group of people, and that almost all of them get nailed...we have people attempting to call Apollo a hoax because of the same mechanics, and yet, that conspiracy would've involved thousands of people...none of whom have ever spilled the beans in the slightest.


No, Apollo has nothing to do with Watergate, or Iran Contra, or Monicagate (which is just utter stupidity amplified into something significant). Apollo was a fact of history, and a testament to what a certain generation of Americans was able to do, in a time when science and technology was something Americans excelled in. It is incontrovertibly substantiated, perhaps the greatest accomplishment in American history, and yet, due to this complex paradigm of distrust and lack of education, it too has been added to the roster of conspiracies that a select group wish to attempt to justify.


It cannot be justified. No evidence has ever been found in support of it, and the distrust which sparks the controversy is actually a lack of rational thinking skills and a societal mindset which flies in the face of the facts.


Conspiracies are small scale, and most never succeed. Apollo was a huge scale program involving hundreds of thousands of people...none of who have provided anything which would indicate that the program was a fake.


It's impossible to have faked this program. History clearly indicates that.


Thus, I ask what about the technology of the 1960s was inadequate to have accomplished Apollo?
The aspect of distrust of government is certainly understood, but is somewhat irelevant in that the idea points to a lack of knowledge and education, rather than toward some sort of evidentiary construct.

I agree with your above sentiments MID, there are a lot of factors that have led to todays society and lack of logical skill. However for the first time ever I have to disagree with one of your statments!



This has got to be some sort of logical fallacy, it's impossible to know that they have all been exposed.

No, I am taking that into account. Since it's your contention that this was actually filmed on the Moon, in 1/6th gravity, I address the problems which exist (such as this issue) specifically under those conditions.

I'm absolutely certain that low gravity does not - and cannot - account for what transpires in this video clip. More on that later...



For our reference, below, I've included the segment where he pushes the tube into the ground....



He does indeed lean his body downward and forward, using the weight of his upper body to help push the tube into the ground.

But only his right foot remains in contact with the ground while he pushes down on the tube - his left foot lifts completely off the ground, then comes down.

Then, his left knee briefly touches down to the ground, before he begins to "lift" his entire body into mid-air.

How is he able to do this? More on this, in my next post...

No, that's not what happens. I've slowed down the sequence which shows his "lift" into mid-air...



I've cropped two frames, to focus on the position of his lower body while he is in mid-air...



In still #1, we can see both legs are still bent upward at the knees. In still #2, his left knee has bent even further up, while his right leg is beginning to straight out, down towards the ground.

His knees remain bent - from the time he is on the ground until he is completely in mid-air!

This is important. If he was truly "propelling himself forward and upwards", by using the power in his knees and toes, his knees would be straightening out, while his toes (feet) would have to remain in contact with the ground, in order to generate the power needed to propel his entire body up into mid-air.

His left knee, as I mentioned, does briefly touch down to the ground. But when it lifts back up from the ground again, the leg does not straighten out - it remains bent. That means it cannot be a source to generate the power needed to propel the body into mid-air. The right knee also remains bent from ground to mid-air. In fact, the right leg raises off the ground before the left leg, which further eliminates it as a possible source of power to propel the body into mid-air.

Another sequence illustrates this....



He cannot "propel" himself into mid-air by the toes of his left foot, which is the last contact point he has with the ground before his whole body rises up into mid-air. Not in 1g, nor in 1/6g.

The only way he can do this is with external help - he is clearly being lifted up from the ground.

I consider this to be solid evidence showing that Apollo was hoaxed.

I agree about JFK's murder being a major turning point in public perception - a significant loss of faith and trust in the government. But - what do you mean, that "it has been amplified beyond all reason" today? "Official" history still holds to the absurd claim that Oswald killed JFK - the Lone Nut Theory (LNT). All our schoolteachers and textbooks still spew out the LNT, as if it were an indisputable "fact" - year after year. The mainstream media still holds to the LNT, and every so often, will try to "debunk" the "crazy" conspiracy theories, once and for all, in one of their "special investigative report's".

I find it extremely odd (and moreso, disturbing) that even today, after all the evidence has falsified the LNT beyond any doubt, that the public education system and mainstream media continue to uphold this outhright falsehood as the indisputable truth!!



It wasn't hidden, as an overall issue, although I do think there were elements of conspiracy involved. As we later learned, people were threatened in secrecy by McCarthy's "witch-hunters" to "squeal" on so-called "Commie sympathizers", or else they'd be tagged as "Reds" themselves, and have their careers and lives destroyed.



I wasn't citing all those events because they were "hidden". Of course, Vietnam was not a hidden event! I'm talking about events which have caused the public to lose faith and trust in their government(s). Those events may be hidden (or once were), or were not hidden at all. Vietnam was the first war which caused our military to begin questioning itself, and its true purpose. The first war which turned American citizens against its own military - most specifically, against the gov't honchos in command.



It's possible that it could have had such a "silver lining", but it only generated further public distrust of the gov't.



Not hidden, but another nail in the coffin of public faith.



Tabloid stuff, I agree. Maybe just a "thumbtack" in the coffin...



I won't go into 9/11 here - let's just say we disagree on this.


The rest of your post dealt with conspiracies, which is not what my reply to your question centered on, so I'll end my post here.

"One must note that the various scandals and mis-conducts that have occurred have all been exposed. They've all been the product of a few people (i.e., a very small group) hiding somthing a wee bit off color, but they never get away with it."



I was going to point that out, Trini, but you've already done so!

I check back on this thread every so often, and every time you've come up with a completely different theory that you consider "solid evidence". If the evidence was really that "solid", you wouldn't need to have brought up so many different points, each and every one of which blatantly does not point towards a hoax.

The gravity is lower on the moon. What you can see is completely in line with someone stumbling over in lower gravity.

All you're doing is what most people on this forum do when they're trying to prove something that is obviously not the case - picking up on a tiny tiny detail and over-analyzing it to death til the opposition simply don't care any more.

The very fact that you've tried to pick up on so many different points over the course of this thread is not evidence of an obvious hoax, but evidence of your obvious desparation.

Yes Gav, and Turb, I see that.
I perhaps could've worded that a little better...

Think of it with a little different tack...




What I am pointing out is that we know about all these things that were discussed because they couldn't be hidden. I'm not saying that every conspiracy that has ever occurred has been exposed.

The point is that obviously a sucessful conspiracy is one that you never know about, because it's involving a very few people, and very loyal people. The small scale conspiracies we know of were uncovered because there were too many mouths involved, loyalty be damned. Nixon couldn't hide his deal...too many associates in the know. Clinton couldn't even hide Monica...


Now, since we know about how conspiracies are uncovered and exposed, it is highly illogical to think that a conspiracy which necessarily had to have involved hundreds if not thousands of co-conspirators would be doomed to fail, and of course, an Apollo hoax would've involved all sorts of people all over the place...but no one has spilled the beans in the slightest. There were more astronauts involved in Apollo than there were principals in Watergate. And that's just a fraction of the people who would've had to have been in on it.

Someone, sometime, is gonna bust their gut, eventually. No one has.

Turb, that's an apparent illustration of what is possible in 1/6 g.
You could do that in 1 g as well, although it would involve about 6 times the athleticism of the occurrance shown.

He is not levitating, Turb.
He is losing his balance due to the obviously forward center of mass, and is falling.
The same thing would happen on Earth, save that the 32 FPS/S acceleration would result in one being on one's face rapidly.

People can be in mid air on Earth too...


emma said...



She was absolutely correct.

On the Moon, that acceleration is only 5.3 FPS/S...which allows what you see...enough time to attempt to right oneself.

What this shows is (besides Charlie being clumsy, which was somewhat typical), is a classic illustration of what 1/6 g is like, and what can be done in that field.

You might want to "check back on this thread" a little more often, if you want to avoid posting incorrect claims such as these.

I haven't been bringing up a "completely different theory". I've been bringing up various aspects of the Apollo issue, which I believe raise valid questions about its authenticity. I consider the actions of the astronaut, as seen in the last video clip, to only be possible with external assistance (such as wires). That's why I believe it's valid, substantial evidence for my argument of a hoax. But other aspects I've discussed, such as radiation, are to point out various contradictions and inconsistencies between the official record and subsequent reports and statements. I haven't brought them up because I consider each one to be "solid evidence" of a hoax - rather, it's because I believe that they often serve to effectively bolster the argument of a hoax. A case is not built solely on smoking gun evidence, it's built on a whole range of evidence - from A to Z.



As I said, a case is built with various points of evidence - a "body of evidence" - not from a single "smoking gun" piece of evidence. If you want to claim that each one "blatantly does not point towards a hoax", then make a proper argument to support your assertions.



Why? What makes you think it's "completely in line" with the actions of an astronaut in lower gravity? It's possible in zero gravity, because the slightest nudge can propel you in a weightless environment. But the lunar surface is not a weightless environment.

The Apollo suit, including the life support backpack, weighed about 180 pounds. The suit itself weighs about 110 pounds. If an astronaut weighing 175 pounds wears the complete suit, the total weight is then about 485 pounds (310 + 175 =495).

http://history.nasa.gov/spacesuits.pdf

So in 1/6th gravity, such as on the Moon, an Apollo astronaut would have weighed about 82.5 lbs. Furthermore, his movements would be cumbersome, and his range of motion / flexibility fairly limited, in the pressurized spacesuit. Now, consider what happens in this sequence of stills from the video clip...



His right leg is the first thing that comes up and off the ground, in frame 5. It extends further out back behind the astronaut. The only remaining contact he has with the ground is the toepoint of his left foot. In frame 6, his left leg has lifted off the ground, leaving him completely in mid-air.

The whole time, he is leaning forward, with the PLSS on his back. Over 80 lbs., supported on the toepoint of his left foot. Then, with nothing but his left toepoint, he somehow manages to "propel" his entire body - over 80 lbs. with spacesuit - into mid-air!!

I'd really like to know how he generates the power to propel 80+ lbs. into mid-air from nothing but the toepoint of one foot.

An "apparent" (def: appearing as such but not necessarily so) illustration, I would concur. I'm questioning the veracity of the Apollo footage (and event) itself, so I hope you realize that you can't hold up one of the Apollo clips as validation for the authenticity of any other Apollo clips.

I understand your take on it, MID. But he really is "levitating" (actually, he's being pulled up). He's not simply losing his balance and falling. I've isolated and slowed down the first part of the sequence...



There has to be a valid source of power (force) to account for his ascent into mid-air. As I've already mentioned, the only contact point he has with the surface before he is airborne - his left foot toepoint - cannot account for it.

So, since he cannot "propel", or push himself into mid-air by his left foot toepoint, then he can only have been lifted up into mid-air, by an external source (ie: wires).

Looks to me that the "levitation" is the result of him pushing with both his feet. The fact that his left toe is the last bit in contact with the ground is irrelevant.

I've just tried it and it is perfectly possible.

I would just like to add my own opinion on what that clip shows:-

It appears he has 3 contact points with the ground (left arm, left leg(bent) and right leg (nearly straight)). Think of a sprinter on the starting blocks.

I get the impression that he is kicking off with his right foot which then rises slightly behind him, if you notice in the clip his right leg moves before the lef leg.

Yes this would be conterintuitive to how you would think he would react, but in 1/6th G things must be different. As someone who has spent a lot of time SCUBA diving, i do find that i use my body differently than what would be normal.

Note tha the early "fake" moonlanding pics were one of the things that drew me into Unexplained Phenomenon, and i would like nothing more than for you to be correct, but after 15 years i have never seen anything truly compelling.

This is not how it works, Turbo. Lots of people see pictures of Christ in various unlikely places, but that does not mean that any of them are actually miraculous. Lots of people report seeing ghosts, but that does not mean that ghosts exist. If none of your points is in itself sufficiently valid, neither is the total of them.

There is a saying in science "The plural of anecdote is not data."

I find this an interesting comment. Most hoax believers claim that they would love to have the Moon landings proved real but the evidence makes them think they were fake (they then do a go job of imitating the "ostrich stereotype" by placing their head in the sand and ignore or dismiss any real evidence that invariably shows that they are wrong).

If I understand your comment correctly you would like to see the landings proved as a hoax but have never seen any compelling evidence to support this. Have I got that correct? If I have could I ask why you want Apollo to be a hoax?

Well i think it was a combination of the film "Capricorn One" and a magazine in the 80's called Unexplained Mysteries. I found the theory to be quite facinating.

I think from a laymans perspective, the thought that 3 blokes in an aluminium box no bigger than most peoples living room landed on the moon when there is a suggestion that it was fake, which is easier to take on board?

For myself, it was the possibility that the Government was covering up what it found on the Moon rather than never going there. If there had ever been any technologically advanced civilisation in earth's pre-history then the moon would be the obvious place to find evidence of them.

Yes, this does indeed seem to be what happens in a great many of these instances. Another very important aspect that seems to *elude* those who embrace conspiracy readily...not all evidence is of equal value. If one is unable to make any distinction/discrimination of evidence (either through ignorance of the subject, or summary rejection of anything outside their belief) then this is where it inevitably leads.

Sounds like the short answer is "Science fiction is more interesting than actual science".

I fail to see what relevance that generalisation had to my post.

Funny, because I thought it summed it up perfectly. (Although I would question that Capricorn One was science fiction).

More like fantasy sci-fi in my opinion.

That's an odd comment from someone like yourself who projects clear views and thoughts on subjects. C1 was a very interesting film that asked people to re-evaluate their own opinions on Institutions spoon-feeding the masses. There is no doubt the film is classified as Science Fiction.

Scepticism is a prevalent mindset on these forums, and i would find it insightful how sceptical some of the members are towards what they get told by Governments etc. Most theories will be proven to be just that, but for every 100 that never pan out, there will be the one that is not.

As always this is my Humble opinion

It was a generalisation, if anything I was agreeing with your comment on the layman's perspective. Science (and engineering) are complex fields that require study to fully understand and are not generally viewed as 'sexy' subjects. Fiction allows anything to be true and conspiracies, unrealistic technologies and most other things driven by the imagination are generally more interesting.

My comment was more based on your "3 blokes in an aluminium box" analogy though your personal comment probably drifted my mind to science fiction (I don't know exactly what you are referring to but it does sound a bit 2001).

The point I was trying to make about Capricorn One was that it was strong on fiction but weak on science. Landing a Lunar Module on Mars is not and never was an option. Many HBs hold up Capricorn One as an example of a film that made them think about whether a hoax was possible. In doing so they miss the whole point of the film. In the film it was impossible to cover up the hoax.

Yes, i agree 100%, Programs like "Tomorrow's World" dropped off UK TV some time ago, and replacements such as Braniac:Science Abuse are targetted to entertain rather than inform. The difficulty that exists today is finding those larger than life Scientists (Patric Moore comes to mind), who can get people interested in science with out turning it into a spectacle. I do think however, having Scientists exploring the Conspiracy Theories as part of a TV program might just be what it would need to capture the public imagination. It does not have to be the heart of the show, but just one facet.






I agree, but the reason it was impossible (in the film) and i think the undertone of the film, is what lengths (including murder) would a government go to to cover up its secrets. Off the top of my head, i cant think of any films which tackled this subject before C1.

Just one further thought to add, the general populus are subjected to far more fiction (through TV) than scientists, does this create a social barrier between science and the general public which directly results in much of the scepticism of science seen today?

Hmmmm, maybe the difference between actual science and the science seen on TV doesn't help things. For example, the way anything on CSI get solved immediately, usually using the 'magic computer', or any kind of computer programming uses amazing graphics, or virtually every Hollywood film's 'science' makes things look so obvious and easy. Perhaps that kind of dumbing down of science helps push a mindset that the average person's 'common sense' is enough to determine the reality of something (conspiracy theory) instead of the reality that things can be complex and hard work, training, scientific method, peer review etc. are required.

Yes, to give a real world example, The McCann abduction in Portugal, blood samples were sent to a UK lab for analysis, about three weeks later the media were saying the results were still pending, CSI would have completed the analysis, convicted the criminal, sentenced them and had several are they/arn't they romantic encounters inside of 3 weeks.

I think equally causual to the root of conspiracy theories however, is a deep rooted distrust of what we get told, politics is about popularity, and people will go to extraordinary lengths to pull the wool over the eyes of the voters.

"Pulled up"? By what?

A careful examination (of the whole clip) will clearly show the force that propels him upward, and the reason for his stumble forward..."in mid air".

First of all, I believe it's been pointed out that Charlie there was pushing himself up with his left hand. He was. And he used a quick assist from his legs, however...


Due to his extremely forward center of mass, he was unable to get enough ooomph to get his upper body righted beneath his legs. He attempted to step forward under his center of mass...trying to move forward so as to get himself balanced. Due to the upward acceleration provided by the initial thrust, (sans enough rearward vector), you clearly see Charlie attempting to move his feet in an effort to come forward under the PLSS, but the upward momentum of his mass doesn't allow it, and for a half second or so, he is "airborne" as his mass gets to its highest point.

He's simply stumbling while attempting to right himself from a way off center balance situation.

On Earth, you'd see something similar, and probably painful, as the "airborn" part of such a maneuver would last 1/6 the time this one did, the elevation attained would be 1/6 as high, and the weight being manipulated would be 6 times as great, and you'd see an ignominious thud on the ground, with the poor guy likely calling, "Uh...I've fallen and I can't get up!"

What you're looking at is an example of the mobility that is attainable when manipulating 60 pounds of weight around in a 1/6 g field, and a clear illustration of the effect of 360 pounds of mass. He's not being lifted up. He's doing something completely in conformance with the laws of physics.

It looks wierd because of something I've attempted to explain time and time again:

It is wierd. Humans never saw this sort of motion before. It was on another world called the Moon, an alien place. Things often manifest mighty differently there. That's what training was for.

Actually, that "aluminum box" wasn't a box, but a highly irregular combination of cylindrical (and other) sections which resulted in ~ 235 cu.ft. of volume....the same as a 6'x6'x6' cube. That was alot smaller than anyone's living room (more like a reasonable walk-in closet space). There were only two fellows in that thing. A small living room of say 15' x 12' x 8' has at least 6 time the volume of a LM cabin.

I wonder why the Earth itself wouldn't be a reasonable place to find evidence of a sufficiently advance pre-historic civilization? No matter, I suppose, since no such evidence has been found in either place. With thousands of orbital photos, many thousands of surface photos, and all the film and video we have documenting the Apollo lunar missions, I think it would be rather hard to cover anything up...

I'm not sure I get what that means.

I hold all of the Apollo film up as clear and irrefutable evidence of men moving about in a 1/6 g gravity field while carrying 60 pounds of weight and 360 pounds of mass along with them.

You would be absolutely correct, Duality.
It's mighty different in 1/6 g, as well as 0 g.
That's why we train for EVAs underwater!



Would you really like for it to be correct that those "early fake moon landing pics" were real???

Say What? Mid, I'm disappointed. No such evidence? Surely you jest!
As to the thousands of surface photos, there are thousands of those thousands that have been deliberately blurred to obscure that which exists upon the ground in those photos. Trust, me, that is the pure, unadulterated truth.

i have watched the conspiracy theories: did we land on the moon video....it proved alot of points:

1. Photos with objects behind crosshairs
2. 3 months before the "moon landing" the same pod was tested and proved unstable on EARTH GROUNDS!
3. when the speed of videos were doubled it appeared as if the astronauts were running.
4. Video quality sucked
5. The only light source was the sun, but the shadowing of every object were in different directions, thus extra light source.
6. Why hasn't there been more travels to the moon?
7. Mysterious deaths of nasa workers.
8. Depression on moon when pod landed, astronauts also claimed the ground was powdery.
9. why is area 51 heavily guarded, a moon crater matched a crater in area 51, believed to have been filmed here.
10. Two photos of a different area of landing resembled EXACT same geographic or topographic features.

***SNIP***

Look at the slowed down clip, and focus on what happens with his feet ...



Look at it again, in the stills below...



Right Leg

In a push, his right toepoint would be planted in the ground, and he would generate the power to lift up by straightening his right leg. But his entire right leg extends further back, behind him, the instant his toepoint lifts from the surface. If his right leg was pushing him up, it would not remain bent behind him, and immediately rise in this backward motion.

Left Leg

The action of left leg makes it even more obvious that he is not pushing himself up with his feet. His leg does not straighten out, and his toepoint skims some dust forward at the same time his entire body has lifted into mid-air.

You claim you were able to duplicate this feat? From a kneeling position, you lifted yourself completely into mid-air, using only the toepoints of your feet, while keeping both legs bent back? I'd really like to see that.

I'd really like to see anyone duplicate this feat. But I'm not holding my breath that anyone can actually prove it's possible.