Installment the second:




Again, the answer has a fundamental correctness to it. However, most of the Apollo photos are actually excellent 2D representations of exactly what one would see, if one payed attention, on any photo taken in similar lighting conditions on Earth (Waspie has clearly shown this to be true on several occassions).

There are no anomalies present in the Apollo lunar surface photos.

A discussion of this could get into some detail (and has), and would require specific examples in order to explain in more depth.

But, you can reproduce the absolutely natural shadow effects seen in all Apollo photos, including the shadow bend where ground slopes up and down or undulates, and the common representation of parallel shadows seeming to converge when photographed through the 2D dimension of a photographic lens portraying 3D objects on a flat surface, almost anywhere on Earth.

These shadow arguments are a shallow HB attempt to cast doubt upon Apollo, based on the same thing that every HB idea about the program is based upon: lack of understanding of the sciences and technologies involved in space flight, and the nature of the space environment.






Again fundamentally correct in the answer, and is associated with the last issue raised:





Although this answer is incorrect in part of its terse expression and thus can be confusing.

Lets talk about "dust clouds".

Dust clouds are caused on Earth. They are the result of microfine particles of dust interacting with air. The particles are so small and light that they are suspended and move in reaction to contact with the air. Some particles fall, and others are suspended and swirl around in the moving air, which moves as a result of the impulse of whatever caused the dust to fly in the first place, or by the fact that the air is moving already.

On the Moon, we have no atmosphere. So, there's nothing to suspend dust particles. The move in linear fashion from the point where the LM DPS engines exhaust gasses make contact with it, outward and upward at an anglke, all moving away from the LM as it settles. There are no clouds formed, because there is no air to form them. The dust moves in sheets radially outward and upward (not down) in all directions from the source of impulse.

What happens when the engine cuts off (when the LM is between 3 and 8 feet above the surface) is that the impusle imparted to the dust ceases, and the dust stops being moved off of the ground. The effect is akin to that which you'd see if you take a garden hose, and spray it outward from you in a stream, then, cut it off suddenly. You see the end of the water stream move away from you, arcing balistically outward and falling to the ground, following all the rest of the water stream.


This is precisely what the LM crews saw when they cut down their descent engine with the dust blowing off of the lunar surface. The end of the dust sheets streaked away from them, falling in a ballistic arc some distance away.

Since there's no air to create clouds of dust, the end of the dust streams move away and fall to the surface some distance away. Nothing is suspended in the air...since there is none, and nothing falls on the LM or on its footpads.


Bottom line: there are no such things as dust clouds on the Moon. There cannot be any. It's physically impossible.
The LM footpads had no dust on them, and there was no cloud created by the engines because they cannot exist there. It's actually basic physics.







In a fundamental way, this answer is true. In another, it leaves far too much unexplained.


The reason you cannot see stars on the surface of the Moon in photographs, or with the naked eye (in most all circumstances) is indeed because one was always in broad daylight on the lunar surface...a much brighter and broader daylight than is experienced on Earth. The eye, and the camere lens, have an aperture ( or , an iris, as the case may be) which closes to allow the eye (or the camera) to see or image brightly lit objects, and thus does not allow one to perceive very dim (relatively speaking) objects such as stars.

It is true that you cannot see stars during the daylight on Earth. Even if we had no atmosphere (which is a rather ridiuculous idea, since we wouldn't exist if there wasn't one), we couldn't pick up stars when the sun was in the sky. The sky would be black, certainly, but until the sun stopped making our eyes close up, we wouldn't be able to pick up the relatively dim stars. This is a natural effect, both biologically concerning the human eye, and photographically concerning the camera---which was set to photograph brightly lit surface objects.


The camera could not image stars at those settings and in that light condition.

In fact, stars weren't all too visible during most periods of manned space missions, on the Moon or not. This is because the Sun was generally casting an extremely bright light on the scenes. One could do it, on a night side orbital pass, with the cabin lights off to allow the eye to adapt to darkness...but for the most part, the Sun was always out, prohibiting the view of massive star fields.




End of the second installment...

Installment the last...




Money is definitely the answer here.
The Apollo program was curtailed prematurely by the Nixon administration in order to divert funds to a couple pet projects (Viet Nam and the Space Shuttle). The American people, and no administration since (despite Reagan's attempts) was able to garner support for continued space exploration.

Until President Bush, I should state...President Bush seems to have done so, however, and we are working on the return to the Moon as we speak.
This aspect has nothing to do with an Apollo hoax. It has to do with a jaded American population (all too willing to become used to the extraordinary...which Apollo was from beginning to end), and to short sighted administrations and congresses who had other ideas about mankinds evolution (or, de-evolution, as the case may be).


The military, has nothing to do with it. It never did have anything to do with major or accepted space exploration initiatives. They trained the pilots that would man the spacecraft in NASA's programs, however.







This is a plain dumb reply to this question.


The answer is this:

Colonizing the Moon was indeed part of the vision of Dr. von Braun, and many in NASA at the time of Apollo. Many lofty plans for future extensions of Apollo were envisioned and laid out on paper. However, the same reasons that Apollo was scrapped prematurely are the reasons why these ideas were filed away.

Pragmatically, alot of exploration, preparation, research, and technological development is necessary prior to attempting to establish a permanent presence on the Moon. That'll be generations in the future, I think.

Colonization was a dream in the Apollo days, and it never became a plan. Perhaps now, it will become one...







This answer is basically coreect.

The LM had a relatively low pressure of exhaust gas when it approached the surface (somewhere in the vicinity of 1.5-2.0 psi). This was sufficient to blow away much of the several inches of dust that lay on the surface, but was completely insufficient to blast away the extremely dense and hard lunar substrate. A blast crater requires a blasting force (a meteor impact, etc...). The LM DPS was slightly more than insufficient for such a task, especially since it was throttled down to a mere 25-20% of its rated thrust during the terminal approach phase of a lunar landing. It was a hot fast "wind" (exhaust gasses, mind you). It was in no way an explosive force.







Again, an insufficient reply.


The reason we could hear them talk is indeed because they were on condenser mics placed very close to their mouths. Additionally, they were sealed in helmets, and the LM APS engine created no sound to speak of at all (you must have an atmopshere to produce sound, you see). Rocket engines make no noise in vacuum.

That being said, there was an atmosphere, albeit tenuous, inside the space craft, and vibrational noise would be transferred through that atmosphere, but it was in no way loud enough to interfere with what were essentially sealed voice actuated communications through isolated microphones.

The sound of the astronaut's voice in a helmet far and away exceeded the audibility of a low-grade engine noise being transmitted through a low pressure cabin atmosphere.









That answer is true. Indeed, most all rocket engines in space burn without exhaust plumes, because an atmosphere is necessary to have one. On the LM APS, you saw at best the flash of initial incomplete combustion, followed by no plume whatsoever. For the most part, all one ever can see in vacuum is the glow inside the engine bell, should one be looking into it (which one could during the latter Apollo lunar liftoffs, especially 17's...and a white light appeared therein...no flames, no plume).

This is physics as well.




I think that's covered all of the points that you listed in your post.

I hope the explanations were sufficient!

If it convinces you, that points to a very distressing state of affairs in the modern educational system.

A wee understanding of science and technology is required to actually understand Apollo, and all manned space flight for that matter.
It is generally best to ask questions rather than make blanklet statements of fact.

What can be revealed to you you may find rather interesting.

davrod...

It is a mockumentary. It is well known.
It was a joke.
Ask a question...it may lead you to something you didn't know before.

You have a pretty sucky attitude, my friend.

Especially considering that the photographic evidence is indeed very clear, and refutes your contentions completely. Embarrasing yourself is not the way to learn.

You can read all about the shallow conceptions you present here in the prior posts.
You don't search youtube for reliable information. You search the documentation available, and as concerns Apollo, there is more available than for any other endeavor in mankinds history.

sun...


No one said it was fake?
C'mon...there are people who've been saying it was fake for years. That's what this thread is about.


The Russians weren't humbled by the van Allen belts. They were humbled by their inability to technologically compete with the Americans, by their massive and catostrophic failures (brought about by government oversight and micro-management of their program), and by the obvious American successes which occurred in rapid sucession.


p.s....the "particles" you refer to have nothing to do with th Van Allen Belts. They are from cosmic radiation.


We went through the Van Allen Belts on every Apollo lunar mission...the shallowest parts, pre-planned that way so as to limit exposure. There was never any major effect from this transit. As Lilly pointed out, Dr. Van Allen himself poo-pooh'd the idea that Apollo transit was hazardous (and if you cannot accept the words of the man who spent most of his life studying that which he discovered...then you may be beyond hope). The case regarding the Van Allen belts was long-ago closed. It was not a hazard and it shall not be in the future.


You are a CT. This thread is about educating people. Ct's , by-and-large, will not learn anything. They'll just spew their governtment-coverup ideas in the midst of intelligent discussion about questions people may have.

That is more of an interference than anything else.


Look, if no one said it was fake (and of course, it wasn't...your own words) your points are moot.
p.s., the idea that they went into LEO and remained in EO for extended periods of time is ridiculous. Organizations all over the world tracked the Apollo flights to the Moon...the Russsians included. They completely accpted what we did, and even supplied us with trajectory data on their missions so as to assure no trajectory conflicts between Apollo lunar missions and Soviet craft.


Why don't you save it for 9-11 or UFOs?

Look, you don't believe we went to the Moon in the 1960s and 1970s. You've stated that in prior posts.
I have repeatedly stated that Apollo is not about belief. It is about knowledge.


Want some?
You're in the right place....but try not to argue points that have been fully refuted previously, and come across as a total CT.


As I've said previously, ask questions about your doubts.
That's where we get somewhere here.

Try to do battle, and you'll find youself in sorry shape. It's not about battle...it's about learning.
That's fun.

EXCELLENT! thank you

WOW Excellent...It's really is quite simple that we did this.

Davrod

No offence intended, but can you not detect the irony here? You accuse people who believe in the Apollo moon landings of being misinformed by the corporate media, and you have just been suckered by a mockumentary which you claimed offered the truth about the moon landings? Can I ask why you automatically assume a pro-hoax video to be promoting the truth, and completely disregard an historically and scientifically accepted fact? I'm interested to know how your thought process works.

Just a quick point on another issue - you say that the lack of indentation on the lunar surface by the lander pads is proof that the landings were faked. If the landings were faked on Earth, then using your reasoning surely there would be bigger indents, since gravity on earth is six times greater than on the moon?

Thanks

BRILLIANT...ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT. I thank you for the time it took for you to write your responses to me. Between you and the information I read from the member "Waspie" I consider myself a firm believer. THANK YOU!!! ((Thanks to Waspie too ))

If these landing pictures were taken on earth, can those skeptics show us the way to these places and perhaps take some pictures featuring themselves in the pictures posing like those moon mission austronauts posed decades ago on moon?

Pay particular attention to the end of the film.

You're welcome, Jody. And thank you very much for the kind words. I am pleased you appreciate it!

...yea, you're right that Waspie fellow is a pretty smart cookie...It's tough to keep up with him!





You know, it really is quite simple in many respects. This is not to say that executing Apollo was simple, mind you. But, understanding some of the mechanics behind the truth underlying the primary hoax believer's contentions really involves little more than some basic understanding.

Well, wtwt, no they can't.
However, I think their primary contention is that these photos were taken with fake backdrops in some studio someplace.

They can't take you there either.

Now, this could lead into a rather circular argument, to be sure, because their comeback is going to be the highly innane, "You can't take us to the Moon and show us either!"

As if...

This, despite hours of 16mm film, dozens of hours of video, and somewhere around 6,000 Hasselblad photos of the Moon...all of which corroborate each other and prove we were on the Moon.

It is a tough path dealing with some of these folks!

This is a very odd statement.
Fiscally beneficial to them? What exactly does that mean?

NASA has, and of course had a budget. That was , and is money dedicated to supporting the organization so they could afford to do what they were supposed to do.
The operating budget of an organization is not related to the gross revenue of a movie, or of any organization. They are different animals.

The only benefit to the NASA budget was that it permitted them to afford to do what they were charged with doing...and, after 1967, the purse strings were tightened more and more on NASA, making it more difficult.

You might want to look at the budget of a movie in relation to its gross revenue. Then, look at NASA's budget in relation to its gross revenue (?).
That relation might show you how off base you are with this statement.


You seem to be indicating that everyone is jumping on board the Moon project so as to get funding, as if funding is money in their pockets. No, it's money they'll spend in order to do a job.

I'm sorry, you were saying?
That footpad is obviously indented into the lunar surface to a depth of approximately 4" at the left side...


Oops...

"No dust in the surrounding areas..."?

There was nothing but dust in the surrounding areas.


Different light sources has been adressed and explained completely...but I'm sure someone would be willing to explain it again (there was only one light source on the Moon, of course, and if you'd like, someone would be more than happy to tell you what that was, and show you...)

I'm very curious as to who this "corporate media" is that has mis-informed those of us with knowledge concerning the topic. I honestly don't remember learning a thing from the media, and I don't know what the "corporate" media is. I can tell you this...in general, the media knows absolutely nothing about spaceflight. In the few occassions where I have watched a space event ocurring on network TV, I have often been apalled at the unknowledgable commentary being spewed by the commentator...and I wished he would shut up so I could hear what's really going on, rather than listen to him interfere with the actual goings on...




"I can go on and on."

I am sure you can, but I might make a suggestion.
Rather than being obnoxious in your declarations of a hoax that you obviously understand nothing about, why don't you ask a question which addresses your doubts?

That's the fun thing to do...because it's going to get you an answer, and you will gain some knowledge. That's fun!

No, he didn't get into any specific details in his email. But there is a lot of information about the VLT and interferometry on the ESO website, including this technical paper on the VLT primary mirrors....

http://www.eso.org/projects/vlt/unit-tel/m1unit.html

A 2005 report, about the VLT producing high-contrast images of Titan....

Eric Gendron of the Paris Observatory in France and leader of the team, is extremely pleased: "We believe that some of these images are the highest-contrast images of Titan ever taken with any ground-based or earth-orbiting telescope."

http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-r...phot-04-05.html

Here's the ESO contact page, if you have specific questions.....

http://www.eso.org/public/about-eso/contacts/


Cheers

Yes, but the article also states that this was using only one of the telescopes, so it was not an interferometric image:.

If we had landed on the moon, we could have observed their modules and their activity with telescope powerful enough, right? And there must have been someone who did this. But why haven't there anyone who produced the pictures taken with these telescopes? This is one point perhaps both believers and non-believers both have left out.

Nope. Why? In one word: resolution. Please read this link it will explain things nicely.

[Wanders in...]
No, there were no telescopes with the right resolution to see the activity on / around the moon at the time. And in fact there are still none. The only person claiming there is something nowadays that will allow us to see what's on the moon is Turbonium (and that's still under debate, see the discussion ranging from page 33 until the post directly above yours and ongoing...).
[Wanders back out...]

ETA: Ah, you beat me Lilly, ho hum trust me to wander in too late

Easier telescopic targets were the Apollo craft on the way to and from the moon. Here's a page full of such observations:
http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/space/apollo.html

What the folks have pointed out to you is true...

No one did this, because no one could've (nor can they), although observations of the Apollo vehicles enroute were done, as flyingswan has indicated.
It is often a surprize to many people that the largest optical instruments on Earth simply cannot image something like an Apollo LM at 238,000 miles distance. Indeed, even the largest space borne telescope cannot do this with any clarity at all.

I was rather taken aback with the argument the first time I heard it. Imaging a LM descent stage on the surface of the Moon from here is equivalent to attempting to get a clear and irrefutable image of the Earth from 8 1/2 billions miles away. That's close to 4 times the distance to Pluto from Earth!

Besides, we have 6000 photos of the Moon taken on it's surface, and of course many hours of video from the TV cameras, as well as 16mm color films.
One wonders, with that sort of visual record, who needs a telescopic image?

right the ones that turbo pointed out has major errors including a hand and people hiding behind a curtain taken from their own website-- and when the issue of the negatives comes up they mysteriously vanish

A hand, and people hiding behind a curtain...sure.
What hand, and what people hiding behind what curtain?





Negatives?

They all exist, for every piece of film taken on the Moon.
If you're talking about video...there are no negatives for that.


Perhaps you'd like to explain "the hand, and the people behind the curtain". Where is that in the photo record of Apollo???

Grabs popcorn and awaits....

Me to!

Would you like a soda with that while we wait?

Oh no, please not this stuff again

I think what's being referred to here are Turbonium's arguments in the following threads:
Bare arm
Curtain

And not forgetting the Lord of All Moon Hoax threads :
Blatant Arm and Chair

You mean the mysterious features that, once the frames had been displayed in the correct orientation, formed a joiner mosaic that matched a region on the side of the Lunar Module?

God, I hope it's not that.
I recall there was a lengthy discussion (about half an eon ago) about a couple seconds of live video on Apollo 12, which showed a quick blurry pan across the LMs descent stage, and in that couple seconds were seen arms and hands and a video monitor and a chair and a curtain, and all sorts of evidence of fakery present....despite the fact that there's nothing there but a blurry image of some gold foil and LM structures...

But I can see Lilly and Obviousman can't wait to watch!
They always get the popcorn with these things... I say something, and they pull up a chair and scarf up popcorn...and sodas!

Sounds intriguing, Swanny.
I'm not sure I know about this one!

I remember a lengthy discussion about a matter of seconds of TV on AS-12 (just prior to the camera burn out...).
Is what you're talking about some sort of film camera material, or are we on the same track here?

M~

Oh dear not the wizard of oz theory again?

I changed my name by the way, you might not recognise the name, but you should recognise the avatar

I think we're talking about this - Mosaic


Mr Gavsto I presume? (I lurked here for quite a while, thus why the above chair/arm/actually just a blurry bit of film argument is burned in my mind!)

Yes, Gav...I recognized you immediately!!!

Good name...TNT....BOOM!

Ah yes, that's it, the AS-12 sequence.
Pericynthion did a fine job revealing what the blurry images, captured over a period of mere seconds by a panning TV camera were actually showing.
It was of course perfectly logical if you realized what Al Bean was doing with the camera during those moments (he was removing and manhandling the camera--taking it off of its stowage location on the MESA), and where the location of that camera was (right below the structures in question, and adequately, if not somewhat blurrily (is that a word?) represented on the video).

Al lifted the camera and pitched it up...there wasn't anything else to see but precisely what we did see, which were parts of the LM located above him and in front of him.

The curtains, chairs, TV monitors,and bare human appendages allegedly present in this short sequence of blurry video simply cannot be seen, save by creative imagination. I believe sun called these "major errors". I think the major error is in the imaginative interpretation.

All of this was derived from watching a blurred 4 seconds of video as the camera was moved off of its storage location and panned back and forth as Al maneuvered it so as to walk it over to the tripod location. 10 seconds later, the TV camera had been fatally wounded by the Sun...ah what we missed seeing up there!

But there were no arms and hands and chairs and monitors. Just LM structures...supports and junctions, and gold foil insulation.

That's the one.

Ok, cool.

I think we all understand what's being referred to here.




Everything seen in those 4 seconds of blurry videotape in question can be seen in this photo (AS12-46-6725...that's Al Bean exiting the LM), in detail....



I actually hope this issue's dead, and sunafone doesn't want to attempt to support the "proofs" he addresses.

I agree completely, MID. This ought to be a dead issue.

By the way, AtomicDog gets full credit for coming up with the idea for making a mosaic from the video frames and for assembling the first version (see post here). My version was just a bit of fine-tuning to AtomicDog's concept because turbonium was still having a bit of trouble seeing the LM. Just making sure the credit goes where it's deserved.

And trinitrotoluene, thanks for pointing out your avatar! I thought that little animation looked awfully familiar, but it didn't click until you mentioned it.

You are absolutely correct!
Kudos to Atomic Dog for the original work on this thing!

..and to you as well Pericynthion, for fine tuning it!

Pericynthion,

I've had (and still have) more than a "bit of trouble seeing the LM".

The gold mylar simply doesn't exist in the video clip.....





Despite the fact that there is absolutely no gold color in the clip, there are blue-green, white, red, and flesh tones clearly present. You've tried to dismiss it all away by claiming it only appears that way, due to "color artifacts" created by a fast-moving camera.

These are quite amazing "color artifacts". They left blue-green and white artifacts in the exact shape of long-sleeve shirts. They left flesh colored artifacts in the exact shape of hands and faces. But most incredible of all, the flesh hand and face shaped artifacts are at the exact ends of the blue-green and white long-sleeve shirt shaped artifacts.
They even left color artifacts in the shape of a 3-dimensional chair.

Then we have the image stills below. On the left side, we see what looks like the test pattern of a color monitor. It's square in shape. On the right side, I've pointed to a black object that looks like the 3d side view of another such monitor, at a workstation, facing towards the object that looks like an empty chair....



The left side still is again claimed to be "color artifacts", which only appear to be in the shape of a square test pattern. The object that appears to look like the 3d side of a monitor is actually black material of the LM. And of course, the gold foil accounts for the 3d chair (which isn't gold).

The white struts of the LM are thin, straight white lines. Those do not exist in the video clip, either...



You've claimed these are LM struts - they only appear to be curved because of lens distortion, and they only appear to be as wide as a bedsheet, because they were blurred by a fast-moving camera (again).

This may look like a bare hand grabbing at some material.....



But - according to pro-Apollo people - it's not. It could be a strap or something.

This may look like a bare arm...



But according to pro-Apollo people, it's not. It's part of the S-Band antenna. It only appears to have flesh tones (but it's really light yellow-orange). It only appears to have knuckles at the top, and an elbow at the bottom.
________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________

It's a fact that there are the exact colors, in the exact shapes, in exactly the right places, to correspond to two men. To correspond to a chair. And a monitor, in front view, and another monitor in side view.

Distinct flesh tones on a bare arm, with knuckles on top, and an elbow on the bottom. A bare hand that comes into view and grabs at some material. Not s-band antennas and straps.

There is - without a shred of doubt - no gold mylar anywhere in the video clip. The only people who claim there is gold foil are imagining it is there.

It is not explained away with unsubstantiated claims of "color artifacts".

I hate to break it to you, but this is far from the "dead issue" you claim it should be, or hoped to be.


Maybe it will take until 2020, when we plan to "return" to the Moon, before the cold hard truth finally comes out.

here were my interpretations--


*of turbo's amazing discovery!

Hi turbonium! Nice to hear from you again. Let's see if we can't give this one more try. Now might be a good time to grab some popcorn. This post is going to get a bit long.

Here's the collage I assembled from the video stills you posted back on this thread.


We're looking at this portion of the LM as seen in AS12-46-6728 (caution: link is to 1.2 MB image file). This shot is very similar to the full image MID posted earlier:


The only difference is that the video viewpoint is much closer to the LM, as Al Bean was in the process of removing the camera from the MESA platform at the time. The viewpoint would have been similar to this shot of an LM mockup (but even a bit closer still -- almost directly underneath the plume deflector):

Photo by brionv at flickr.com. Used in accordance with posted Creative Commons rights.

Ignore the colors on the mockup, as they don't match the actual insulation scheme of the Apollo 12 LM. Just look at the strut and plume deflector geometry. Compare the strut positions, the insulation pattern, and the color patterns on the actual Apollo 12 Hasselblad image to the video collage. Can you really not see that the video collage is showing the same object as the two above photos?







The problem is that you're comparing a high-resolution, color-corrected Hasselblad film photo with a low-resolution, highly-compressed Web video originally shot on a color-wheel video camera with less-than-stellar image quality. Take a look at these two images of the STS-26 launch, one from a still camera and one from a YouTube video:


Why is the external tank green in the second image? What happened to the orange? Nothing, of course. It's just lousy color balance and poor video quality. You're seeing the same thing on the Apollo 12 video. The gold Mylar is there; it just doesn't appear quite as gold as in the color-corrected Hasselblad photo. I have no trouble at all seeing it.






Sorry, but the "test pattern" you see really is just color banding. It's a well-known, common artifact of that type of video camera. And the "chair" is just a portion of the gold Mylar insulation and part of an RCS plume-deflector strut. I'm fairly certain I can identify it in the Hasselblad images. The video still with the "chair" is on the left, and a cropped portion of AS12-46-6728 is on the right:








Yes, the struts sometimes appear curved because of camera motion and lens distortion. The item you're asking about in the right-hand image ("what is this supposed to match on the LM?") is, I believe, the rectangular portion of the LM's steerable S-band antenna. The dish portion of the antenna is the roundish blob below the arc of the plume deflector (it's the object your lower left-hand arrow is pointing at). Notice the appearance and position of the antenna here on a crop from AS12-46-6725:


Now, take a look back at the photo of the LM mockup and note where that antenna appears as you move closer to the LM and look up. It has just the right shape and would be in just about the right position to be the blobs you're asking about. Also, take a look at my collage of your video stills. The image I've used which shows that same portion of the plume deflector is much sharper than the image you show above and shows the strut geometry much better. Again, these are YOUR screen grabs. I just assembled them into a collage (based on AtomicDog's great idea).


I'm really at a loss here to understand how it is that you can see arms, knuckles, elbows, etc. with such clarity in these images but aren't able to see the side of an Apollo lunar module in the video collage. Same thing with the gold insulation. Yeah, the color balance isn't great in the video, but I have no problem at all seeing that the material is a goldish color.

One last question: When we do one day return to the moon and bring back photos which unmistakeably show Apollo lunar module descent stages sitting on the surface, will you then accept the "cold, hard truth" that Apollo was a reality? Or will you consider it to be just more faked evidence? Just wondering ...

Regards,

Pericynthion

"I've had (and still have) more than a "bit of trouble seeing the LM". "

See an optometrist. I think you need glasses.

Aw, you guys, you're embarrassing me!

I've built a lot of LM models over the years, and fiddling with the strut work and gold foil had become second nature to me. Thus, when Turbonium showed the Apollo 12 video, the only thing I could think was, "Why is he making such a big fuss over a few seconds of video of the RCS deflector?" I honestly thought that a mosaic would help him see what was obvious to me, but I guess not.
Anyway, Pericynthion's work illustrated the point a lot better, and I thank him for it.

The whole "arms and shades and chairs" thing puzzles me though. If Apollo 12 happened as history recorded it, then the sequence of events as we understand it makes sense; Al Bean removed the camera from the MESA, jiggling it around a bit capturing blurry video of the side of the LM, then he accidentally pointed it at the sun; end of video.

To believe that what happened took place in a studio, we are asked to believe that Al accidentally pointed the camera at soundstage equipment, monitors and chairs (why was no one sitting in it?) the technicians panicked and started running around all over the place pulling curtains, and the video feed was killed with a cover story of, "the camera was pointed at the sun, sorry folks."

Why didn't the "director" simply say "Cut! Very funny, Al. We'll save that one for the blooper reel. Now put the camera back in the MESA and we'll take it from the top. Places everyone. ACTION!"

In other words, why not just reshoot the blasted thing? Most HBs insist that the EVAs were prerecorded, and tape is cheap.

This is another example of the HB logic I've come to expect and love (and I use the term "love" in a context that is 100% wrong).

We are expected to believe that NASA misused it's huge budget to fake the Apollo footage. We are expected to believe that NASA used the best film techniques known to man to produce fakes of such staggering quality that they can fool the best special effects directors on the planet (after all when was the last time you saw an expert form Industrial Light and Magic saying that the Apollo footage was fake?) And yet despite all this money and expertise turbonium and Sunofone would have us believe that these geniuses could be so incompetent as to leave in images of chairs, arms and monitors.

This sort of discrepancy is so ridiculous and illogical that even some of the hoax believers recognise it as such. This is why that had to invent the concept of "the whistle blower". They recognise that there is no way that way that these sort of mistakes could have occurred so they must have been put there deliberately by someone trying to blow the lid on the whole "fake Apollo" conspiracy.

The problem is that the whistle blower theory adds even more problems for the hoax believer. They are now introducing a conspiracy theory within a conspiracy theory. When you have to invent a second conspiracy theory to prop up the faulty logic of the first then it is time to admit that your theory is in a whole lot of trouble.

It is at this point that most people would look at this situation and say, "well the idea that these sort of mistakes could have been allowed to occur is preposterous. The evidence that these artefacts are not what the official record states is non-existent and therefore this part of the evidence is false and does not show that Apollo is fake".

The hoax believer takes a different path. Because they start with a conclusion and then look at the evidence rather than the other way around they end up using circular logic. Given exactly the same evidence many of them take the following route and say, "well the idea that these sort of mistakes could have been allowed to occur is preposterous. But I know the Apollo landings are fake. If these aren't mistakes then they must be put there deliberately. If they were put there deliberately then there must be a whistle blower. If there was a whistle blower then his existence is proof of fakery," and so the circle is complete.

Whether the existence of the "whistle blower" is invoked or not we are expected to believe that there was no quality control at all at NASA's "Fakes-R-Us" film studios. We have to believe that either a huge mistake occurred or someone was able to insert evidence that "proves Apollo" was fake and yet no one checked the footage before it was releaseded. We are expected to believe that no one was looking over the shoulders of the film crew while they were working to prevent such mistakes/sabotage occurring in the first place.

If the "whistle blower" theory is invoked we are additionally expected to accept that someone was prepared to risk their lives to reveal "the truth". That this person or persons unknown was prepared to do it in the riskiest possible place, the "Fakes-R-Us" studio surrounded by NASA and other "evil Government" goons. And yet this super brave, truth seeker individual did not send one single anonymous letter to the press to tip them off as to what was happening.

That is an awful lot we are expected to believe with absolutely no evidence to support it.

lets see... we went 30 years ago after 8 years of preperation and if we were to go now...umm we would get there when?...2020?? its soo plain to see that they were using techniques that were about 30 years ahead of their time but nothing that cant be explained easily these days yet so many have such a strong emotional bond to the memory that they refuse to accept reality-- the truth is they reaped billions and have had the entire world caught in a death grip of illusion not realising that the profits were turned into a global engine of elite sponsored genocidal military dominance through weapons developments and propaganda dissemination and continue their sick apocalypto game of the ritual sacrifice of willing sheep
************************************************************

The astronaut in these pictures is Michael Collins, who was later to be part of the Apollo 11 mission, and the first picture is of him practicing his Space walk within a high altitude airplane. When Collins alledgedly achieved the Space walk, NASA released several pictures of the event. If you look closely at picture 2, you will see that the picture is in fact picture 1 reversed and a Space background has been added. This is proof that at least some of the pictures were faked.
************************************************************

what do you blindfaithers call this?....bleeding? what a joke

If you have evidence that photo 2 is actually part of the Gemini EVA record, now would be a good time to present it.

If the russians had the space budget that the USA had we would have Russian space colonies on Mars by 1970,

Could NASA pull a fake moon landing, I think they had the resources and expertise to do so. But what about the Russians wouldnt they be able to track the mission and it would have been in their best interest to tell the whole world that their was no moon landing. The KGB would have known about a secret fake mission, they stole A-bomb didnt they.