Common confusion actually. They list it as Agent of Disinformation. Try looking for it under that.

You know, you younger folks are killin' me!


You're also illustrating my prior point.
It's not the generation...it's the individual within the generation. Of course, the surrounding "stuff" in a generation has some influence on what the population of that generation may or may not be motivated to do.


You illustrate a point I've made many times.
You speak of the "real man".

I'll tell you Oxy..., they're still around. They may not be as visible as before, but they are. I've talked to some young folks in our military today. Most recently a few young marines that looked like kids. These "kids" had their heads firmly affixed. They were smart, driven, and articulate (including a colorful language ability that I found somewhat heartening, so I bought them all a beer!).

Nonetheless, you're correct in your references to the "toys" that are provided today, and which have a profound effect on lots of people. Video games, cell phones, I phones, all sorts of new gadgets which have the effect of providing all the comforts of home in a little box, and which in many cases have robbed the imagination and drive from people's minds and hearts...


An overhaul, as you say, I would agree with.

The tragedy of it is that today's generation isn't any less smart than the Apollo generation was. A look at NASA today, and the people who make it up, is illustrative of a profound truth: Those young people are, by and large, a hell of a lot smarter than we all were (or are). They're just as good, if not better. You go through a roster of astronauts and flight control people today and you'll see so many PhDs it'll make your head spin. Back in the 60's, everyone had a B.S. There was hardly a Master's degree in the house. There were very few PhDs, or DSci's hanging around (Buzz Aldrin and Jack Schmidt stand out, as far as I recall, in the astronaut corps...both frighteningly smart guys!).


But that generation had drive. They weren't any smarter, they just had imagination, wonder, and drive. They took it upon themselves to get good and be the best they could. With so much provided to young people today, it is not a wonder to me that many people's attitudes have become lax, and we see intellectual laziness and a willingness to adhere to pre-packaged falacies, and compelling conspiracy theories, and attention paid to things, and people who contribute nothing...

The mere fact that people are seemingly so eager to accept someone like Bart Sibrel's prattlings about things he knows nothing about, or that Paris Hilton or Anna Nicole Smith present something "compelling" to consider is in fact a very sad statement.

But younger folks like you and Gav (TNT) are proof that the individual still and always has the power to develop and evolve, no matter what the external circumstances of his generation throws at him.

Erm MID, don't you head the Disinformation Agent department? I see you're applying the common disinformation tactic here of denial. Tut tut!



I passed Luckily (for me anyway) the astronomy doesn't stop there looking at 'The Universe' now, stuff like cosmology, particle physics, Hubble's Law, CMB Radiation, electromagnetic interactions etc!

Jesus...

Turbo tends to at least put forth well written, well thought out queries about the issues he wishes to discuss...and, further, he's proven that he CAN DISCUSS APOLLO.

What the hell does this diatribe have to do with the issues at hand?


How about if I restate my proposal, since you seem to ignore it in favor of spewing CT theories:




Is it a fear of learning something about this truly magnificent project, which did in fact happen, precisely as we've said it did, that prohibits you from doing anything but talk about government lies and such?


Is there something about Apollo that bothers you...other than the blind contention that the government lied to you about it?


You're simply going to have to do a little better than this.

I have to second that question.

Ladies and gentlemen, this thread is beginning to lose direction. It is not a general conspiracy thread, it is addressing the specific question of whether the Apollo landings are genuine or not.

Those that have been involved in this debate for any period of time will know that previous threads on this subject have become derailed in just this manner which has resulted in their closure. I doubt that this is the result desired by either side of the debate.

Can we please return to the relevant subject and leave the off topic posting behind us.

Thank you.

You know, I just can't get by with saying that stuff at all. Doesn't matter what I say, you guys, and Lilly, and Waspie, and Jj have all at one time or another seen right through me.
You guys are right of course.

I was labeled NASA Disinformation Agent a long time ago (these HBs are far too intuitive and smart for me to keep up with any more)...and I've been called to the carpet for the lack of logic I use in being "innocent" about that too many times.

OK, I'm employing policy here, folks. Denial, etc., is in the NDSM (NASA Disinfdormation Specialist Manual), Section 3, paragraph d.


Did you know that Neil Armstrong never actually flew an airplane? (I'm risking my NDS neck here!). He was a singer who wanted to be an actor (he really has a nice singing voice). He was hired for his boyish good looks to act the part of the first man on the Moon, and the lucrative contract he got (which supports him very hansomely to this day...!) was simply too good to pass up. He never actually flew in that Saturn V rocket at all (and Gemini 8 was a complete fabrication). No one could've hired a better actor for the part.


And Buzz Aldrin, DSci? Not!!!!
He was actually doing Hamlet in a seedy theatre just outside of Newark, NJ, and was being looked at by Paramount for a role in an upcoming movie when we hired him. We gave him a contract that wasn't quite as good as Neil's, but still, one you couldn't pass up.

Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman were understudys to these guys, thus you can see that we picked the cream of the crop to perpetrate the hoax!(and, neil, Buzz, and Mike made alot more money than either of those guys have)

Hell, guys, I don't get 1/100...1/1000th of their salaries for what I do! These guys became millionaires in 1970! I still get U.S. Government level 19 pay for my job, so I'm spilling the beans!!!!






...Neil, Buzz, and Mike, if you've read this, please forgive me...I've got this nutty streak in me...I'm only kidding guys!

Not a bad idea, we're getting a little off track...!

I was incredibly disheartened today when I googled 'moon landing' and the search returned almost as many hoax sites on the first page, as legitimate information sources about the landings. I talked about this last time in the last thread, but this has strengthened my resolve to do something about it. I'm considering setting up a site which will debunk every single conspiracy theory in regards to Apollo. I envision a site that is easy to navigate, is easily browsable and full of every single Apollo thing that can be found on the internet. More specifically, I imagine writing two debunks per conspiracy theory. One debunk in plain English so the average Joe can understand the basic science or logic surrounding the answer - an answer that they will be able to understand. The other debunk would be a full scientific review of the theory being presented, backed with peer reviewed work from scientists world wide. For example, the "Hubble could see the Apollo hardware on the moon" theory would be answered in short about how hubble lacks the resolution etc, then perhaps a few basic lessons in optics and telescopes. The detailed reply would include calculations involving calculating the angular size of the material on the moon then comparing this to what hubble can see etc.

Obviously this is an absolutely mammoth task, but I see the need to preserve the integrity of the Apollo record. I'm willing to fund the entire thing, from design to hosting but I would need help with the detailed science side and a whole plethora of other parts (including gathering relevant conspiracy theories). At the moment this is just in the ideas stage, so if anyone wants to suggest any ideas or anything, then feel free to PM me / post in here.

Waspie my good pal, I'm not sure if this discussion should be kept in this thread or opened up in another thread so I'd appreciate your advice

It is on topic so I can see no reason for it not to be discussed here, however MID's The Apollo Program: The Moon Landings thread in the Space and Astronomy forum might be a more suitable place for such discussion, That thread is for questions and discussions related to the Apollo missions and technology not with conspiracy theory.

Waspie...


You humble me.


That's the second time you've linked up that thread!


So, I put a teaser on it to bring it to page one in Space and Astronomy...


Anyone interested in actually discussing Apollo....check it out.
I'd be more than happy to entertain anything...and I'm sure that the rest of the qualified help here (who are now somewhat numerous, and often better than I am at it) will be more than willing to step in!






Gav...anytime you'd like, you can post anything on there you want. That actually is a decent place to go...that's kind of what I was hoping to set up.

p.s., the integrity of the Apollo record is fine, pal!
What is really needed is an intense effort to show folks that it exists, where it is, and what it contains, and to teach them how to access it and learn from it....that in itself is perhaps a daunting enough task!

Actually, this is another example of the faulty logic that I've come to expect from "official story" supporters.

First of all - as Sunofone mentioned earlier - there are many anomalies/mistakes in the Apollo videos and photos. The flubs I've pointed out in the Apollo 12 video clip are hardly the only ones in the Apollo archives.

For example, here is a photo - published by NASA itself - showing three astronauts on the Moon.....



http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj.trio.jpg

In case you wondered about whether the link above was an authentic NASA url, it is.....

http://www.hq.nasa.gov

OOPS! How'd that photo skip past the NASA "editors" before it came out in public? I can just imagine how well this went over with the honchos at NASA.....

NASA Admin: "AARRGH!! You....you...MORON! I've seen some royal screw-ups in my day, but this one takes the cake! Either airbrush out that 3rd guy in the far background, or don't release the photo at all! Now get your dumb ass outta here this second - you're fired!" (this is gonna take major damage control)

Your argument is the well-worn "trump card" of all "anti-conspiracists". I've seen it used in support of every "official" story from JFK, to 9/11, to Apollo. That is, if the conspirators could pull off such a massive event, then they would surely not be so incompetent as to leave the slightest evidence of their involvement, in plain view of the public.

The point is this: it doesn't matter how much time, money, and expertise are available - it still can't guarantee you will be completely immune from screw-ups. Not even when you have the massive resources of an agency like NASA. Why? Because they are human, just like the rest of us. And just as capable of screwing up. And just as likely to screw up.



Now that's a new one to me. They had to "invent the concept" of "the whistle blower"? Please.

Whistle blowers don't need to be "invented" - they actually do exist, and have existed in the past. Some are on public record, and some remain anonymous.



Again, that is wrong. These mistakes can most certainly have occurred.

Whether whistle blowers were behind some mistakes being revealed or overlooked is entirely speculative. Nobody - outside of NASA - knows for certain why the mistakes came into public view. And it really doesn't matter in regard to the issue of a hoax. We only need to know that these mistakes do indeed exist.

Turbonium

You forgot this photo:



And this one:




And this one:




And this one:




I challenge you, turbonium, to produce one shred of evidence that NASA at any time in its history ever tried to represent either these photos or your example as the true record of any Apollo mission.

I am really disapointed, turbonium, in your effort to use these obvious jokes, as explained here: Fun Images

as evidence of some kind of mendacity on the part of NASA.

You're right Turbonium, that image is a fake. But it is not an official Apollo image. Never was. It was digitally created by David Harland for use on the NASA "fun images" page. The top of the page starts with this quote

Reference the section here
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/...lsj.funpix.html
titled "The Real Secret of Apollo 12"

What is funnier though is that you and others think it was a real image.

Darn, you beat me to it AtomicDog. And you presented the issue better as well.

Hi Pericynthion

I've got my bowl of popcorn, and I'm ready to go!

First, as to the comparison between the high quality image(s) and the video still(s) being a problem - let's compare my video stills to several other Apollo video stills of the LM. You'll find that all of the other stills do show gold mylar.

From an Apollo 14 clip, at approx. 1:07...



http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a14/a14v.1150603

Watch the entire clip linked above. The camera swings around (quite quickly at times), and the gold mylar is always seen on the LM as it comes into view several times. Watch any of the other Apollo 14 clips that include the LM - they also show the very bright gold color of the mylar, at all times.

And, if you have the time, watch the clips from Apollo 15, 16, and 17. I've looked through all of them, and every one that shows the LM gold mylar has GOLD colored mylar. If you find any examples that can even compare to the non-gold ones I've pointed out in the Apollo 12 clip, then please tell me where they are....because I can't find any, whatsoever.

However, if you can't find any other non-gold mylar that has other colors present (ie:blue-green, white, flesh tones), then will you concede that your argument about it being caused by the "low-resolution, highly-compressed Web video originally shot on a color-wheel video camera with less-than-stellar image quality", is not valid?



No, color banding is nothing like what we see in the Apollo 12 clip. First, here are two examples where color banding does occur, in the Apollo 14 clip I linked earlier....



And here is the still I posted from the Apollo 12 clip....



Compare the stills...

- the Apollo 14 color bands are randomly curved, and have no defined "border" around them.
- the Apollo 12 color bands are quite straight, and have a distinct, quite square, black border around them.

But this is the most important difference - watch the actual clips to compare how the Apollo 14 color banding quickly "flashes" in and out (app. at 1:07), while the Apollo 12 color bands do not. That is, as the camera moves downward, the bands come into view. Watch the Apollo 12 clip from about 2:04 to 2:07.....

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a12/a12v.1155619

They are two completely different things. The Apollo 12 color bands are actually concrete, present in the scene itself. They are not the result of a camera glitch, like those in the Apollo 14 clip.

I'll address the rest of your post later....

Cheers

You're proposing that the antenna dish noted by your green arrow is the same thing as the white material I've indicated below?



That isn't at all convincing to me. The dish in your image is nowhere near to the struts below it. In my still above, the white material is directly connected to the rest of the white lines (which you call the "struts"). What makes you think this could be the antenna dish when there is such a discrepancy between the two images?



I know what you're saying, but again, I find it entirely unconvincing. The "blob" is even missing only a few frames after the one I posted above....



Not possible if it actually was the antenna dish, as you contend. The first still (with the "blob") has what looks to me like two arms and hands, reaching down from the upper left, grabbing at the white material. If that is correct, it would possibly explain why the material is gone in the second still above.



You certainly have no problem believing that the material is a goldish color (gold mylar). But it's a fact that there is absolutely no gold color present by observation. The arm, however, is very clear to see - both in color and shape. To me, your argument is relying entirely on what it "must" be, despite no real evidence to support such a belief. The gold color "must" be there, it just "looks" like it's not, because of ____ effect(s).

Below are 6 stills from the clip, all of which you contend show gold mylar.....



None have gold color (the closest is the chair), but they do have white, blue-green, red, and lots of blackish areas.



If it's entirely controlled by NASA, I quite likely wouldn't accept it. Otherwise, it would largely depend on whether or not there was truly independent verification.

What would it take to actually convince you Apollo was faked?

I didn't see it listed as a "funpix" in the url. I did see it was a NASA url, however, which is why it appeared genuine to me. I could have (and can) put up other material from known "authentic" NASA archives, to make my point about how mistakes can and do happen.

Just wondering - If it's meant to be a fake photo, then why wasn't it made obvious by "funpix" or something, within the url?

Because I suspect NASA's primary goal isn't to label pictures to please conspiracy theories, that said I would have taken it with a pinch of salt anyway as I know that the rest of the real images have image references in the file name

It's more than fine, it's solid as a rock! I was talking about the integrity in the general populations minds I think quite a big problem is the information isn't widely enough available, simple enough to access and easily searchable/browsable!

I'm going to look into possible domain/hosting today - I'll keep you all updated!

I knew that as well, but didn't go past the legit-looking url. D'oh!

Btw, there's several "genuine" clips that they should have shoved into a "funnyvids" section!

Too funny!

Wait just a minute here....a quick look at the film history of Mr. Redford and Mr. Hoffman show a clear gap for the year of 1968 (the time period the "moon hoax movie" would have been in full production!)



Dustin Hoffman filmography

Robert Redford filmography

Yes, they must have been sitting at home hoping for that phone call from NASA!

Turbonium, I seem to remember you making a "joke" in one of your posts a month or two ago in this very thread, without any obvious hint to the reader. You made up a quote which you attributed to NASA.

Edit to add: see reply #406.

Your explanation might be believable, except for the fact that the word "trio" is right there in the url, indicating that NASA posted the photo BECAUSE of its "three men on the Moon" nature, not because they revealed it inadvertently.

It doesn't matter how legit-looking a url is, a url is still just a path to a file. An image url tells you absolutely nothing about the intent of the author, you have to look at the web pages that the image is actually embedded in.

As my post was specifically about the Apollo hoax theory and is on a thread specifically about the Apollo hoax theory I thought it would be obvious that when I was talking about whistle-blowers it would mean specifically in relation to the Hoax theory. If that wasn't the impression given then I apologise.


You are cherry picking small parts of a larger post and replying only to those parts. The post in it entirety dealt with the unbelievable circumstance that you would have us accept. That there was no quality control to double check that these mistakes didn't occur. and that many were allowed into the public domain.


As the "trio" picture has been so ably dealt with and yet another "anomaly" has been shown to be nothing of the sort my research on this is a little bit redundant, however I include it so the sake of completeness and as a demonstration of how easy it is to avoid such mistakes in the first place. Of course if one comes to a conclusion first and then looks for supporting evidence, instead of the more scientific approach of looking at the evidence and then coming to a conclusion, these mistakes will continue.

Below are the transcripts of two emails, one to Eric M. Jones, editor of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal, the second is his reply. In both cases the only changes I have made to content is to remove my name. I have cleaned up the formatting of Mr Jones' reply:



The reply:

No Lil...those guys were on site (out at area 51....) as understudies for Neil and Buzz during that "gap"...and they've been jealous ever since!

Turb:

With all due respect, if you read precisely what you said here....you've stepped in it.





One of the most exceptional B&Ws taken by Pete Conrad (God rest his ever loving soul...), AS12-49-7278...a gorgeous piece of camera work.


Turb...sunafone has mentioned that there are many anomalies in the photos and videos, yes. However, he hasn't shown us any...because there aren't any. There are merely mis-interpretations.

You do of course realize by now that NASA never published any photos showing three men on the Moon....and you do realize that OF COURSE THIS IS AN OFFICIAL NASA URL, and of course, that no NASA editors actually let this photo you cite skip by them????


How well did this sort of thing actually go over with the "honchoes" at NASA?
Well, I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

In an era when astronauts paraded down the halls with their urine samples as if they were some sort of sacred offering in a religious ceremony; where they'd smuggle corned beef sandwiches aboard spacecraft; and where they'd insert nude photos of Playboy models into cuff checklists that men would use when traversing the surface of the Moon...it is no wonder that someone would come up with some pretty creative effect photos...just for fun (these people were deadly serious about what they were doing...their asses were on the line...and that creates, in the mature, educated individual, a sense of humor that was all too apparent in Apollo--thank God!).

In retrospect, one might say that creating silly photos such as this was a hell of a mistake...

But then again...no one involved with this sort of horseplay had any inkling that one day, there would be a faction of folks who actually thoght that we faked the entire enterprize!


I'm sure you realize by now that this was shenanigans, and nothing more?

I shall look forward to your efforts!!!
Thanks,
M~

Turb...do you have any idea how much more advanced video was from the Moon on Apollo 14 through 17 than it was on Apollo 12's short lived attempt in 1969?
There was continual improvement in video quality on each of those missions. It was a NASA paradigm...continual improvement.


M~

You do realize that you are referring to a 1969 color-wheel camera, which is being rapidly gyrated around, and that your still frames account for a very small fraction of a second of the actual video ( approximately .3 seconds...) of the 16 seconds of video we actually got from the time they began to move the TV camera until it was irreperably damaged?



You are arguing about a couple frames of obscure video, which total perhaps 3/10 second of time, and contending that there's something amiss? How can one tell? There's nothing to see to speak of. The entire span of film you're discussing spans perhaps 5 seconds.

5 seconds of the countless hours of Apollo video that's been obtained...


Given the fact that those of us--such as Pericynthion, who has shown you very clearly exactly what you're looking at--know where the camera was, and precisely what it would be imaging during those obscure few seconds of rapid movement, have indicated the obvious to you, how can you hold onto images that cannot be clearly defined, and argue the idea that there are arms, and hands, and video monitors, and chairs in the frames?

It makes no rational sense, with all due respect.

You even contend that there was no gold foil visible, when that is all there practically was visible. You contend that there are greens and blues and reds in the frames....well, of course there are! They existed in the frames themselves, but I wonder how it cannot be obvious that an overall gold effect, certainly caused by brilliant light reflecting off of gold foil insulation, is not apparent?


You are arguing about what no one can actually see in a micro-fraction of a second of tape from Apollo 12, and contending that it is evidence of some cladestine plot to dupe Americans...


I am of the feeling that the argument is just a little weak.

With all that we have from Apollo in the line of color film and video tape (literally dozens of hours of media), you press a mere fraction of a second of obscure, virtually unintelligible video, from a relatively primative camera being processed in relatively primative fashion, into evidence of an anomalous situation, and evidence of a hoax.

The fact is that Al Bean removed the camera from the MESA, swung it about in a fashion that rendered it's images unintelligible for a mere few seconds, then, inadvertently pointed the uncovered lens directly into the Sun, which was a mere 7.5 degrees above the horizon---really low (about three finger widths above the horizon for an average fist held at arm's length)-- something that was completely understandable, and fried the camera.


There is nothing visible in this mere 15-16 seconds of video save that fact.


You may of course, press this notion as much as you like, but a fraction of a second of obscure images certainly does not, and will never constitute proof of foul play in Apollo.

MID

Seeing as how you're a knowledgeable and dedicated "Apollophile", I'm really surprised that you didn't know the exact same video camera (Westinghouse Lunar Color Camera) was used on both Apollo 12 & 14.

http://www.myspacemuseum.com/apollocams.htm

That's why I specifically used only Apollo 14 video clips to compare with the Apollo 12 footage. (The RCA J-Series Ground-Commanded Television Assembly (GCTA) was used on Apollo 15, 16, & 17).

Cheers

Yes, I did take it as a comment regarding conspiracies in general.

But even though you consider it only in the specific case of Apollo, I find it no less problematic. I'm aware some people believe Apollo was a hoax, largely because of numerous photographic anomalies. And a few of these individuals (ie: David Percy) also consider some of the mistakes to be blatantly obvious to even the most casual observer, that they speculate it could only have been accomplished through the secret handiwork of "whistle-blowers" within NASA - disgruntled employees, etc.

As I said earlier, this point is entirely a matter of speculation. In that regard, Percy is a very experienced professional photographer (IIRC). So, what he might consider to be a completely obvious flaw in a photo may not be noticeable by a majority of the general public. Unless you have a certain degree of relevant expertise, it's not likely one would be fully capable of detecting what is a fake (or possibly fake), or what is genuine - in terms of lighting, shade, continuity, etc.

And, as I also pointed out - there are many anomalies in the videos (and photos) that do exist in the Apollo archives, imo. The question of why these anomalies exist in the public record is entirely irrelevant to me. NASA contends they do not have any anomalies - at least none that can't be explained away through perfectly acceptable reasons. Others, such as myself, contend these are not valid explanations for the anomalies.

Turb...

I said that television quality improved throughout Apollo.

I do realize that the camera was essentially the same color wheel camera on Apollos 10 through 14 (save the lens caps installed on the 13 and 14 cameras)...which was reliable, and so chosen for its functionality and reliability. However, I also know that the RCA-J was not used until Apollo 15.


It was the signal processing and conversion which was improved, on every subsequent mission, as well as the camera (as soon as RCA executed its contract...after Apollo 12's incident.)

That is television improvement (when NASA gives a contract out to a contractor to make improvements to a camera based on a specific set of criteria...you must of course realize that this takes some time, no?).

Now, that having been said, it doesn't actually address the point...that you're looking at micro-seconds of video from Apollo 12 and seeing things that aren't there.

Further...you have pointed out that an improved camera wasn't used until Apollo 15.


Now let me ask you...why would NASA have given RCA a contract to produce an improved camera after Apollo 12, if all they were doing was perpetrating a HOAX?!


Hint...what we wanted was sturdier camera capable of enduring a slight esposure to the Sun's direct light....reason being, we wanted to see what was going on because there were a hundred folks in the back rooms...guys with advanced degrees in geology and such, who needed to see what was happening as it happened so as to pass on advice to the pilots who were attempting to act as geologists on the lunar surface!


You are skirting the issue here, Turb.
We know exactly what that camera on 12 was seeing. We also know why it was seeing it. As I indicated, Pericynthion gave you a complete explanation of the situation...and you have avoided adressing the blatant facts of the matter by adressing me as an "Apollophile"....cute term, but, what?

________________________________________________________________________________
_
You have backed sunafone in his contentions that there are lots of "anomalies" in Apollo phots and videos; yet, you stress 3/10 of a second of Apollo 12 video which cannot be concretely discerned as to what it represents save by those who know what the camera was pointing at, how Al actually did what he was doing, and what actually happened. You see things in that very few seconds that defy description, and frankly cannot be seen.


...chairs, arms, hands, TV monitors, etc...

They can be imagined, of course, if you stop the frames and really concentrate hard...and I contend that is what you have done with these few frames.


You stepped in it, and showed something I am uncomfortable with when you cited that fun pic as an anomaly. Further, you supported sunafone, who has done absolutely nothing but spew left wing radical ideas, and has supported his nothing with nothing...and you are going to divert about a minor point regarding the TV cameras used through Apollo 14, when signal conversion and processing resulted in the improvements we saw (and of course, Apollo 15 through 17 were vastly improved, because of a new camera and increasingly enhanced conversion and processing).

Now, I will ask you, is there something else besides a few seconds of Apollo 12 video that causes you to doubt?

Regards,
M~

Turb, you do realize that this statement has painted you essentially unreachable? You contend these are not valid explanations, despite their obvious validity, as meaured by the science we know to be correct...and yet you prefer to contend against that, rather than research the matter?

You do realize that "perfectly acceptible reasons" implies scientifically educated people applying their common sense and knowledge to issues, and that it is the correct explanation for what the un-educated sees, and constructs as a mythology to a high degree of certainty (i.e., Apollo is not theoretical anymore...hasn't been for almost 40 years)?


You are contending that a few seconds of video is proof that the Apollo program was a hoax!

The reason why any of this is explained is because people don't understand what they're looking at. It's not being explained away...it's merely being explained.

The resistance to such explanations, explanations provided by qualified people, is a sure sign of a societal paradigm that is most distressing, and increasingly more obvious....


If you contend that scientific and completely plausible explanations are not valid...you're going to have to illustrate why they are not valid...You're going to have to prove that what was done was not done.


That is a daunting task, especially in the case of so much corroborated scientific evidence and documentation that rivals anything in man's history...as well as the fact that the scientific community worldwide substantiates the accomplishment...




I take it, Turb, that you've actually watched this "professional" speak about his ideas...? If you had, and you think he's not creating a silly myth purposefully, I have my questions about you! No professional would say the things this guy says...What Percy says about the flaws in Apollo photos is by-and-large laughable to people with rudimentary photographic knowledge, let alone experets in the field!

Taking Percy seriously is like taking Ralph Rene seriously, as a self-educated engineeer. The man speaks as if too much alcohol (or something) has invaded his neural net, and he actually has no knowledge of what engineeering is. He is a joke!


Be not deceived, my friend...these people are charlatans...


Address your issues, not theirs. For theirs have already been thrashed.


Like I said to sunafone...ask your questions (he doesn't seem to be willing to do so)....but beating a dead horse about a few seconds of video out of countless hours of clear TV is banging one's head against a wall. It is clear what is seen there...

Your exact quote, MID.....

"Turb...do you have any idea how much more advanced video was from the Moon on Apollo 14 through 17 than it was on Apollo 12's short lived attempt in 1969?
There was continual improvement in video quality on each of those missions."

Much more advanced video, MID. You didn't mention television.

Then, after I said this...

The Apollo 12 color bands are actually concrete, present in the scene itself. They are not the result of a camera glitch, like those in the Apollo 14 clip.

You replied with....

"You do realize that you are referring to a 1969 color-wheel camera, which is being rapidly gyrated around..."

This looked to me as if you were making a clear distinction between the Apollo 12 camera and the Apollo 14 camera. That is, you said I was "referring to a 1969 color-wheel camera..." in the Apollo 12 clip. But in fact, I was referring to the same camera in both the Apollo 12 clip and the Apollo 14 clip.

Anyway, that's now been cleared up - it's known that Apollo 12 and Apollo 14 did use the exact same video cameras. What you are arguing is that the signal processing and conversion were improved for Apollo 14 (and so on).

But even if that were true, how do you know it would actually be relevant to the issue? We know the cameras were the same. So why do you think the Apollo 12 video would have turned out noticeably different if it went through Apollo 14 signal processing and conversion? What were the specific differences (improvements) made for Apollo 14 videos?

Oh, come on, turbo. You don't think that those two words are pretty much interchangeable in this context? Or are you just backpedaling because you hadn't stopped to consider that there might just be more to this than just the camera itself?


One other item you don't seem to have considered: storage. Sure, the cameras were the same, but how do you know what happened to the signal once it reached Earth? On what media were the signals recorded? How were they stored for the last 30+ years? What processing was done to convert the recordings to digital format? You seem to assume that you're comparing pristine video from Apollo 12 and Apollo 14, just as it was originally received. How do you know that you're not looking at an Apollo 14 clip made directly from an original tape recording of the downlinked video and an Apollo 12 clip made from a 3rd-generation VHS recording of a kinescope film made from a tape recording of the downlinked video?

By the way, I just got home from work (last-minute deadline changes ). Give me a bit of time to put some stuff together, and I'll reply to your last post to me.

I shudder to think (and I think so does Alan Bean, and Pete Conrad in his afterlife) what some people would have made of their planned Apollo 12 'buddy shot' if it had worked out.

For those not so informed, Al & Pete took along a remote timer for the Hasselblad camera with them to the Moon. It was part of Alan Bean's PPK, IIRC.

During the examination of the Surveyor craft, they planned to set up a Hasselblad camera with the remote timer and photograph both Pete & Al in front of the Surveyor. This would have, of course, prompted the question "who took the photo?".

Although Al practised retrieving the timer from the Lunar Sample Bag many times on Earth, when the time on the Moon came he couldn't find it amongst the samples! He later found it, but the moment had past and he decided not to take any 'buddy' photos.

But if he had....

MID,

There are three separate scenes with anomalous footage...

The first is a hand, seen at approx. 1:57....



The second is the segment we've been discussing, which occurs from approx. 2:04 to 2:08

And the third is the fleshy arm, seen at approx. 2:11



As for the short length of time that the anomalies are seen in the clip? Well, isn't that pretty much to be expected? I mean, do you think they'd release a video with 15 straight seconds of footage showing a stage hand walking around or something? Obviously not.

The length of time a possible anomaly is seen isn't what qualifies whether or not the anomaly is genuine. The first hand swoops in and out of view within a second. That's really quick, but it's still enough time to see that it does indeed appear to be a hand. Btw, you once suggested it could be a strap or something - do you still believe that?

I would strongly argue that my claim (of a hand) is far more valid than a claim of it being a strap. It resembles a hand in every way possible, and even shows the fingers picking at some material. There is nothing evident to even remotely support the claim of a strap (or some other inanimate object).

I won't go over the second segment features, since it's already been discussed. So as to the third segment - the fleshy arm is identical in shape and color and movement to, well....a fleshy arm. The s-band antenna claim is really grasping at straws, imo.

T

No, not in the context of the two posts I cited by MID. The only point I was making was this: it appeared to me like MID was making a distinction between the actual camera used by Apollo 12 and 14. That is, he said I was referring to a "1969 color-wheel camera", and also called it a "primitive" camera - but only in regard to Apollo 12 video quality. He failed to mention the fact that the very same camera was also used on Apollo 14. Anyway, as I've already said - it's now a non-issue. Done.



That's exactly what I asked MID about. What is actually known for a fact about the videos in regard to processing, etc? Maybe the Apollo 12 clip was first generation and the Apollo 14 footage was third. We don't know all the specifics.

We have to consider it all at face value, and assess it from that point.

we didn't land on the moon. it never happened. It was all cold war propaganda

Well that's me convinced! That said do you have any evidence to support this?

And here lies the very crux of the problem...evidence. Far too many are inclined to believe based on either shoddy evidence or to just believe without any evidence at all! This can be applied not only to the moon landing hoax but various other faith/belief driven notions as well. It's the lack of critical thinking, the jumping (should I say leaping) to conclusions, the embracing of pareidolia, the going with one's 'gut feelings' etc. that routinely leads people to incorrect beliefs about a vast variety of things.

In the final analysis all that is accomplished by such methods is ignorance and superstition.

"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."
Carl Sagan

Yes but i notice that you are from california.

Turbo,

Every board you have gone on, you have been overwhelmingly "trounced" with evidence that disprove your assertions.

From the majority of your posts, you are not stupid - so why is it that you cling to a belief that is obviously wrong?

What about the radiation doses from solar radiation outside the protection of earth.... the exposure would have been longer, and also for a while they were outside the lem, skipping around on the moon for a while.... what if a solar flare hit about then ?

I not one for fighting so i'll just post what i think....I believe we did land but not when they first said we did......I do believe the first landing was faked to beat Russia sense the cold war and all..But that's just IMO.......

There is enough warning of in coming solar flares to get the astronauts inside the LM and almost certainly get them off the Moon and back to the CSM before it hit. The CSM would have been orientated so that the service module was facing in the direction of the sun and would have offered increased protection. However solar flares were a realistic threat to the health and even the lives of the crew. No one ever said that it ws risk free. The point is that this is a "what if" question. It is irrelevant as it did not happen. Solar flares are monitored at observatories all around the world. NASA simply could not have hidden on big enough to harm the Apollo crews if it occurred during a mission.

I'm curious. What have you seen or have been told that has led you to this belief?

And your opinion is based on what evidence exactly?

I'm sorry but this makes even less sense than the belief that all the missions were faked. It makes the assumption that it is possible to go to the moon. NASA had the capability to go to the moon but they faked some of the missions anyway.

The Soviet Union was in no position to beat NASA to the moon landing and the USA knew this. The USSR built a rocket called the N1 in an attempt to get there. It never worked, and failed on all four of its test flights. The last failed test flight of an N1 was in 1974, 2 years after the USA abandoned its Lunar missions.

Because the radiation levels are not high enough to kill them for the exposure time of the mission. But if a big solar flare had hit then they could have been toast; they were brave and fortunate an unexpected flare did not occur (I'm sure other will be able to go into more detail about how NASA mimised the risk though). The proposed new missions to the moon will be there for longer, thus higher exposure times which is why they will have to think about how to have more protection for those astronauts.
Here is a bit more information, or here.

[Sigh - I must be a slow typer, three posts got in before me!]