Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 16078 times)

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #255 on: May 25, 2018, 03:00:02 PM »
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.

Of course, but to the HBs we have 'some rocks (supposedly) from the Moon'. All we have is 'some rocks (supposedly) from the Moon'. There's nothing else but 'some rocks (supposedly) from the Moon'. Soil samples, core tubes, basalts, anorthosites, breccias, shatter cones, volcanic glass, the differences between the various sites, all these terms and more besides just don't enter their lexicon. It's all just 'some rocks', and it's all just '(supposedly) from the Moon', and since they don't understand the differences, the implications and the chemical and physical processes involved, they just assume it is all fake somehow.

It's just pure anti-rationalism. Start from the conclusion and assume that is totally sound. Anything that disproves it must be fake, anything that supports it is beyond reproach. Rational debate cannot happen even if, unlike cambo, the HB in question doesn't start by outright dismissing everything that contradicts him from any source as fake.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2018, 03:01:36 PM by Jason Thompson »
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Dalhousie

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #256 on: May 25, 2018, 06:51:39 PM »
But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.

The cores were in regolith, no solid rock required. the longest core was 3 m, with an internal diameter of 2 cm,that means a volume of 942 cm3 as returned.  Given a maximum density for regolith of 2, that is 1.884 kg of sample.   Since mafic rocks rock has a density of 3, an 16cm diameter rock would provide the 2 kg necessary.

Of course the material would have to come from several different lunar samples as you say, and include iron meteorite fragments of different types, the fragments would have to be agglutinated, have implanted solar wind, cosmic ray ages that increase with depth, and the rest.

Of course the main properties of the regolith were independently verified by the Luna cores.

But there were no lunar meteorites available anway during the Apollo period.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2637
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #257 on: May 26, 2018, 12:46:02 PM »
But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.

The cores were in regolith, no solid rock required. the longest core was 3 m, with an internal diameter of 2 cm,that means a volume of 942 cm3 as returned.  Given a maximum density for regolith of 2, that is 1.884 kg of sample.   Since mafic rocks rock has a density of 3, an 16cm diameter rock would provide the 2 kg necessary.

Of course the material would have to come from several different lunar samples as you say, and include iron meteorite fragments of different types, the fragments would have to be agglutinated, have implanted solar wind, cosmic ray ages that increase with depth, and the rest.

Of course the main properties of the regolith were independently verified by the Luna cores.

But there were no lunar meteorites available anway during the Apollo period.
Spoken like a true geologist. :)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Dalhousie

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 466
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #258 on: May 26, 2018, 06:42:22 PM »
But where are you going to get 2.5 metre long core samples from? From a lunar meteorite 2.5 metres across? Seriously?
And you'd need several separate massive moon meteorites, so scientists don't get sneaking suspicions from similarities.

The cores were in regolith, no solid rock required. the longest core was 3 m, with an internal diameter of 2 cm,that means a volume of 942 cm3 as returned.  Given a maximum density for regolith of 2, that is 1.884 kg of sample.   Since mafic rocks rock has a density of 3, an 16cm diameter rock would provide the 2 kg necessary.

Of course the material would have to come from several different lunar samples as you say, and include iron meteorite fragments of different types, the fragments would have to be agglutinated, have implanted solar wind, cosmic ray ages that increase with depth, and the rest.

Of course the main properties of the regolith were independently verified by the Luna cores.

But there were no lunar meteorites available anway during the Apollo period.
Spoken like a true geologist. :)

Naturally - five continents, three oceans, and two planets ;)

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2637
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #259 on: May 26, 2018, 07:06:53 PM »
Good one. :)
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #260 on: June 19, 2018, 04:30:27 AM »
Quote
“If you're going to claim that "gravitational slingshots" (gravitational assist manoeuvres) don't work, then you'll need to do more than just make vague statements like "I don't believe they work" or "I don't think gravity works the same in space" - or whatever nonsense it is you're proposing.  You need to show the flaw in the mathematics and physics.  You need to show your calculations of what happens when a spacecraft passes close to a planet.  Until you can do those things, you're just another random person who doesn't "believe in science" and who isn't prepared to learn enough about it to argue their point coherently.”

You’re right, I don’t trust the science, but it is all we have, as this is the stuff we are taught in schools, and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

Even if the science is correct, it would only show us that space flight is possible, but in no way would it be proof that these events have actually took place. In the case of Apollo, Surely the visual record is the only source of real evidence, as without this evidence, we would only have NASA’s word.

Quote
“Or maybe they figured that since the physics of gravitational slignshots was well known by that time, but a little too arcane for a TV audience, they didn't go into that detail for the documentary. Have you tried doing any actual research into how these things work?”

I know, how in theory, a sling shot should work, but a documentary is supposed to be informative, and this one most definitely wasn’t.

Quote
“Just because all you have seen is a few clips on YouTube don't assume they give you anything like the full picture”

I’ve probably seen them all, and I definitely get the picture.

“Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD and Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky only seem to exist within the domains of conspiracy websites, as no other references for their names seem be available”

You are right of course, but I wouldn’t expect to find such information on a pro Apollo site.

Quote
“Your contention was that NASA was needed to determine the position of earth as seen from the moon. I said that anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy doesn't need NASA. If that doesn't include you, that's not my fault.”

Are you saying I’m thick because I don’t have a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy? I think you’ll find there are more people in the world without this knowledge than people who possess it. So does this knowledge make you a better person than most? Of course not, it just makes you the pompous condescending man that you are.

Quote
“Who operated the wires? Where was the harness attached? How did the wires somehow manage never to get tangled up with each other as astronauts crossed paths multiple times?”

I’m sorry but I can’t find the names of the wire men, but here’s where the wires were probably attached.



=493

As for tangled wires, maybe the scenes you mention, only had one man on wires, or if the men stayed approximately the same distance apart, it would be an easy task to suspend both of them. Helium balloons would be a good solution, in fact the more I think about it, that may well be how they did it.



Quote
“What we take issue with is people claiming expertise they plainly do not have and have no intention of acquiring, and who clearly have a problem with those people who have actually bothered to do that”

So in what field is your expertise, because it certainly isn’t cloud formations.

Quote
“Being able to copy and paste is not the same as understanding something”


If I read something, I will understand it, whether it’s a lie or not, so don’t come that condescending crap with me young man.

Quote
“So you're happy to concede that your preconceptions are prejudicing your understanding and defining you answers”

No, that statement applies to you.

Quote
“Nope, wrong again. You clearly have no response to the fact that every single image of Earth, whether it be still image, 16mm film or live TV, contains a unique meteorological fingerprint that is verified by images from meteorological satellites. The configuration of landmasses, and the position and shape of the terminator, in those images are exact matches for the time and date they were taken, as are the details referenced in them during the missions themselves. There is no explanation for those matches other than the images were taken when and where historical fact says they were taken. Prove otherwise.”

It’s already been proven that the footage you got your earth images from, was not shot on the outward journey to the moon, which makes those satellite images false also.

Quote
“The particle size distribution is clearly not just sand”

“And you can tell this, just by watching that poor quality film?”

“Yes, it's funny that you can't work out how.”

Ever studied one of these people skipping or jumping, like in the jump salute for instance? The sand falls faster than the person, and that’s a fact. Pity they couldn’t put all those grains of sand on wires.

Quote
“I for one have spent more time than I care to remember processing and sieving soil samples in to standard size fractions. If you want to know yourself, try it.”

A simple “I don’t know” would have sufficed.

Quote
“Nope, it's a fact. I downloaded the raw images and processed them myself, so I know exactly what's in them even if Japan, India and China don't. Not only do the landing sites show evidence of human activity, you can take any image taken from lunar orbit by Apollo and the tiniest details are an exact match for subsequent probes.”

It would be very awkward if they didn’t match, but it’s only a fact if it’s not a lie.

Quote
“That's the second time you have tried to imply that I have somehow not spent years trawling archives for data, checking the transcripts and video, buying contemporary books and documentation and verifying that the conclusions I have drawn are correct. The work is mine, no-one else's”

Ok, calm down! You didn’t by any chance obtain the satellite imagery from these books you mention, did you? If so, was this book or books, published on the same day as the images from the alleged live TV broadcast? I almost feel terrible, asking you this question, but how can anyone be this gullible?

Quote
“Mainly, the use of my eyes and ears, rather than taking someone else’s word for it”

“When do you plan on starting this? So far all you've done is blown a lot of hot air at it and puked up some Aulis and Sibrel garbage.”

The Aulis site makes a hell of a lot more sense than NASA’s garbage, and thanks to Mr Bart Sibrel, you are all a laughing stock in the eyes of us normal people.

Quote
“Transcripts? So there is no actual alleged video footage of them discussing football scores, for example?”

“Yes.”

When you say yes, do you mean, yes, there is no footage, or yes, there is footage?

Quote
“He suffered from alcoholism and depression for years, and the internet is full of articles on the subject”

“Well done. Shame you don't bother following his media appearances world wide and the rather nice life he leads since he got his act together”

If that’s the case, I’m genuinely pleased for the man. He’s reportedly worth $12million now, so that $5million has gained a lot of interest over the years.

Quote
“I answered this question some time back, but just for your benefit, they could have been meteorites, which everyone agrees, probably came from the moon, but with the fusion layer removed.”

“And how do you think they know they are from the moon?”

Because NASA told them so.

Quote
“Show me some video footage, where they mention something they couldn’t have known in advance.  Although they could have just talked live over the pre-recorded footage, which just shows how gullible you are”

“There is plenty, look for it”

There isn’t any is there. You are making the claim, you know how it works.

Quote
“Take your own advice. Look carefully at the information you are using as your source material and ask yourself if it is actually correct instead of allowing your prejudices to inform your opinion. Otherwise you're the one that's going to continue looking like an idiot”

Wow, what great advice! I started out as a believer, but unlike you I was willing to listen to arguments from both sides, without any prejudice, and as a result, I came to the same conclusion as the vast majority of people who’ve took the time to sift through the mountain of evidence that points to a hoax. Being labelled as idiots by a small group of brainwashed, juvenile name calling individuals doesn’t bother us, as we are in the majority, and the fact that you shout the loudest will never make up for this.

Quote
“Yeah, there are no air-to-ground audio recordings of them discussing sports results”

Are you kidding me?

Quote
“Maybe cambo thinks we're all the same person?”

You are all of the same mind, so what does it matter who said what?

Quote
“The irony is he demands video footage showing something they couldn't have known in advance and he posted a video himself showing exactly that”

Oh, those clouds again, any chance of a satellite image, matching the view from that other window?


Offline Zakalwe

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1278
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #261 on: June 19, 2018, 05:03:26 AM »
and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

And there we have it.




As for tangled wires, maybe the scenes you mention, only had one man on wires, or if the men stayed approximately the same distance apart, it would be an easy task to suspend both of them. Helium balloons would be a good solution, in fact the more I think about it, that may well be how they did it.
How big would a helium balloon have to be to suspend a man in a spacesuit?


Are you saying I’m thick because I don’t have a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy?

In fairness, no-one needs to call you thick. Your own ignorance and words does that all by itself.


"The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.' " - Isaac Asimov

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 39
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #262 on: June 19, 2018, 05:32:44 AM »
Quote
“And again. You'll agree with 'experts' when they agree with you, but you'll dismiss any experts that don't. Typical HB troll”

“4/5 of cambo's links are to aulis, a lying site of scumbaggery, known to invent imaginary "experts" out of whole cloth.”

“He hasn't done any research beyond HB sites, and has clearly seen very little of the record apart from those little clips and pictures they use to prove it was fake.”

“There is absolutely no way to argue with someone who says he's willing to discuss proof but already dismissed anything that disagrees with his conclusions as invalid”

Those sites aren’t for you, as your minds are already made up, but they make interesting reading for the rest of us. I am labelled as a troll, just because I find the evidence pertaining to a hoax to be far more compelling than the evidence I see coming from NASA. Your stubborn refusal to even consider any evidence that goes against NASA’s version of events is typical of you NASA fans, and you will even resort to lying in an attempt to win an argument.

For instance, let’s take a look at the Apollo 16 jump salute, where we observe the sand falling quicker than the bloke in the spacesuit. First, we see the sand leave his boots and fall back to “earth” before he reaches the top of his jump. We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together, and you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.

That doesn’t happen in this case, and some of the sand is higher than the alleged astronauts’ boots, but for some reason it stops and falls back to the ground while he is still rising. His jump would only be the same height as the sand, if it wasn’t for those wires. It’s quite simple to measure how fast the sand and the alleged astronaut fall in relation to each other by simply drawing horizontal lines and counting the number of frames from the upper line to the bottom line, as the object falls. I counted seven frames for the sand and twelve frames for the bloke in the suit, and the only way to debunk this, would be to lie, as this foul mouthed NASA troll has done.



In the first instance of the jump, measuring the sand, the top line appears one frame too early, as the sand is still rising, and the line is also below the true height of the sand, so we have to advance at least two frames to get the sand level with the line. Twelve frames later, after the top line appears, the bottom line appears, but the sand has met the ground three frames earlier. We also observe the smaller particles of sand being buoyed in the air and taking longer to descend. The only explanation for this, is that it was shot on earth with the person being somehow pulled up and suspended in the air to mimic the moons gravity.

So we now have two sets of evidence which are irrefutable proof of fakery and cannot be debunked, without resorting to lying, so let the hand waving begin.

Quote
“let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of  lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems”

Why do you people always have to overcomplicate things? Do you assume that if you make it sound overly technical, we will all run away scratching our heads? First of all, the samples are given out in slivers, for which metal tools are used, and only a very small portion of the alleged moon rocks have been analysed, and the rest are allegedly under lock and key, apart from the ones that have been lost or stolen. As for the pits, it would be easily done with a laser, and Helium 3 would still be present, and in any case, who do you think told the rest of the world they were moon rocks, and why do the alleged samples from the Chinese rover possess different properties to the Nasa samples?

Quote
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”

“Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side”

“Almost missed this one. Notice how cambo has deftly tapdanced away from his previous contentions?”

It seems you’ve missed more than just that one, as I had already openly admitted that the Rover could fold up and be attached to the Lander, and then unfold onto the moon set.

Quote
“I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.”

“That's right; cambo thought it went inside the Descent Stage, showing that he had no real idea how the LM was constructed”

A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour, and the fact that you don’t get it, is not my fault. You really need to get out more often.

Quote
“You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it”

So when did you last unfold a LRV?

Quote
“He pretends that Rover deployment was never an issue”

Wrong, after seeing a documentary on the subject, I could see it was no big deal.

Quote
“and says that his actual concern was the weight load and balance problems that flying with a LRV attached to the LM would cause, even though aerospace designers and flight engineers have had to deal with balance issues since the birth of aviation.”

You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation

Pardon me for saying this, but you come across as being a bit of an airhead, as you go over the same things multiple times, and nothing I say to you seems to sink in. Are you taking medication for this?

Quote
“At every step the bar of 'acceptable proof' will be raised as soon as the one standard he asks for is actually provided. The rover is just one example.”

The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back, and it makes me wonder if you are trying to divert my attention from subjects which you aren’t so comfortable with.

Quote
“There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.

The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence”

Why do you persist in this dumb assumption that everyone involved would need to know? If you were sent to collect moon meteorites, why would you assume you were part of a hoax? If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple. You lot are just too clever for your own good, as you overthink every little detail.

There’ll be thousands of NASA employees who have their doubts, but if they can’t provide any new evidence, then they would just become another HB lunatic. On the other hand, if they did have new evidence, it could turn out to be a major health risk, although there are some who speak out.

=900

Quote
“7   Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?”

The problem is not its ability to launch, but rather did it have the fuel and storage capacity to carry its alleged payload all the way up into orbit.

Quote
“8   Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?”

How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith#Moon

Quote
“9   How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition”

I believe I’ve covered most of that question, and as for the difference in isotope composition, apparently moon and earth rocks are pretty similar in this respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Composition

Quote
“11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?”

A combination of slow motion and supporting wires are being used, to simulate the moons gravity.

Quote
“12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?”

Well my previous answer renders this question moot, but if we pretend there were no wires, then the equation to determine how long it takes in seconds for an object to fall over a given distance is √(2d/g)  so an object falling 1 meter on earth would be the square root of 2x1/9.807 which gives us approximately 0.452 seconds. On the moon it would be 2x1/1.623 which gives us approximately 1.11 seconds. If we then divide the earth time by the moon time, we conclude that the film would need to be played at approximately 0.41x speed to simulate lunar gravity.

After watching a lot of footage with normal movement, without any jumping or skipping, 1.5x speed looks right to me, so I would estimate that the actual speed of the film has been slowed to 2/3s or 67% of its original speed.

Quote
“14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away”

On the whole, I am certain that these people are telling the truth, but they only received transmissions from the vicinity of the moon, which could have been achieved by an unmanned craft, possibly placed there long before the Apollo missions, simply relaying radio transmissions from earth, which would be timed to coincide with what people saw on their TV’s.

Quote
“17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”

It’s that kind of question that amuses us HB’s, as it shows how incredibly gullible you all are. Where is the video showing this footprint being made? Come to think of it, I can’t remember seeing any footage of the alleged astronauts making a clear footprint. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?





Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #263 on: June 19, 2018, 06:31:37 AM »
You’re right, I don’t trust the science, but it is all we have, as this is the stuff we are taught in schools, and I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

Oh yeah, brainwashing, that's what school science is....

Quote
Even if the science is correct, it would only show us that space flight is possible,

Listen to those goalposts being moved.

Quote
Quote
“Just because all you have seen is a few clips on YouTube don't assume they give you anything like the full picture”

I’ve probably seen them all, and I definitely get the picture.

I don't care how many YouTube clips you've seen, have you seen all the film and TV from all the missions?

Quote
“Gennady Ivchenkov, PhD and Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky only seem to exist within the domains of conspiracy websites, as no other references for their names seem be available”

You are right of course, but I wouldn’t expect to find such information on a pro Apollo site.

It has nothing to do with being pro-Apollo or not. Real academics do not resitict themselves to one set of sites and can be verified independently, their place of study, their published thesis that got them the qualification, and any other published works. If they can't be found outside hoax theory sites then it is appropriate to question the legitimacy of their expertise.

Quote
If I read something, I will understand it, whether it’s a lie or not, so don’t come that condescending crap with me young man.

That is plainly absurd. Do you claim to be able to understand anything and everything you read? Can you fully comprehend all the layers of meaning of every sentence you cast your eye over? If you claim yes, I call bullshit, because nobody has the amazing ability to understand literally everything they read. You already admit to limited understanding of various subjects, so you can't then claim full understanding of everything you read.


Quote
The Aulis site makes a hell of a lot more sense than NASA’s garbage, and thanks to Mr Bart Sibrel, you are all a laughing stock in the eyes of us normal people.

Making sense is not the same as being right. Aulis can't even manage to remain consistent in their arguments.

Quote
Because NASA told them so.

Ah yes, because all of geology is just lining up to be told what rocks are. You seriously think geologists the world over can't tell the difference between a rock from Earth and one from the Moon? Explain why it is more ikely that an entire field of science is either incometent or in on a lie than that you might be wrong.

Quote
Wow, what great advice! I started out as a believer,

Oh how tedious. Usual crap.

You started out as a person who didnt understand how things like lunar landings were achieved, read some stuff that said they weren't and clung to that like a blanket because it validated your insecurities as being legitimate concerns about reality rather than limitations in your own understanding that you can't be bothered to recitify.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #264 on: June 19, 2018, 06:44:30 AM »
Those sites aren’t for you, as your minds are already made up, but they make interesting reading for the rest of us.

You know, my whole exposure to this was actually the Aulis site, their book and their video. I was all set to be convinced it was faked, and I found some of the arguments compelling, but I found the cracks in them pretty quickly. How exactly should we treat someone who performs a complex mathematical analysis which is perfectly correct, but claims to have been able to measure the position of an object in a photo to within 10 microns using a ruler? Or someone who claims the position of a mile-wide rock formation to within 0.1 microns based on a photo with equivalent resolution of 100 metres per pixel?

Quote
I am labelled as a troll, just because I find the evidence pertaining to a hoax to be far more compelling than the evidence I see coming from NASA.

No, you are labelled as a troll because you sarted the entire discussion by dismissing literally everything that disagreed with you as fake before it was even presented, and because you dismiss the expertise of everyone who disagrees with you as 'brainwashing' but accept uncritically the 'experts' who say it was faked.

Quote
We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together,

Now prove that the 'sand' you are looking at is starting off on the same trajectory and velocity as the astronaut. Or explain how this can in fact be possible given the way the 'sand' interacts with his boots.

Quote
and you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.

Provide such evidence.
[/quote]why do the alleged samples from the Chinese rover possess different properties to the Nasa samples?[/quote]

Really? You can't think why rocks from different parts of a moon with a surface area of 38 million square kilometres might be different? Hell I live in a country with an area 150th that size and yet the two ends are on different bedrocks.

Quote
You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

No-one here fails to see that difference.

Quote
If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple.

Really not how science works.

Quote
How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

How much of it? To what depth? What was the pressure on the surface from the descent engine?

"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #265 on: June 19, 2018, 07:12:23 AM »
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2637
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #266 on: June 19, 2018, 07:48:04 AM »
Quote
“And again. You'll agree with 'experts' when they agree with you, but you'll dismiss any experts that don't. Typical HB troll”

“4/5 of cambo's links are to aulis, a lying site of scumbaggery, known to invent imaginary "experts" out of whole cloth.”

“He hasn't done any research beyond HB sites, and has clearly seen very little of the record apart from those little clips and pictures they use to prove it was fake.”

“There is absolutely no way to argue with someone who says he's willing to discuss proof but already dismissed anything that disagrees with his conclusions as invalid”

Those sites aren’t for you, as your minds are already made up, but they make interesting reading for the rest of us. I am labelled as a troll, just because I find the evidence pertaining to a hoax to be far more compelling than the evidence I see coming from NASA. Your stubborn refusal to even consider any evidence that goes against NASA’s version of events is typical of you NASA fans, and you will even resort to lying in an attempt to win an argument.

I gave you specific instances that aulis operators gave incorrect and misleading information, concerning the velocity of the Saturn V vehicle.  You ignored or don't understand. any lay person who reads and isn't able to filter out the BS, you deserve the "interesting reading for the rest of us"
Quote

For instance, let’s take a look at the Apollo 16 jump salute, where we observe the sand falling quicker than the bloke in the spacesuit. First, we see the sand leave his boots and fall back to “earth” before he reaches the top of his jump. We are told that if two objects, regardless of weight are launched upwards at the same velocity, they will reach the same height and hit the ground together, and you can see evidence of this, by observing someone jumping off sand on earth.

That doesn’t happen in this case, and some of the sand is higher than the alleged astronauts’ boots, but for some reason it stops and falls back to the ground while he is still rising. His jump would only be the same height as the sand, if it wasn’t for those wires. It’s quite simple to measure how fast the sand and the alleged astronaut fall in relation to each other by simply drawing horizontal lines and counting the number of frames from the upper line to the bottom line, as the object falls. I counted seven frames for the sand and twelve frames for the bloke in the suit, and the only way to debunk this, would be to lie, as this foul mouthed NASA troll has done.



In the first instance of the jump, measuring the sand, the top line appears one frame too early, as the sand is still rising, and the line is also below the true height of the sand, so we have to advance at least two frames to get the sand level with the line. Twelve frames later, after the top line appears, the bottom line appears, but the sand has met the ground three frames earlier. We also observe the smaller particles of sand being buoyed in the air and taking longer to descend. The only explanation for this, is that it was shot on earth with the person being somehow pulled up and suspended in the air to mimic the moons gravity.

I "count" frames differently than you and no I didn't see the regolith travel higher than the boots, perhaps you could use your expertise in counting and post a video that supports your claim.
Quote

So we now have two sets of evidence which are irrefutable proof of fakery and cannot be debunked, without resorting to lying, so let the hand waving begin.
  No I don't see any irrefutable proof of fakery.
Quote

Quote
“let's say you managed to get off the fusion crust on a metric buttload of  lunar meteorites without leaving detectable traces of what was used (no mean feat given how intensely studied moon rocks have been) and let's say you find a way to re-add the zip pits and helium 3 to the outer layers, well, you still got problems”

Why do you people always have to overcomplicate things? Do you assume that if you make it sound overly technical, we will all run away scratching our heads? First of all, the samples are given out in slivers, for which metal tools are used, and only a very small portion of the alleged moon rocks have been analysed, and the rest are allegedly under lock and key, apart from the ones that have been lost or stolen. As for the pits, it would be easily done with a laser, and Helium 3 would still be present, and in any case, who do you think told the rest of the world they were moon rocks, and why do the alleged samples from the Chinese rover possess different properties to the Nasa samples?


Not true, The receiving organization requests the amount of sample and should sufficient rock quantity exists, they are sent.  Get your figures straight, and straight figures straight figures never come from aulis
Quote

Quote
“Cambo, do you still think that you need blueprints to to show that the Lunar Rover could be carried on the LM and unfolded? If so, why?”

“Of course not, although it would have been yet another big challenge to fly and land for the first time, with the extra weight on one side”

“Almost missed this one. Notice how cambo has deftly tapdanced away from his previous contentions?”

It seems you’ve missed more than just that one, as I had already openly admitted that the Rover could fold up and be attached to the Lander, and then unfold onto the moon set.

Quote
“I may be capable of proving to myself that at least the Rover could possibly fold up inside the Landers trunk and then unfold into a functional moon buggy.”

“That's right; cambo thought it went inside the Descent Stage, showing that he had no real idea how the LM was constructed”

A car has a trunk, whereas a spaceship would have a hold, which should have given you a clue that I was using subtle humour, and the fact that you don’t get it, is not my fault. You really need to get out more often.

Quote
“You don't need to see blueprints of an umbrella to prove it can unfold - just open it”

So when did you last unfold a LRV?

Quote
“He pretends that Rover deployment was never an issue”

Wrong, after seeing a documentary on the subject, I could see it was no big deal.

Quote
“and says that his actual concern was the weight load and balance problems that flying with a LRV attached to the LM would cause, even though aerospace designers and flight engineers have had to deal with balance issues since the birth of aviation.”

You fail to see the difference between controlling an aircraft and controlling a spacecraft, which are two entirely different concepts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation

Pardon me for saying this, but you come across as being a bit of an airhead, as you go over the same things multiple times, and nothing I say to you seems to sink in. Are you taking medication for this?

Quote
“At every step the bar of 'acceptable proof' will be raised as soon as the one standard he asks for is actually provided. The rover is just one example.”

The rover debate came to a conclusion some time back, and it makes me wonder if you are trying to divert my attention from subjects which you aren’t so comfortable with.

Quote
“There's also the issue of where do you find a metric buttload (is that more or less than a metric f---tonne?) of lunar meteorites - i.e. nearly 400 Kg of material (after processing) without anyone noticing it being collected, identified, processed and transported to the launches.

The story gets more and more nonsensical at every turn, and now we need teams of people scouring the planet for meteorites (in secret) plus loads of geologists to process them into "samples" - all of whom now need paying to ensure their life-long silence”

Why do you persist in this dumb assumption that everyone involved would need to know? If you were sent to collect moon meteorites, why would you assume you were part of a hoax? If you were examining alleged moon rocks, you would be comparing them to rocks which you have been assured, came from the moon, so what reason would you have to suspect a hoax? The same goes for the alleged lunar soil, if they tell you it’s lunar soil, then it’s lunar soil, it really is that simple. You lot are just too clever for your own good, as you overthink every little detail.

There’ll be thousands of NASA employees who have their doubts, but if they can’t provide any new evidence, then they would just become another HB lunatic. On the other hand, if they did have new evidence, it could turn out to be a major health risk, although there are some who speak out.

=900

Quote
“7   Why do we need blueprints of the Saturn V when we have video evidence and witnesses of its launch?”

The problem is not its ability to launch, but rather did it have the fuel and storage capacity to carry its alleged payload all the way up into orbit.

Quote
“8   Why should there be a blast crater under the LM? Cite the properties of the regolith and underlying bedrock?”

How can there not be a blast crater? The top layer of the moon’s surface is loose soil, broken up over billions of years by micrometeorite bombardment, and should have been blown away by the thrust from the rocket engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regolith#Moon

Quote
“9   How did they fake the moon rocks, including evidence of space weathering, their age and difference to isotope composition”

I believe I’ve covered most of that question, and as for the difference in isotope composition, apparently moon and earth rocks are pretty similar in this respect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock#Composition

Quote
“11 Why do objects in free fall or undergoing SHM show g = 1.67 m s-2 (approx)?”

A combination of slow motion and supporting wires are being used, to simulate the moons gravity.

Quote
“12 In view of question 12, what should the correct rate of film speed be to achieve lunar g (provide calculations)?”

Well my previous answer renders this question moot, but if we pretend there were no wires, then the equation to determine how long it takes in seconds for an object to fall over a given distance is √(2d/g)  so an object falling 1 meter on earth would be the square root of 2x1/9.807 which gives us approximately 0.452 seconds. On the moon it would be 2x1/1.623 which gives us approximately 1.11 seconds. If we then divide the earth time by the moon time, we conclude that the film would need to be played at approximately 0.41x speed to simulate lunar gravity.

After watching a lot of footage with normal movement, without any jumping or skipping, 1.5x speed looks right to me, so I would estimate that the actual speed of the film has been slowed to 2/3s or 67% of its original speed.

Quote
“14 Explain how HAM radio witness accounts are waved away”

On the whole, I am certain that these people are telling the truth, but they only received transmissions from the vicinity of the moon, which could have been achieved by an unmanned craft, possibly placed there long before the Apollo missions, simply relaying radio transmissions from earth, which would be timed to coincide with what people saw on their TV’s.

Quote
“17 How did the regolith produce the famous bootprint if dry sand was used?”

It’s that kind of question that amuses us HB’s, as it shows how incredibly gullible you all are. Where is the video showing this footprint being made? Come to think of it, I can’t remember seeing any footage of the alleged astronauts making a clear footprint. Can’t you see how ridiculously insane this argument is?

ETA
cambo do a better job of quoting, include the name of the poster.
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline Jason Thompson

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #267 on: June 19, 2018, 11:02:46 AM »
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

That's exactly Sibrel's modus operandi. Everything he does is designed to support his version of events. The astronauts who don't swear on the bible have something to hide, the ones that do are going to hell for lying in the face of God.

I have perosnally communicated with Sibrel, and he has no interest in the truth whatsoever. I asked him to provide a reference for one of his claims, and he point blank refused and said I'd have to buy his video. Money and notoriety are all he cares about, and if he has to get it by attaching himself to some people who actually achieved something rather then doing anything worthwhile himself, he doesn't care.
"There's this idea that everyone's opinion is equally valid. My arse! Bloke who was a professor of dentistry for forty years does NOT have a debate with some eejit who removes his teeth with string and a door!"  - Dara O'Briain

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 225
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #268 on: June 19, 2018, 11:08:31 AM »
thanks to Bart Sibrel. thats brilliant. i remember the video where Gene Cerman actually swears on the bible (amazing how many HB's say nobody did). Bart stood up and didnt know what to say. all he could spout was 'well 6 others wouldnt'. what a complete and utter idiot.

That's exactly Sibrel's modus operandi. Everything he does is designed to support his version of events. The astronauts who don't swear on the bible have something to hide, the ones that do are going to hell for lying in the face of God.

I have perosnally communicated with Sibrel, and he has no interest in the truth whatsoever. I asked him to provide a reference for one of his claims, and he point blank refused and said I'd have to buy his video. Money and notoriety are all he cares about, and if he has to get it by attaching himself to some people who actually achieved something rather then doing anything worthwhile himself, he doesn't care.

i have personally debated as you know on facebook quite a few times. i think roughly the number of people who, as a reply to my question, copied in sibrels movie as if that alone was proof was about 50 percent. to me that is unbelievable. 2 things strike me as odd. 1st that 1 film could provide such proof and 2nd that the all powerful nasa, cia and us government would allow this video to actually exist.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2852
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #269 on: June 19, 2018, 12:20:38 PM »
You’re right, I don’t trust the science...
...I’m glad I made the decision to leave school when I did and earn a honest living , before the brainwashing started.

And that's why you're ignorant of how things actually work.  You're puzzled by the world, didn't bother to learn much about it, and latch onto charlatans like Sibrel, Bennett, and Percy who only want your money and know very well that they can part you from it by making up juicy conspiracy stories.  There is a segment of the population who will eat it up on that basis alone.

Quote
You are right of course, but I wouldn’t expect to find such information on a pro Apollo site.

Who said anything about "pro-Apollo" sites?  They can't be very well-known experts if the only thing they've ever published in their field is a treatise on how Apollo was faked.  My father spent his entire career as an academic and his publications take up about three feet of shelf space.  I can find them easily in several library catalogs, including the national library catalogs of other countries.  I can speak to others in his field who know of him and are familiar with his work.  This is the nature of expertise in the real world.  It doesn't exist in a vacuum.  Your "experts" on the other hand have nothing to establish them as experts, no one who knows them, and no record of achievement anywhere in the world.  The Aulis authors have, since the 1990s, been making up "experts" and lay witnesses who simply don't exist.  You probably didn't know that. "Bill Wood" (or "Woods") and "Una Ronald" and a whole cast of characters who exist only to lend to the notion that this isn't just a couple of charlatans in England trying to make a quid or two off of people they know will buy anything that sounds conspiratorial and won't bother to check any of the references or evidence.

Quote
Are you saying I’m thick because I don’t have a rudimentary knowledge of astronomy? I think you’ll find there are more people in the world without this knowledge than people who possess it. So does this knowledge make you a better person than most? Of course not, it just makes you the pompous condescending man that you are.

No, that's not the argument.  Your argument is that for most things regarding Apollo we just have to take NASA's word for it.  That's not true.  There are (and were in the 1960s) plenty of people who knew a lot about space and space travel who didn't get it from NASA and can't be fooled by NASA if NASA is wrong.  Those people have to be accounted for in your theory.

Quote
I’m sorry but I can’t find the names of the wire men, but here’s where the wires were probably attached.

Have you ever personally used a theatrical flyrig?

Quote
As for tangled wires, maybe the scenes you mention, only had one man on wires, or if the men stayed approximately the same distance apart...

This is why it's important for you to have seen more than just the odd YouTube clip of astronauts on the lunar surface.  You're proposing stuff that would potentially work for a few seconds, or maybe a minute or two.  But not for the lengthy shots that are in the unedited source material.

Quote
...it would be an easy task to suspend both of them.

Bwahaha!  You've obviously never staged Peter Pan with a flyrig.  Multiple actors on wires "live" on a stage with two dimensions of travel is not possible with theatrical flyrigs today.  I'm certified by Foy to operate multiaxis flyrigs and I've designed and built my own single-axis flyrig.  Since Foy's technology is proprietary, an NDA prevents me from describing it in detail.  But safe to say it works on a gantry principle that can't accommodate more than a single flier without drastically reducing his field of travel.  And that's state of the art.  So please describe a rig that could do what you say.

Quote
Helium balloons would be a good solution, in fact the more I think about it, that may well be how they did it.

That's how they did it for From the Earth to the Moon.  I worked on a film with the grip company that did those effects.  And no, it's not just handwavingly "easy."

Quote
So in what field is your expertise, because it certainly isn’t cloud formations.

Aerospace engineering, along with film and theater as side businesses.  Please tell me what your training and experience is in aerospace engineering.  Please tell me what your training and experience is in professional film and theater.  You're making claims along those lines that would ordinarily be probative only if they came from someone with suitable expertise, to be able to give his informed judgment regarding what is easy, hard, possible, or impossible in those fields.

Quote
It’s already been proven that the footage you got your earth images from, was not shot on the outward journey to the moon, which makes those satellite images false also.

No, it hasn't been proven.  You've just bought Sibrel's line uncritically and are uninterested in why his attempt at proof fails.  Then you're simply begging the question of your belief to insist that any rebuttal against it must somehow be false.  That's as circular as reasoning can get.

Quote
I almost feel terrible, asking you this question, but how can anyone be this gullible?

Most of my sources for Apollo reference are contemporary.  You are trying very hard to hide what is effectively an affirmative rebuttal.  No matter what material is produced that contradicts your belief, your standard rebuttal -- made with no evidence -- is that it must somehow have been faked.  Calling your critics gullible doesn't relieve you of the burden to prove an affirmative rebuttal.

Quote
The Aulis site makes a hell of a lot more sense than NASA’s garbage...

By whose judgment?  I've tried for years to get David Percy and Mary Bennett to debate me interactively, but they always refuse.  They refuse any exercise where they don't get to control what is said by both sides.  You haven't been at this long enough to know this, but they used to operate a forum like this on Aulis.  After I pointed out such things as how photos from one part of Percy's book contradict his "photo rules" in another part, he shut it down.  He clearly can't support his claims.  He just wants you to buy his book and movie and leave him alone after that.  His site "makes sense" only if the reader doesn't know much about how space works and only if Percy doesn't let himself be questioned by people he knows can show the flaws in his claims.

Quote
...thanks to Mr Bart Sibrel, you are all a laughing stock in the eyes of us normal people.

You're by no means normal with respect to how you approach historical questions and evidence.  And no, Bart Sibrel has been completely discredited and his attempted proof thoroughly refuted.  He tried to make a quick buck from Apollo and then realized too late that he was in over his head, and now he's been mostly hiding ever since.  And again you're probably too new at this to remember his film tour.  He took A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon on tour to different theaters in the U.S.  Afterward there was a question-and-answer period, but you only got to ask one question and no followups.  So his answers to the "hard" questions were just more made-up crap that, thanks to his ground rules, would never be questioned further.  As with Bennett and Percy, their schtick requires them to be able to avoid questions they can't answer.

Speaking of gullibility, did you know that his tax records are public?  AFTH LLC, the company he formed to sell his hoax videos, posted a quarter million dollars in revenue for his peak sales year, for a film made almost entirely of royalty-free stock footage.  In other words, it cost him nothing but his time to make.  AFTH LLC's address of record was Sibrel's apartment in Nashville (since torn down, so don't bother Google-mapping it), not any production studio or place of business.  So he took hundreds of thousands of dollars from his customers for a throw-together film he edited in his apartment, and they don't even get to hold him accountable for the accuracy of his facts.  How does that factor into your thinking?

Quote
Wow, what great advice! I started out as a believer, but unlike you I was willing to listen to arguments from both sides...

Hogwash.  Every hoax claimant makes exactly this same argument.  They all started out as believers, but then were dragged against their will to believe reluctantly that it was a hoax.  See, if that story were true then you'd be quite pleased to see how easily the hoax arguments fail when exposed to even cursory scrutiny.  You'd be glad to have your prior belief restored, and you'd thank those who helped that happen.

No, you believe in Apollo hoaxes because you very much want to, and you're fighting tooth and nail to defend that belief.  We've seen this many times before.

Quote
...people who’ve took the time to sift through the mountain of evidence that points to a hoax.

You haven't shown any evidence that you've sifted through the mountain of evidence.  You seem to have steeped yourself only in the cherry-picked bits interpreted by people with no knowledge of what they're looking at and considerable interested in getting money from you.  How does that qualify as a well-rounded experience?

Quote
...as we are in the majority...

What facts demonstrate that the majority of people believe that Apollo missions were hoaxes?
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams