Author Topic: Faking the moon landings  (Read 12845 times)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2729
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #345 on: November 20, 2018, 01:09:47 PM »
It also stops trolls like Cambo claiming "they couldn't answer my questions"...

That's why I wrote the Clavius.org website.  The answers have been there for nearly 20 years in some cases.  I don't feel the need to respond at length when I've already responded at length and made them available to the world for free.  Digging up the questions anew and giving them a fresh coat of paint doesn't make the existing answers go away.  If they claim "They couldn't answer my questions," then I respond, "They ignored the answers."

Nor do I buy the excuse of disregarding the existing answers because they are only alternatives to hoax claims such that casual denial suffices to address them.  First, that's not true in cases like stars in the photographs, which are the majority of hoax claims.  In those straightforward cases, the hoax claims obviously err from a factual or technical position.  When the alternative spells out facts the hoax claimant was just plain ignorant about or got wrong, it's not just competing conjecture.

In harder cases such as the curious movement of the flag, we must remember the structure of the presented argument.  The claimant identifies something that defies simple explanation, then he leaps to explain it as a telltale of some purported hoax:  "See, that proves there was air in the studio."  Well, no it doesn't.  That's one of several possible explanations he leaped over.  Proposing as true one of many alternatives carries the burden to show it is most true among them all.  Ignoring them is not a substitute for bearing the burden.  Other alternatives are usually more parsimonious.  Therefore they explain more than a claim that brings with it a lot of baggage.  That baggage is why hoax claims often assume a background in arguments of limited depth:  "It would have to be hoaxed just to avoid the radiation, therefore photographic anomalies like this are just confirmation of what we already know."
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bknight

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2529
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #346 on: November 20, 2018, 01:41:59 PM »
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.

Jay, I'm curious and I apologize if you have already answered, but have you met Sibrel up close and personal?
Truth needs no defense.  Nobody can take those footsteps I made on the surface of the moon away from me.
Eugene Cernan

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2729
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #347 on: November 20, 2018, 05:17:27 PM »
Jay, I'm curious and I apologize if you have already answered, but have you met Sibrel up close and personal?

No, we've never directly met.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Dalhousie

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #348 on: November 20, 2018, 08:09:01 PM »
Here's a photo I took on a drill site during night shift looking across a dry lake bed towards Moonrise.  The Moon is visible as a reddish object on the horizon.  Despite multiple floodlights the ground (multiple shadows) is not as brightly lit as it would be in daylight.  No stars visible, even though it was a clear night.

Nice shot.  Where is the drill site?

Lake Menindee, Australia https://goo.gl/maps/sngnQC7vjGT2
« Last Edit: November 20, 2018, 10:07:15 PM by Dalhousie »

Offline Count Zero

  • Mars
  • ***
  • Posts: 342
  • Pad 39A July 14,1969
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #349 on: November 20, 2018, 08:36:04 PM »
I don't feel the need to respond at length when I've already responded at length...

...but you do anyway (and we love you for it).
"What makes one step a giant leap is all the steps before."

Offline Glom

  • Jupiter
  • ***
  • Posts: 986
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #350 on: November 21, 2018, 02:55:05 AM »
Jay, I'm curious and I apologize if you have already answered, but have you met Sibrel up close and personal?

No, we've never directly met.
Are you sure? I've seen a clip of a hobbit punching him. Was that you?

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #351 on: November 21, 2018, 03:24:55 AM »
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.

just going off a video I saw once Jay called Lunar Legacy, didn't Sibrel leave out 1 of the 3 videos nasa sent to him because including it would have invalidated his claims

Offline Abaddon

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1005
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #352 on: November 21, 2018, 06:47:24 AM »
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.

just going off a video I saw once Jay called Lunar Legacy, didn't Sibrel leave out 1 of the 3 videos nasa sent to him because including it would have invalidated his claims
You recall correctly. Sibrel also claimed that the parts he DID include were accidentally given to him by NASA when they are quite obviously publicly available and have been for years.

Offline benparry

  • Earth
  • ***
  • Posts: 218
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #353 on: November 21, 2018, 07:02:14 AM »
...Incidentally, this conclusion is also reinforced by my own interactions with the man.

And mine.  He claims he was not invited to participate in the episode of "The Truth About..." series on the hoax theory because they could not refute his claims.  That's a bald-faced lie.  I was involved in the production of that episode.  Sibrel was not invited because he demanded a $2,500 non-negotiable "appearance fee."  Appearance fees are unheard of in the documentary world, although if the interviewee must incur actual expense in order to appear, the expenses are paid.  This is only some of the evidence I've collected that indicates Sibrel does this only for the money.  But the important point is that he lied about it.  He could just as easily have scored his rhetorical victory saying the producers were cheapskates.  But instead he voluntarily lied about why he was rejected.  As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel lies shamelessly and effortlessly.

just going off a video I saw once Jay called Lunar Legacy, didn't Sibrel leave out 1 of the 3 videos nasa sent to him because including it would have invalidated his claims
You recall correctly. Sibrel also claimed that the parts he DID include were accidentally given to him by NASA when they are quite obviously publicly available and have been for years.

yeah I thought I had that right. How many people did he con into buying his DVD eh !!!

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2729
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #354 on: November 21, 2018, 09:32:52 AM »
You recall correctly.

Indeed, and Sibrel tried to lie and say the telltale video wasn't in the package he got from NASA.  But Mark Gray confirmed that clips in Sibrel's videos indeed came from that, supporting the hypothesis that Sibrel knew all along that the evidence wasn't consistent with his interpretation but chose instead to cherry-pick from it.

Quote
Sibrel also claimed that the parts he DID include were accidentally given to him by NASA when they are quite obviously publicly available and have been for years.

Nowadays available to anyone and given out as a standard response to requests for Apollo-era film.  See Jeff Quitney's YouTube channel for a great example of such things.  But originally they were produced as so-called "report films."  Every NASA-funded project (and many other aerospace projects of the time) produced at least one of these every fiscal quarter, to be sent to NASA HQ as a visual record of progress, or as needed to document results.  So the title slug says something like "Not for public distribution," which Sibrel interpreted to mean Top Secret.  They were merely internal documents, not intended to be released for public use but certainly not restricted from it.  On Clavius you can find examples of actual NASA documents that were once classified but later declassified.  The wording of the classifications is important.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2729
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #355 on: November 21, 2018, 09:36:11 AM »
yeah I thought I had that right. How many people did he con into buying his DVD eh !!!

The company he started to distribute them reported an annual revenue of well over $200,000 for one of the years it was in operation.  Assuming that was its only product, and going by his retail price of $45 per set, that's well over 4,000.  The address listed for the company was a Nashville apartment complex (now demolished).
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline bobdude11

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 56
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #356 on: November 21, 2018, 12:53:56 PM »
I'm trying out a new phrase:

"Swallow Poster."

It's like a seagull poster, but every year it migrates back across the Atlantic and posts again.
But is it an African swallow or a European swallow? :)

Leaving it, but got ninja'd
« Last Edit: November 21, 2018, 01:24:21 PM by bobdude11 »
Robert Clark -
CISSP, MISM, MCSE and some other alphabet certifications.
I am moving to Theory ... everything works in Theory
"Everybody remember where we parked." James Tiberius Kirk, Captain, U.S.S. Enterprise

Offline cambo

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 35
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #357 on: November 21, 2018, 02:08:33 PM »
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

The evidence is in the clip, for anyone that can be bothered to analyse it. I posted the video and explained why the film was not shot on the moon.

 Sand is visible above the actors left boot, early in his ascent.


One frame after the first line appears, the finer sand is just reaching its highest point.


Seven frames later, we see the sand settling on the ground.


The sand above his boot had to be propelled upwards at a higher velocity than the actor, and the finer sand disperses and disappears on the way down before it reaches the ground. How could that happen if it were filmed in a vacuum? The only two possibilities are, that either I’m making it up or you have impaired vision, as it would be unheard of for a person defending NASA to resort to lying, wouldn’t it?

Quote from: cambo
So we now have two sets of evidence which are irrefutable proof of fakery and cannot be debunked, without resorting to lying

Quote from: bknight
No I don't see any irrefutable proof of fakery.

It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence, but when we see seemingly educated adults displaying such behaviour, there must be more to it. It has to be indoctrination, although there will be some that stand to make financial gain by defending NASA’s lies, and I am certain there is at least two of these people on these forums.

 Explain to a group of people that any object, regardless of size or weight will fall at the same speed in a vacuum and show them the jump salute with instructions on how to analyse the video, and they will all come to the same conclusion as I did. Explain to people how to determine the size, the earth would look from a given distance, and then ask them to compare their findings to what we see on Apollo 11’s alleged transit to the moon, and again, they will also come to the same conclusion as I did. When I presented my evidence, I failed to take into account, the difference in specs between my video camera and the Apollo 11 on-board camera, but if I had, then the results would be even more damning.

Your only response is that you cannot see what I see, without giving any evidence to support your assumption that what you see is what you would expect to see. I challenge you to give me just one piece of solid proof that the moon landings were genuine.

How about the reflectors? We don’t need a reflector to bounce a laser off the moon.

The lunar samples? In short, we only have NASA’s word, and when I say we, I include the geologists. Now here’s a novel idea, why not as well as a geologist being able to request a sample for delivery, he or she could also have a “pick up in store” option where they could make an appointment and browse through those hundreds of kilos of moon soil and rocks and be allowed to choose which specimen they would like their sample taken from, and then watch, while they cut them a slice.

Examining a tiny piece of rock might indicate that it didn’t come from earth and it may even be somehow possible to determine with some degree of accuracy that it probably originated from the moon, but in no way would it be possible to prove that a sample was brought back by the alleged Apollo missions. NASA never put a man on the moon, which means no one has even seen, let alone examined an Apollo sample, because they simply don’t exist.

The rocket launches? There is no proof, they made it into orbit, let alone, making it to the moon, and photos of alleged rocket plumes high in the sky doesn’t prove the alleged astronauts were in space. The only eyewitnesses who seen the crafts venturing out into space were the alleged astronauts.

Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon, so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret? If you think this is a minor point, then you haven’t thought it through, as this third party evidence, along with the lost telemetry data and technology would surely have gone a long way in silencing us conspiracy nuts.

Russia would have blabbed? Even if the US and the Soviets weren’t in cahoots at the time, how would they go about proving it? They couldn’t track the Apollo missions, so the best they could do was listen in on radio transmissions coming from the direction of the moon, when they were lucky enough to be in site of the moon during a transmission. Those transmissions wouldn’t have given the Russians any cause for concern, as they did it themselves, during the Zond 5/6 missions, before the alleged Apollo 8 mission took place. A Russian voice was picked up coming from the crafts, giving the impression that the flights were manned, when it was actually a tape recording. The Zond 5 transmission supposedly had NASA flapping for a short while, thinking they’d been beaten to yet another milestone in manned space exploration.

The Russians knew it was faked because they knew it couldn’t be done, but to accuse the US of fraud, without proof would be seen as sour grapes to the rest of the deluded world, and anyhow it was best to bite their tongue in the knowledge that they and others would now have a free licence to fake the shit out of space, and that cheap wheat sure did come in handy. It seems strange that one nation would help feed another nation with whom they were in conflict with, as wouldn’t it make more sense to help starve them?

What about the rover and this rooster tail thing? As I understand it, the alleged lunar dust, thrown from the wheels of the rover forms an arc, resembling a rooster tail, as oppose to a parabolic arc, which we would see on earth. Apparently, the air resistance on earth is the reason for the parabolic arc, but as there is no air on the moon, the alleged dust falls straight back down. What?! Surely the opposite would be true, as with no air resistance, the alleged dust would be allowed to follow its trajectory and therefore form a perfect parabolic arc? Or am I missing something? I’m actually not sure what I’m supposed to be looking at, as I can’t see anything in the rover footage that wouldn’t be observable here on earth. It’s definitely not the backward C thing, so I’d be grateful if someone could post a photo which clearly shows the alleged dust forming the shape of a rooster tail, thanks.



As I’ve said on numerous occasions, there is only one source of evidence available that could possibly prove it one way or another, and that is the video evidence, and sadly for you, it all points to a hoax. Kubrick would never have openly admitted to his involvement in the fraud, but they chose to end his life anyway, as he was about to blow the lid on the vile and deviant corruption within our governments and secret societies, of which he was exposed to. Who knows what was in those twenty minutes that he refused to cut from his last film, a couple of days before he was murdered? The likes of Sibrel and Percy are allowed to live because they are nobody’s, and anyway, NASA seem to be quite happy to let the debate linger on as long as they have stooges such as you to fight their corner.








Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 2729
    • Clavius
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #358 on: November 21, 2018, 03:07:20 PM »
Apollo was tracked? No tracking station outside of NASA’s influence can attest to tracking any of the Apollo missions on their journey’s to and from the moon...

You don't read Russian astronomy magazines, apparently.

Quote
...so the question that needs to be answered is, why was the data required to track those nine moon missions kept a secret?

Thank you for confirming you know nothing about space operations.  Radio frequencies and general orbital characteristics for non-orbit missions were routinely published starting in the early 1960s for the purpose of deconflicting communications and tracking.

You realize we can tell you're just making all this up as you go.

Quote
It’s really quite sad that some people just don’t have the courage to admit they are wrong, even when it is plainly obvious, which to me, suggest stubbornness or a lack of intelligence, but when we see seemingly educated adults displaying such behaviour, there must be more to it. It has to be indoctrination, although there will be some that stand to make financial gain by defending NASA’s lies, and I am certain there is at least two of these people on these forums.

Poisoning the well only works if you're not the one who's demonstrably ignorant.  Obvious troll is obvious.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline onebigmonkey

  • Saturn
  • ****
  • Posts: 1219
  • ALSJ Clown
    • Apollo Hoax Debunked
Re: Faking the moon landings
« Reply #359 on: November 21, 2018, 04:27:01 PM »
Cambo, you can pile in the ad hominems all you like, it doesn't hide your lack of knowledge and it doesn't prove whatever point you're gish-galloping through at the moment.

I could be getting a a 6 figure pay cheque every month from NASA but it wouldn't make either of us right. What matters is whether the information you are given is correct. It is. The information you have so far given has not been correct.

Here, have a thread from Cosmoquest about Soviet monitoring of Apollo for free:

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/archive/index.php/t-20447.html