Recent Posts

91

The Reality of Apollo / Apollo 17 Earth at Station 2 - evidence of rotation

« Last post by onebigmonkey on February 10, 2024, 05:45:38 AM »

It's often the case that something a denier presents makes you look at things in more detail and you find something new.

In this case a twitter user was claiming some nonsense or other about the views of Earth above the horizon at the south massif.

I looked at the photographic record and found that Cernan took two separate views of Earth over the imaginatively named 'Boulder 2', separated by about 15 minutes. That, I thought, should be just enough to detect some rotation. Well what do you know (you might need to click the image to get it to show the movement):



The images used are AS17-137-20910 & 20961. SkySafari's excellent Apollo mission app is included for the avoidance of doubt.

92

General Discussion / Re: Apollo hoax documentary title?

« Last post by Mag40 on February 06, 2024, 01:23:58 PM »

David Percy is probably one of the least knowledgeable hoaxsters out there. He was the one that came up with the idiotic "superlight" to explain the obvious single lighting we see. He dishonesty uses visor reflections as his so called evidence. This video tears his argument apart with just a single piece of footage:

I can't remember where this was downloaded from, looks like Apollo 17, but there was another light blocking moment just after as I recall.

93

General Discussion / Re: Apollo hoax documentary title?

« Last post by David Ridlen on February 05, 2024, 03:54:38 AM »

Thanks!  I do still have working VHS players    But I located a download of better rez than the YouTube version.

94

General Discussion / Re: Apollo hoax documentary title?

« Last post by JayUtah on February 03, 2024, 01:25:11 PM »

Yeah, that's David Percy's video What Happened on the Moon? Want my VHS copy?

95

General Discussion / Re: Apollo hoax documentary title?

« Last post by Peter B on February 03, 2024, 08:40:05 AM »

G'day David, welcome to the forum.

What you're asking about sounds like the Aulis video. JayUtah's Clavius website mentions it: What Happened on the Moon? An Investigation Into Apollo.

I don't know whether it's available online.

96

General Discussion / Apollo hoax documentary title?

« Last post by David Ridlen on February 03, 2024, 03:48:43 AM »

I am assembling an Apollo hoax debunk vid addressing the claim that artificial light was used anywhere in the lunar surface record.  My expertise is in lighting.  But I want to include a segment from a pro-hoax documentary that I cannot locate (not Sibrel's).   I dont remember well, but it contained an interview with an expert in something like photogrammetry or measuring how light reflects of surfaces, where he claimed that a specular highlight on Aldrin's boot (descending the LM ladder) could only be caused by an artificial light (it is actually a reflection of sunlight off Armstrong's suit).  Anyone familiar with that, so I can use it? 

97

General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency

« Last post by Dalhousie on January 30, 2024, 10:30:52 PM »

But to me, the kicker is that the current and previous two administrations have had a common policy, which is that foreigners (unless they have been lawfully admitted to the United States) have no rights, including the right to be alive.  A legal researcher for the Obama administration spelled its reasoning out pretty clearly.  The United States is at war with an unspecified enemy.  The entire world is a battlefield.  So if you are a non-American located on this battlefield, then you are a combatant.  And combatants may be killed.

Do you have a source for this claim?

The most obvious source in support of this "claim" would be the words and writings of the officials of the three administrations cited.

We're not in the days of Kennedy and Nixon, when assassination of a foreigner would be a covert operation.  They brag about it on television these days.  Calling this a "claim" is a bit like referring to "Joe Biden is the president of the US" as a "claim".  (OK, some people do dispute that particular "claim".  But no matter.)

This may take a while, but we can go a little at a time.  Let's start with this article.

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1302&context=facpub

Back from 2003, this one clearly would not have anything to do with the Obama or Trump administrations, but we'll get there eventually.

Apart from the wealth of information contained in the article, one might note the quote from then vice-President Dick Cheney, in which he states that foreigners who enter the United States illegally and conduct terrorist operations killing thousands of innocent Americans, do not deserve the "guarantees" and "safeguards" that would apply to American citizens in the "normal judicial process".

Well that certainly shows that I had a serious misunderstanding of the judicial process.  I thought the function thereof was to determine who were and who were not the criminals.  So how do you know whether someone conducted a terrorist operation killing thousands of Americans?  I thought you had a trial, and a prosecution presented evidence, a defence disputed that evidence, and then a judge and/or jury would indicate whether they found the evidence sufficiently compelling to conclude that the person had indeed conducted such a terrorist operation.  In other words, you followed the "normal judicial process".

But apparently, some unspecified party has the ability to determine, outside of the normal judicial process, who has and who has not conducted terrorist operations, and who therefore is and is not entitled to the "guarantees" and "safeguards" of the normal judicial process.  The purpose of which is now unclear to me, since it seems that we have been able to determine the accused's innocent or guilt somehow outside of the normal judicial process, so why is there a need for a judicial process at all?  Does this apply to all kinds of crimes?  Why should murderers, kidnappers, or paedophiles enjoy the "guarantees" of "safeguards" of the judicial process?  If we can determine their guilt or innocence outside of the judicial process, well, just throw them into prison if they are guilty, and let them go if they are not.  Why do courts even exist?  Vice-President Cheney also does not seem to have explained why American citizens who have conducted terrorist operations should have such guarantees and safeguards, but foreigners should not; perhaps it is easier to determine whether or not foreigners are terrorists, than it is for Americans.  I'm not really sure.  Perhaps vice-President Cheney has explained all this somewhere else.

In the 1940s, the Americans were among the allies who opposed Churchill's plans to have summary executions for Nazi leaders.  Apparently the American government has become more omniscient; it could not then determine the guilt or innocence of Nazi leaders without a judicial process, but it can now determine the guilt or innocence of foreign accused terrorists.

But vice-President Cheney wisely applies his doctrine only to foreigners; Americans accused of terrorism must go through the normal judicial process.  This seems a bit odd, doesn't it?  Don't you think that Americans who support the government's position, that it should be able to deal with accused foreign terrorists outside of the normal judicial process, would also support the government's right to deal with them, outside of the normal judicial process?  Or do Americans only support the government's right to imprison or execute other people without trial?

More coming on the rights (or lack thereof) of dirty foreigners, in the eyes of not only the Bush administration, but the succeeding administrations.  But I'll give everyone a chance to have a look at this article first.

A very belated thank you.  As a non-American on the global battle field (and very occasional visitor to the US), I find this very disturbing.

98

The Hoax Theory / Re: Our favourite "Dr" turned up in a debate recently

« Last post by Dalhousie on January 30, 2024, 10:19:08 PM »

So I learned something today - NEET stands for Not in Education, Employment, or Training.

AKA dropouts.

99

The Reality of Apollo / Re: Colour difference between highland and mare

« Last post by Allan F on January 22, 2024, 10:11:54 AM »

Exposure. Either in-camera or in the reproduction of the photos. You can't really infer anything about the brightness unless you have the original negative/positive and the exposure information. Also, there is the issue of the retro-reflector properties of the surface, which alters the amount of reflected light dependent on the direction of the camera relative to the sun. If you shoot with the sun at your back, the regolith will appear much brighter and if you shoot across the sun, or even up-sun.

100

The Reality of Apollo / Colour difference between highland and mare

« Last post by Peter B on January 22, 2024, 10:09:05 AM »

Hi folks

I was wondering if the Brains Trust could help me again, please.

A poster on YT has said that the surface of the Moon always looks the same shade of grey, regardless of mission; but images of the Moon as a whole show the highland areas as much lighter than the mares. Therefore, according to the poster, the surface of the Moon in the Apollo 16 photos should be much lighter than the surface of the Moon in the photos from the other missions.

I compared the ground colour in hi-res versions of AS11-40-5875 and AS16-113-18339*, and while I think the ground in A16 is slightly lighter than it is for A11, it's only a small difference.

Can anyone explain the reason why the colour difference wouldn't be more pronounced? Thank you!

* I chose those photos because they were photos taken of Aldrin and Young (a) in direct sunlight, so we could see their sunlit spacesuits, and (b) early in their (first) moonwalk, so their spacesuits hadn't got dirty yet.