why was the usa the only one to go to the moon?

[Mag40]

Jack White and Aulis.......are what I would regard as very dishonest, with a view to making money out of very easily led people. I came across this video a short while back.....it shows the most 'famous' of their fraudulent claims -

In that video's description is this animated gif.....more blatant evidence of either inept photographic analysis....or lies.



My question to alexsanchez : What does this say about the scruples or expertise of the Aulis website?

[ChrLz]

I'm staggered.  This has to be one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen - it must surely be a troll, but I'll give it the benefit of any doubt..  And yes, this post contains several insults, and I'll *happily* wear any penalty for same - my defence being that sometimes insults are simply accurate descriptions...

I don't want to post the patent number because my real name is on it..

Well then, effectively you don't have a patent, as far as this forum is concerned.  Don't claim it if you can't back it up.

and I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.

That's an extra hint to your trolling, is it?
But you're right - you would be insane to have your real name attached to the embarrassing gaffes you have posted so far (and that continue in this post).  No one with half a brain would employ you after reading the tripe you've posted here - even MacDonalds wants employees who have the ability to apply basic logic..

Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.

Then WHY in the name of all that is even vaguely sensible, did you bring that excrement here?  That entire site is garbage, and even those with a cursory engineering background, let alone those with other specialist skills like photography (many of whom reside here) - can see that.  But not you...

They look reasonable at a glance.

How bloody ridiculous.  So you admit your research was 'a glance'?  Gee, it doesn't show at all {/sarcasm}

If I get a chance to do my own analysis

Golly, do you think maybe you should have done that BEFORE making these unbelievably ignorant proclamations?

.. and they don't hold up, I'll say so.

Well, you haven't said so, so far.  I guess we need to give you some latitude while your posts are checked by a grown up.. but frankly, if you don't get back soon and start saying so, I think it is safe to assume that you haven't got a single clue.

I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photos

So, you've been researching this sort of stuff, but didn't have a basic image editor? It justs gets worse, if that's possible.  Learn as you go, huh?

but it hung up this macbook I'm using.

Oh, what a terrible shame.  It *is* so difficult to download and install software, isn't it.  perhaps you should seek some professional help from people who know what they are doing..  perhaps you could apply this principle to a wider extent, also..

I expect some of the claims may very well not hold up.

Well, that's the closest to being right you have managed..  Pretty much all of it doesn't hold up.  If you had any knowledge of photography and the basics of perspective, parallax and photogrammetry, you would have been able to spot that AT A GLANCE... (See what i did there?)

If somebody can do an overlay of these two photos

Many here can, including me..

(which normally I could do in 15 seconds, until my laptop got stolen out of my car)

Oh you poor darling.  There there, never mind.  Would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

then that particular claim will certainly be shot down.

Oh look - an escape clause!!  What a surprise - gee, who didn't see that bit of Gish Galloping coming...  Anyway, others seem to have already done some overlays for you - I'd prefer not to waste my time until you commit to your very best piece of 'evidence'.

All the rest of this ignorant ranting by you is just meaningless handwaving - and you have given away the game you are planning to play by showing right there how you want to wriggle out of this one before it's too late.. Thank heavens that laptop was stolen, right, Alex?  Have you got the dog ready for the next excuse?

it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA

So WHICH ONE IS THAT BOGUS PHOTO, ALEX?
Surely you picked the smokin' gun BEFORE you came here so confidently?

although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.

The burden of proof is YOURS, Alex.  History records we went.  You say we didn't, so show the BEST EVIDENCE YOU HAVE.  Go on, be BRAVE - COMMIT.  Your game is up - no more changing the subject, no more stolen laptops, no more galloping, no more escape clauses for every claim so you can simply jump from one bit of stupidity to the next.

Just grow some cojones and SHOW YOUR BEST EVIDENCE.

Consider that a direct request - I would ask the moderator to hold you to the rules of discussion.   And Alex, if you feel that request is unfair, please, do tell us exactly why.

[Jason Thompson]

I did however question how we took off from the moon knowing what went into putting a satellite in orbit from earth.  We were still using punched cards and magnetic core memory in 1980.

And is there some reason you think that punched cards and core memory were not up to the tasks they were applied to on Apollo?

If you are indeed a qualified aerospace engineer, then you are the first I have ever seen to espouse the limitations of 'old' technology as a reason a task like Apollo could not be done, rather than proudly say that what could be done with that 'primitive' computer tech was remarkable if it was properly programmed.

I await your engineering explanation for what was so much harder about a manned lunar trip compared to all the other uses that 'primitive' tech was applied to.

If you didn't care, you wouldn't comment.

False reasoning there. I don't care what people you work with did. I do care about what you did, and I do care that you are making claims that you are basing on your supposed expertise and using your 'colleagues' as proof of that expertise. I have worked with a number of people whose names you will find on a number of published scientific papers. That doesn't make me an expert in the field.

BTW, I have a patent on a software algorithm used by NASA.  I got a $2k bonus for it.

Good for you. How does that relate to your ability to judge the capabilities of 1960s space technology?

Who's we?  Do you all live in the same house?  Do you all share the same brain?

Why do you have to be so childish? 'We' are quite clearly the people on this forum.

Good!!!  You're the ones being denied alternative views.

We are being denied nothing by having you on moderation apart from your rudeness. I'm quite happy with that. Do you wish to claim that your posts are being altered or hidden? It seems that quite a lot of your views are getting through.

What do you talk about when I'm not here?

Why do you think we should all be hanging around here talking about things?

How much you all have the exact same point of view? Sounds pretty boring.

There is a general tendency to all have the same point of view when discussing matters of fact. We all also believe the sky is blue, that the Sun is bright and that the sea is wet. Boring it may be, but since it happens to be true, that's the way it goes. Do we assume that your only reason for believing Apollo was fake is just to have an alternative point of view?

[Jason Thompson]

Don't confuse reality with opinion.  There's a BIG difference.

Don't confuse analysis of the Apollo record with matters of opinion. There's an even bigger difference.

[Jason Thompson]

Who said I'm using my real name?  Alex Sanchez is my nom de guerre.

That's not my patent.  My patent is assigned to ITT (itt.com)

I don't want to post the patent number because my real name is on it, and I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.

You mean you don't want people to see what a rude and unpleasant person you can actually be?

Even assuming we accept that explanation (despite there being no obvious way one could track from a name on a patent to a pseudonym on an unrelated messageboard), I notice you have no qualms about such an issue with the real Alex Sanchez, who does have a patent and who now, according to your reasoning, may be traced back here where your posts will be associated with him. Interesting double standard.

Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.

Then maybve you should have done some work on them before bringing them to the discussion.

However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.

You already maintain they did not go to the moon, and you based that on the problem of lunar liftoff and rendezvous. Why don't you stick to defending that claim? Or are you unable to, so you just have to throw in some ill-thought examples from someone else's work?

[onebigmonkey]

 Whichever joker originally made this claim (was it Jack White??) clearly didn't make any effort to check his claim. Based on this, I'd be very leery of using his/her "evidence" again. Unreliable witness and all that.

I would suggest they didn't care about whether it was an accurate claim, because they assume that their target audience is so gullible that they won't check either.

It's an even more laughable argument than the 'no stars' hogwash - easily disprovable unless you are absolutely determined not to want to try.

[Andromeda]

 Whichever joker originally made this claim (was it Jack White??) clearly didn't make any effort to check his claim. Based on this, I'd be very leery of using his/her "evidence" again. Unreliable witness and all that.

I would suggest they didn't care about whether it was an accurate claim, because they assume that their target audience is so gullible that they won't check either.

It's an even more laughable argument than the 'no stars' hogwash - easily disprovable unless you are absolutely determined not to want to try.

Unfortunately the most persistent HBs will then say "You've got an answer for everything, haven't you?!"

Well.... yes.

[Abaddon]

This is me: David Burke

This is my patent: PN 8,064,085

You can look it up.

What, alexsanchez, are you afraid of?

[sts60]

What was about the internet that made you question that moon landings?

1)  Easy exchange of information and ideas.
2)  Youtube.
3)  Easy access to NASA video and photos.
4)  Sufficient computer power and available software for analysis.
http://goo.gl/nTFqN

That's interesting.   Here's some of the reasons I think the Apollo landings actually happened.

1) Exchange of information and ideas with Apollo engineers (and direct evaluation of their competence and integrity) and other demonstrably informed engineers and laymen, including working with plenty of both NASA and USAF personnel and contractors from many aerospace companies.
2) Inspection of actual technical documents and looking at flight hardware rather than idiot YouTube videos.
3) Easy access to NASA video and photos - and direct access to NASA materials before there was an Internet.
4) Not thinking that having a computer and Photoshop or Gimp makes me a photo analyst. 
And to add a couple of more:
5) Considerable time spent at both KSC and CCAFS, as well as JSC, and direct inspection of Apollo-era facilities.
6) My own actual experience with spacecraft and ground systems, including civil, military, and commercial projects.

I'm still a little unclear on some claims you have made about your background.  For example, you said you worked space station guidance and control at MacDac in Huntington Beach, and appealed to that experience to endorse your claim that the LM guidance approach was insufficient.  What exactly did you do?

[onebigmonkey]

Just for fun, here's a quick look at the LRO view of the area in the photos with the supposedly dodgy craters and backgrounds.

The piece of equipment being deployed is the SEP, which we can see is deployed at a crossroads of rover tracks.

There is a nice LRO image available at the ALSJ, and you can see it below rotated so that the LM is in the right place compared with the photograph.

Apart from the LM, which I've left off the cropped panorama to make it more manageable, I've suggested the locations of some of the craters visible. I think the one by the labelled SEP is pretty obvious, what about the others? I think the larger unlabelled crater to the right of the green arrow is peeping out behind the astronaut.

[ineluki]

I expect a greater attention to detail from an engineer. You seem to be confusing JayUtah for me.

Of course, a real engineer should also understand that
- Jack White is considered laughing stock  when it comes to photogrammetry and related issues, and citing him as an authority is quite silly
- claiming to be an engineer (in an attempt to appeal to authority*), while refusing to prove ones status as an engineer is also rather stupid

* not a very strong argument anyway, but to a layman like me, actually showing that one is not simply lying about one's credentials, would at least be a step in the right direction. 

[RAF]

The government lies all the time.  NASA is the government.

Is everything just black and white to you, Alex? Do you really believe that just because the government has lied about some things it means that everything they have ever said was a lie? Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you? Don't you see how ridiculous you're being?

Let me ask you something, Alex. Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?

"Does the fact that your parents lied to you about Santa Claus when you were a kid mean that you can't believe anything they told you?"

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

"Where were Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, and Michael Collins on July 20th, 1969?"

I know where they weren't.

With Santa?

[Bob B.]

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

What did you do when mom told you dinner was ready?  Go hungry?

[raven]

My parents also lied to me about the tooth fairy, the easter bunny, and where babies come from.  I never believed them after that.

What did you do when mom told you dinner was ready?  Go hungry?

Just like he put on his wellies and mackintosh when told it was sunny, I shouldn't wonder.

[JayUtah]

I don't want to post the patent number because...

...because there is no patent.

How long are you going to keep vaunting an undeserved reputation with non-existent evidence and unverifiable claims before you wise up to the fact that no one here believes you?  And no one believes you anywhere else you've tried this same stunt.  Do you honestly think you're the first person to try to pretend to be a space expert who ends up just frantically Googling hoax web sites?

You want to enjoy the benefits of expertise without submitting to the process by which it is established and verified.  Sorry, but that's just not going to happen.

...my real name is on it

Yeah, that's how we know who it belongs to.  No one asked you to claim you had a patent.  If you are claiming it's yours and you want us to accept that as proof that you are the expert you claim to be, then that's what has to happen.  So when I call up all these companies and ask for "Alex Sanchez" I'll just be wasting my time?  Your alleged mentor with the guidance patent retired 13 years ago, so I cannot contact him to confirm that you worked for him.  And since you won't give us your real name, I can't do an ordinary employment verification on you with any of the companies.

Keep in mind that when you show up telling a far different story than the industry patently believes, and when challenged you tell us that your view is the correct one because of your considerable industry expertise, then you have set yourself up to be required to substantiate that expertise.  Otherwise the parsimonious response is to dismiss your outlying opinion.

Once again you're the one asking to be taken on faith.  Your claims to a career in aerospace are not credible, and you are exceptionally evasive about them.  I have no choice but to conclude they are deliberate lies.

...I don't want people searching on it to end up on this forum where I'm just messing around on my off time.

So your professional reputation was at first allegedly strong enough for you to stake your hoax claims on it.  But now you don't want it tainted, when you're called upon actually to substantiate it.  Your sniveling approach to qualifying yourself as an expert has had quite distinctly the opposite effect.  You should have quit when it was obvious no one was about to believe you were an engineer.  You're the one who lately upped the stakes by claiming patents.  Why do you keep trying things you know won't work?

You came here voluntarily claiming to be an expert.  On the basis of that alleged expertise you told everyone else here they were wrong and told us we were all religiously-minded sheep for not accepting your allegedly superior opinion.  You seemed pretty anxious to participate in the forum under that auspice.  Now that your claim to expertise is not the least credible and it's clear you're just cribbing hoax sites to try to look smart, the forum seems less important to you.  Why did it suddenly get less exciting to you as you had to start backpedaling?

Furthermore, regarding the AULIS photos, I can't defend them as I could my own work.

Then don't use them.  No one is forcing you to.  Did you research any of the characters you are trying to pass off here as authorities?  Jack White is a laughingstock.  Professional photographers and photo analysts don't consider him part of the field.  They recognize that he has practically no skill, no understanding, no training, and far less spatial reasoning skill than the ordinary layman.  Hitch your wagon to his star, if you want, but he'll be carrying you down the primrose path.

They look reasonable at a glance.

That's because they're meant to fool gullible laymen like you.

If I get a chance to do my own analysis, and they don't hold up, I'll say so.

Nonsense.  First, your trustworthiness is absolutely zero here.

Second, you can't demonstrate an understanding of even the most basic concepts of photogrammetric rectification or even basic observational skills.  What makes you think anyone here suddenly now believes you have the skill, training, and experience to determine the authenticity of photographs?  Do you really think you can be that dumb about the subject mere hours ago, then tell us you're going to do a valid investigation?

I just tried downloading the GIMP editor to analyze the photos...

That's like telling us you've purchased a chisel off eBay and are now asking us to accept you as a world-class sculptor.  Yes, by all means use the GIMP to explore photography.  But keep in mind that I studied and taught the relevant subjects at the university where its creators were schooled, under Dr. Richard Riesenfeld and others.  Don't even remotely think that this is just another avenue for you to bluff and bluster and not get caught.  Keep in mind that image analysis is not just mindlessly wiggling sliders and saying, "Aha!  Got ya!"  I will hold your feet to the fire and keep them there.

Also there are a number of professional photographers and professional lighting designers here.  You've already met some of them.  The lesson you should learn from this post is that if you pretend in the least to have expertise you don't have, you will be caught.  If you bluff in the least, it will be obvious.  You are not dealing with amateurs here, and I guarantee you we've heard every handwaving claim about photos that there ever has been.

However, it only takes one bogus photo to be found to indicate fakery by NASA, although it wouldn't prove going to the moon or not.

That's right, set the bar so very low for yourself.  You forgot that your foaming rant already revealed why you're really here.  You want to take a little hop over a low bar and congratulate yourself on not being one of the sheeple who believe NASA.  Unfortunately the rest of us aim a little higher, such as the truth.  Not a few days ago you were telling us missions to the Moon were impossible because they had no way to locate themselves on the lunar surface or align their guidance platform.  Now you're moving the goalposts.  So why would they fake any of the pictures if they really could go to the Moon?