“a new GR or theory for gravity must also be consistent with Newton's laws”
If they ever work out a new set of rules, part of it may indeed be consistent with Newton’s laws, but until then, we can’t say for certain. Newton’s laws were based on observations made on earth.
and have been successfully applied throughout the solar system.
“do you think that speeding up the jump salute video to 1.67x speed, rendering that video, reducing it's speed by 2/3 and then comparing it with the original is a valid approach?”
A valid approach to make it look as it would on earth? The way I read the question, it would leave me with a slower speed than I started with, so either reword the question or give it to me in English. The scene you mention was aided by the use of wires, as are many other scenes regarding the astronaut’s activities, while allegedly on the moon, so we will always see that floating effect, no matter what speed we play the video.
Oh dear, this old crap again. 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?
“If you want to engage in verbal jousting and patronising remarks about my education then I'll sure enough post a moderator report. Be warned, I've acted in good faith so far.”
Oh, have I hurt your feelings? It’s obvious that the members on here, don’t take kindly to us non-academics, who have the audacity to question your knowledge. I am criticising the education you have received, and it is not meant as an insult to you personally, so if you can’t handle one HB crashing your party, then by all means, post that report. The title of this site suggests it is a place to debate the hoax theory from both sides of the fence, but I now see that is not the case, as I seem to be the only HB here, and I’m probably in the wrong place. I doubt I’ll be here much longer, whether you post that report or not.
People here have no problem with non-academics. You might find that some people here are not academics. 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.
“I am interrogating your claims, your expertise and the your credentials by asking you a series of questions that are relevant to your claims.”
Why is a question on radiation relevant to me personally? Why would I need to be an expert on the subject of cosmic radiation to support any of my claims? Point to an instance where I have said that radiation in space is restrictive to humans. You do realise, Mr Einstein, you are not the only one with internet access, and I would be able to answer your radiation questions with a few clicks of my mouse, so stop being a clever arse.
Being able to copy and paste is not the same as understanding something.
“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.
Gee, do you think they might have thought of that? You demanded blueprints for one reason only: you think no-one has them. That's why you aren't happy with visual documentation of the rover being packed and unpacked.
“If you think that gravity is only a theory, jump off your roof and report back to us”
Gravity is real, how it works is the theory part. Did you by any chance attend the same school as me?
The invitation to check out the theory still stands.
“Please show me an experiment where sand/dust in an atmosphere behaves like this and I'll believe everything you claim”
If you are told you are seeing dust, then you will see dust, and then logically assume it is in a vacuum. If you look at it as being sand, then it becomes obvious, the footage is fake.
So you're happy to concede that your preconceptions are prejudicing your understanding and defining you answers.
“How do you explain views of Earth in those pans entirely consistent with the day's meteorological observations?”
You need to give up on this weather pattern crap, as I can see one tiny flaw in your argument. Namely, it’s b@ll?cks.
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.
“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.
“you would know how how long it would take to get the amount of "sand" required.”
Nope, but since you’ve obviously worked out the area of the movie set, and the logistics involved in delivering the amount of sand, which you have also calculated, then why don’t you tell me?
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.
“The fact is that probes sent by India, Japan and China all corroborate Apollo's imagery, and the 3D models you can create using their data also corroborate the views shown in Apollo photographs.”
“The probes from those three nations also confirm evidence of human activity on the lunar surface exactly as shown by th LRO and by images taken by Apollo.”
Of course they would, but I think, using the word “fact” is a bit of an exaggeration.
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.
“ I don't know, for example, that the live TV broadcast made by Apollo 11 on July 16th shows Hurricane Bernice in a unique configuration for that day because someone told me, I know because I discovered it myself”
The internet told you, as it did me.
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.
This is also an ongoing project - I updated it yesterday to include much higher resolution versions of Apollo 15 and 16's ultra-violet images of Earth than I had previously seen. Guess what - they show exactly what they should.
“Exactly what efforts have you gone to to prove your point?”
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. I have a whole website full of my own research into this, I have taken no-one's work as gospel. What I have done is listen to people who know what they are talking about and critically examined the work of those who plainly don't.
“Football scores, weather reports, news headlines. Read the transcripts”
Transcripts? So there is no actual alleged video footage of them discussing football scores, for example?
Yes.
“If you followed him on social media, you would know that Buzz Aldrin has not had his life wrecked at all”
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.
“we have magic rocks that come from the Earth but have geological, physical and chemical characteristics that show they could only have formed on the Moon. Care to explain this?”
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?
“Where do you draw the line on what spacecraft are real, and why do you draw it there?”
I can only comment on missions, I am familiar with, in particular, Apollo, which is the reason I came here.
You are not demonstrating that familiarity very well.
“Pick a sample at random and click on it. Scroll down to the bottom and count the number of academic articles written about that one sample. Count up the number of unique individuals who wrote those articles. Then consider that there are hundreds of other samples with similar numbers of academic articles on each”
These are people who’ve studied the alleged samples from the moon, right? They are only confirming their belief that the samples have the same properties as they would expect to see in a moon rock, so I ask again, where are the public testimonies from scientists, declaring that Apollo was not a hoax, and why? I’ll keep my socks on for now until you’ve finished counting them all.
You seem to have this bizarre idea that getting your degree certificate is accompanied by some sort of swearing an oath of fealty and the signing of a non-disclosure. I own a dozen volumes of lunar science conference proceedings from the Apollo era, each of them jam packed with scientists more than happy to put their name to the samples being genuine.
“there are numerous times where the astronauts are referencing current events”
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.
As for it having to stand up to future scrutiny, well according to you, it has, but the vast majority of people who’ve taken the time to view the visual evidence, will tell you, you are bonkers. They must have known they wouldn’t fool future generations, but I would say their hands were tied after Kennedy went and made that foolhardy prediction.
The vast majority that have taken the time to look, to actually look, not just swallow whatever BS some youtube video has said or that they read at aulis written by some fake scholar throwing fancy terms around that don't actually mean anything when you look at it carefully, understand that Apollo happened exactly as history fully and very publicly documents.
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.