ApolloHoax.net
Apollo Discussions => The Hoax Theory => Topic started by: onebigmonkey on May 05, 2015, 01:34:34 AM
-
Jet Wintzer (I know you'll all have heard of him) has a made a film for some festival or other:
Sorry to raise your blood pressure...
-
"Sorry, comments have been disabled by the owner of this video."
Means "I'm not confident enough in this to allow people to challenge my ideas".
-
Neil Armstrong "truths protective layers" quote
Colour banding on fast moving objects, guess nobody told him about the colour wheel
Light source reflected on visor. True. It's the Sun, moron.
Video signal loss interpreted as "shadows all the way out to the horizon". Nope, that'll be signal loss.
ETB bag keeps swinging indicating an atmosphere. Nope, the exact opposite is the case. It keeps swinging because there is no atmosphere to damp down the oscillation. There follows a hatload of baloney about the EBT.
Next up, Mag AS16-116 smudges. Again. He intentionally confuses the order in which mag 114 and 116 were used claiming 114 was swapped in at station 9 when it was 116.
Next, only a few people had to be in on it, everyone else performed their assigned tasks remaining blissfully unaware of the hoax. Consequence, they built working spaceships capable of going to the moon, moron.
Astronauts on wires.
Reflection of the sun=Artificial light.
Now, in a trip into bizarro land he berates other hoaxies for denigrating the brave astronauts who put their lives on the line to create the hoax and beat the russians. WTF?
Hammering sounds heard in a vacuum on the moon but not on the ISS therefore Apollo was in an atmosphere. Sound conduction and vox/ptt/open and static are beyond his ken I guess
-
but...but...it has spooky techno music!!
The smears one is interesting, as I do believe he has correctly identified when the smear arrived on the reseau plate, but his conclusions are total bs from there on in.
He claims that the astronauts report cleaning the reseau plate, and that the mission report says that the smearing occurred between EVA-2 and EVA-3.
The wording in the mission report is ambiguous - a simple reading of it that it implies that it occurred at some point during 2 & 3. He is being specific and pedantic in his interpretation of it being between 2 & 3 - mainly because this fits his narrative better.
The wording in the debrief is not ambiguous. At no point do either Duke or Young say they cleaned the reseau plate between EVAs, yet this is precisely what he claims they say, even though the words are in front of him.
My interpretation of events is that the magazine has some sticky residue on it, that gets lunar dust stuck to it, and when it is transferred to the camera the mechanism of opening the magazine for use smears it on the reseau.
He suggests that it may be on the lens and identifies when this might have happened, but offers no explanation as to how orange juice soaking through the chest of the suit gets on a lens that is nowhere near it. His invention of the orange juice theory then gets extrapolated into more ludicrous notions of dead astronauts by conflation of two totally imaginary scenarios.
-
but...but...it has spooky techno music!!
The smears one is interesting, as I do believe he has correctly identified when the smear arrived on the reseau plate, but his conclusions are total bs from there on in.
He claims that the astronauts report cleaning the reseau plate, and that the mission report says that the smearing occurred between EVA-2 and EVA-3.
The wording in the mission report is ambiguous - a simple reading of it that it implies that it occurred at some point during 2 & 3. He is being specific and pedantic in his interpretation of it being between 2 & 3 - mainly because this fits his narrative better.
The wording in the debrief is not ambiguous. At no point do either Duke or Young say they cleaned the reseau plate between EVAs, yet this is precisely what he claims they say, even though the words are in front of him.
His claim is that 114 was swapped in at station 9 on EVA 2 and that the smears first appear at that time and that all of the shots taken with cam 39 between the LM and station 9 were clear, thus proving that the smear was introduced at station 9.
In reality, the smear was introduced in the LM between EVA 1 and EVA 2. 114 was in camera during EVA 1 frames 18383-18443. On EVA 2 frames 18444-18470 exhibit the smear, so clearly it was introduced during the sojourn in the LM between EVA 1 and EVA 2. While in the LM, as well as the cleaning attempt, cam 39 had mag 114 removed and replaced with mag 107. 114 was never used on EVA 3 so the whole house of cards falls.
116, however was entirely shot on EVA 3 and has the smear in every shot. No other mags were used on cam 39, so the sequence of events with cam 39 seems to be:
1. Mag 114 was used on cam 39 from the outset of EVA 1.
2. In the LM, between EVA 1 and EVA 2 some cleaning was performed and mag 114 was replaced with mag 107. In the process, mag 114 was contaminated.
3. EVA 2 proceeded as normal with cam 39 loaded with mag 107.
4. When mag 107 was expended on cam 39 it was replaced with the contaminated mag 114.
5. The contamination was transferred to the reseau plate of cam 39.
6. The remainder of mag 114 was then expended on EVA 2 using cam 39.
7. For EVA 3, cam 39 was loaded with mag 116. Every shot exhibits the smear. 114, having been exhausted, was not used on any camera for EVA 3.
8. Only mag 116 was used in cam 39 on EVA 3, no others were used.
So, really, there is no anomaly. I have no idea what he thinks this proves.
My interpretation of events is that the magazine has some sticky residue on it, that gets lunar dust stuck to it, and when it is transferred to the camera the mechanism of opening the magazine for use smears it on the reseau.
Between EVA 1 and EVA 2 they attempted to clean up the cameras. Seems to me that is when the gunk was unintentional smeared on the reseau plate by whatever means.
He suggests that it may be on the lens and identifies when this might have happened, but offers no explanation as to how orange juice soaking through the chest of the suit gets on a lens that is nowhere near it. His invention of the orange juice theory then gets extrapolated into more ludicrous notions of dead astronauts by conflation of two totally imaginary scenarios.
The whole OJ baloney is hilarious.
-
The bit after this with the rings on the OPS is hilarious.
He is adamant that he has found some new undocumented thing, when the thing he points out is on the same page he got his initial photo from.
I agree that what caused the smear was done in the LM, and also on the sequence of events - I don't think we're saying anything that conflicts :) What I take issue with is his reading one set of words and deciding it means another. It's pretty evident that he has never cleaned anything with a dirty cloth.
He is doing the typical hoaxy thing: researching something badly, taking a single isolated fragment, blowing all kinds of hot air over it and by the time he's done it just doesn't fit back in with anything else.
-
(http://i59.tinypic.com/2w7mzwh.jpg)
-
For anyone who doesn't know, it's this loon.
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/ (http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/)
-
Oh. My.
-
For anyone who doesn't know, it's this loon.
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/ (http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/)
Wow...just..I mean...
-
Yeah, 'Wow!' is right. Don't the other birther crazies see a problem having him as one of their number? Or are they all just as far gone, just not as obviously?
-
The thing is, the "birther" thing is the only CT other than Apollo that I have a hard time fitting into the available evidence. You can find ways for Kennedy and 9/11 to be a conspiracy and still work with what we know to be true, not requiring explosive rebar or other such nonsense. But Apollo requires too many people to say secret and the Obama thing . . . frankly doesn't make sense. I suppose someone could have planted that birth announcement in the Honolulu paper, but why?
-
I suppose someone could have planted that birth announcement in the Honolulu paper, but why?
Just in case.. :-X
-
I suppose someone could have planted that birth announcement in the Honolulu paper, but why?
Just in case.. :-X
Because, like, to everyone in 1961 it was so totally obvious that a black man with an Arab middle name born that year would become President.
-
For anyone who doesn't know, it's this loon.
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/ (http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/)
Wow...just..I mean...
I suppose the pseudo-factual claims merit some review at Clavius, but giving this nut-job more attention is not something I relish.
-
For anyone who doesn't know, it's this loon.
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/ (http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/)
Wow...just..I mean...
I suppose the pseudo-factual claims merit some review at Clavius, but giving this nut-job more attention is not something I relish.
The 'sound in a vacuum' stuff is proving a popular nail to hang things on. Kind of ironic that HBs have argued for years that you should be able to hear LM ascent engines, and are now getting all excited by the claim that you shouldn't be able to hear anything at all.
His cherry picking of incomplete quotes from ISS astronauts, and his use of EVA clips where the mic's are obviously not in use to indicate there is no noise is just very dishonest.
Some people are rebutting his observations about noise from a thrown object striking the LM in the early stages of Apollo 15's EVA-1 as being possibly picked up by the LM comms system. My opinion is that his hand is in contact with something that is on the mesa platform.
My favourite so far (after the 'rings around the OPS' stupidity) is his discovery of an artificial light source. It's a reflection from a watch.
-
I suppose someone could have planted that birth announcement in the Honolulu paper, but why?
Just in case.. :-X
Because, like, to everyone in 1961 it was so totally obvious that a black man with an Arab middle name born that year would become President.
There's a Futurama episode about a presidential candidate whose birth was part of a pre-destination paradox. Actually, I think it was intended to mock the birthers.
-
For anyone who doesn't know, it's this loon.
http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/ (http://www.thefogbow.com/birther-claims-debunked1/birther-cast-and-crew/lawyers/leo-donofrio/)
So one of his "names" is "Burnweed"?
I think "Smokeweed" would have been more appropriate
-
So one of his "names" is "Burnweed"?
I think "Smokeweed" would have been more appropriate
Well, he did not inhale. :D
-
Jet Wintzer (I know you'll all have heard of him) has a made a film for some festival or other:
Sorry to raise your blood pressure...
The pressure is allright and solid, a long time. Especially since reading Clavius and ApolloHoax.net.
Is he another Jarrah? I'm not going to waste too much energy...
-
I dont think any of us are motivated to have another obsessive whatever hounding us.
-
Oh, dear. Look who is reposting this video.
http://planet.infowars.com/science/let-face-the-apollo-moon-landings-and-the-photo-and-film-material-are-fake (http://planet.infowars.com/science/let-face-the-apollo-moon-landings-and-the-photo-and-film-material-are-fake)
I wonder where he found it?
-
Oh, dear. Look who is reposting this video.
http://planet.infowars.com/science/let-face-the-apollo-moon-landings-and-the-photo-and-film-material-are-fake (http://planet.infowars.com/science/let-face-the-apollo-moon-landings-and-the-photo-and-film-material-are-fake)
I wonder where he found it?
His middle term memory must be getting really bad, he just posted it again:
http://planet.infowars.com/science/moon-hoax-it-is-now-a-fact-video-you-must-see
-
His middle term memory must be getting really bad, he just posted it again:
http://planet.infowars.com/science/moon-hoax-it-is-now-a-fact-video-you-must-see
(http://assets.amuniversal.com/802d60c09fa6012f2fe600163e41dd5b)
-
Oh, dear. Look who is reposting this video.
http://planet.infowars.com/science/let-face-the-apollo-moon-landings-and-the-photo-and-film-material-are-fake (http://planet.infowars.com/science/let-face-the-apollo-moon-landings-and-the-photo-and-film-material-are-fake)
I wonder where he found it?
His middle term memory must be getting really bad, he just posted it again:
http://planet.infowars.com/science/moon-hoax-it-is-now-a-fact-video-you-must-see
This doesn't surprise me at all. Pathological liars rarely have the ability to keep their stories consistent
He couldn't even remember that he was the owner of his own website
-
Oh, dear. Look who is reposting this video.
http://planet.infowars.com/science/let-face-the-apollo-moon-landings-and-the-photo-and-film-material-are-fake (http://planet.infowars.com/science/let-face-the-apollo-moon-landings-and-the-photo-and-film-material-are-fake)
I wonder where he found it?
His middle term memory must be getting really bad, he just posted it again:
http://planet.infowars.com/science/moon-hoax-it-is-now-a-fact-video-you-must-see
This doesn't surprise me at all. Pathological liars rarely have the ability to keep their stories consistent
He couldn't even remember that he was the owner of his own website
Nor does he know the difference between this forum and Bad Astronomy, based on his rantings about Phil Plait running things here.
-
You know, I am so busy that despite all the work I do I get a little further behind every day. That being said, it is almost worth baiting this person so I would have a little diversion whilst online.
It is really tempting but I wonder just how much time I would waste each day re-writing all the rebuttals I previously have done...
-
His middle term memory must be getting really bad, he just posted it again:
http://planet.infowars.com/science/moon-hoax-it-is-now-a-fact-video-you-must-see
The very first clip in that movie might be a copyright infringement of the work of Producer/Director Al Reinert, because it looks like it is taken from his movie, For All Mankind. I can't tell for certain because I can't view both Wintzer's and Reinert's movies side-by-side at the same time, but someone else might be able to do so. The clip in For All Mankind occurs near the end of Chapter 12, at 0:48:48 on the Criterion Collection DVD I have, thanks to fellow member AJV.
Reinert used the video of Neil Armstrong jumping down to the footpad and then added his "one small step" words immediately after. The real event didn't happen that way. Neil jumped down to the footpad, described what he saw, and then stepped off.
So maybe someone could use this in their discussions with our "old friend," because copyright infringement is a serious offence. I'm sure many of us here wouldn't want him being compelled to answer to the American courts. Furthermore, if it did happen, he would probably blame Phil Plait and JayUtah, which would be a tragedy, a travesty, and just plain wrong. I doubt very much that those gentlemen would wish to get him into trouble when it is so well-known that he has all the talents and abilities required to do it to himself.
Funnily enough, I mentioned Reinert's clip on a New Zealand message board just a week ago when showing people where to see photos of New Zealand's moon rocks from Apollo 11 and Apollo 17. Excerpt below.
Rock from Apollo 11, four tiny slices: http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/64368
Rock from Apollo 17, one much bigger rock: http://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/object/64372
Neil Armstrong -- first man to step onto the moon.
Gene Cernan -- last man to step off it.
Jack Schmitt was the last man to step onto the moon and second-to-last to step off it. He and Gene will lose their titles sometime but Armstrong will keep his forever.
Has anyone noticed that news on TV sometimes shows the wrong clip of Armstrong stepping onto the moon? They have pinched a clip from the movie "For All Mankind" which is a highly-edited "single trip to the moon" made up of all the very best TV and movie images, and even mixes the voices of the astronauts. It is a work of art, not a documentary, and shows Armstrong jumping down to the footpad and then saying "that was one small step..." He stayed on the footpad for a while and described what he could see before stepping off.
When he actually stepped off we only saw him from about upper thighs up, and it was just a small motion forward toward the camera, and a tiny bit down.
What most people don't notice is that he was clinging on to a rope for some time afterward in case he plunged through the top of a lava tube just below the surface, which could have killed him. Eventually it proved that the lunar surface was quite capable of holding up all the astronauts, but there could still be dangerous tubes elsewhere.
Any corrections are welcome. There's a small error on the second Te Papa web page about three astronauts on the moon which I'll point out, and will give them the New Zealand times of the events because many people don't know them and there are plenty who say, "I watched the moonlanding live on TV at school..." Meaning on the 20th of July 1969.
No they didn't if they were in New Zealand. There was no satellite TV connection from overseas to New Zealand in July 1969, and the landing and EVA occurred on Monday 21 July 1969, NZST. That's why they were at school. Video of the EVA was flown from Sydney, Australia in a Canberra bomber to Wellington, and broadcast on the 7pm news that night on our one and only TV channel.
-
What most people don't notice is that he was clinging on to a rope for some time afterward in case he plunged through the top of a lava tube just below the surface, which could have killed him.
This is the first I've heard of this. For starters, he was holding on to the ladder, not a rope. I think the only rope-like thing available would have been the LEC strap, and I don't know if that was deployed yet. Also, was the lava tube thing really an issue? Iirc, some wondered if people would sink into the dust, but in either case if the LM footpad is sitting right there and there are several rocks on the surface nearby, would stepping off really be concern?
-
What most people don't notice is that he was clinging on to a rope for some time afterward in case he plunged through the top of a lava tube just below the surface, which could have killed him.
This is the first I've heard of this. For starters, he was holding on to the ladder, not a rope. I think the only rope-like thing available would have been the LEC strap, and I don't know if that was deployed yet. Also, was the lava tube thing really an issue? Iirc, some wondered if people would sink into the dust, but in either case if the LM footpad is sitting right there and there are several rocks on the surface nearby, would stepping off really be concern?
'tis true :)
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11tether.html
-
So it was the LEC. Neat! Thanks to you both. Back to my previous question, was there a specific concern that made the "safety line" a requirement, or was it just "general principles" for the first lunar EVA? Also, I assume he disconnected the hook after the first few minutes?
-
Learn something new every day, I never knew that!
-
So it was the LEC. Neat! Thanks to you both. Back to my previous question, was there a specific concern that made the "safety line" a requirement, or was it just "general principles" for the first lunar EVA? Also, I assume he disconnected the hook after the first few minutes?
It's all in the link - about 2.5 minutes after first footfall, he disconnected.
-
...was the lava tube thing really an issue? Iirc, some wondered if people would sink into the dust...
I definitely recall concerns being expressed about the possible dangers of lava tubes prior to Apollo 11, but don't have or recall any details, and have read very little a bout it subsequently. Only Mike Collins's brief mentions in Carrying the Fire.
From a post of mine in July 2012
http://www.apollohoax.net/forum/index.php?topic=133.msg4927#msg4927
I remember from the time before Apollo 11, lava tubes were still one of the great unknowns and it was thought that rilles might have been collapsed lava tubes. The surveyor craft had done a great job of sending information about the lunar surface back to earth, but being so much lighter than the LM and having widely-spaced landing pads, there was far less of a chance that they would crash through into a tube.
The only places I've seen this concern mentioned post-Apollo are in Mike Collins's book, Carrying the Fire.
On pages 339-341 is his list of 11 major hurdles during a lunar-landing trip. One of them is EVA:
7. EVA Walking on the moon might be physically taxing and overload the oxygen or cooling systems. There might be potholes, or even underground lava tubes which could cause the surface to collapse. Even more basic, any EVA puts man just one thin, glued-together, rubber membrane away from near-instant death.
And on page 410, after Houston tells Mike the crew of Tranquility Base is back inside:
Well, that's a big one behind us: no more worrying about crashing through into hidden lava tubes, or becoming exhausted, or the front door sticking open, or the little old ladies using weak glue, or any of that! Whew!
It shows how faulty our memories can become -- recently I only recalled one mention of lava tubes by Mike Collins.
Dr Thomas Gold was the person who promoted the idea that there could be very deep dust on the Moon. The 35mm 3D camera that Neil Armstrong used was named the Gold Camera after him.
Patrick Moore wrote in his book, The Moon, Mitchell Beazley, London (1981), page 18:
...According to another theory, proposed by T. Gold in 1955, the maria were covered with dust layers kilometres deep, so that if a spacecraft were to attempt to land, it "would simply sink into the dust with all its gear"; the dust would flow downhill, accumulating in the lowest-lying areas. This theory gained a considerable degree of respectability until the successful soft landing of Luna 9 in 1966, when it was finally discarded.
Learn something new every day...
Whenever I can say that, I've had a good day. The frequency of its occurrences can diminish when Oldfartitis sets in. :-(
-
I seem to recall, though I can't remember the source, that notwithstanding all the evidence there was still one prominent lunar scientist within the programme that insisted on the dangers of deep surface dust. While they were pretty sure he was wrong, pretty sure wasn't quite enough to throw caution to the wind :)
-
I seem to recall, though I can't remember the source, that notwithstanding all the evidence there was still one prominent lunar scientist within the programme that insisted on the dangers of deep surface dust. While they were pretty sure he was wrong, pretty sure wasn't quite enough to throw caution to the wind :)
Possibly Andrew Chaikin, A Man on the Moon, page 180. Gold, Thomas in the index.
-
Its seems to me that lunar dust isn't so much "dust" as fine grit. The lack of any type of erosive forces on the Moon means that this grit is very sharp edged, and therefore "grippy"; it would seem impossible to sink into.
-
Well, difficult. Apparently it clumps easily. That's understandable.
-
I never really understand the argument that it was faked using wet sand, at many levels, but to dismiss the idea that powders do not form imprints without water for cohesion is utterly ignorant. Of course, if you live in cloud cuckoo land, you claim that it was filmed with dry sand to allow entrainment but then claim wet sand was used to form the famous Aldrin bootprint.
-
...to dismiss the idea that powders do not form imprints without water for cohesion is utterly ignorant.
You wonder what world they inhabit when so many common substances refute this idea.
-
...to dismiss the idea that powders do not form imprints without water for cohesion is utterly ignorant.
You wonder what world they inhabit when so many common substances refute this idea.
I've seen at least one, probably on this board, who claimed that dry powders in an atmosphere contain small amounts of water which allows them to form imprints. Dry powders in a vacuum would be completely dry, and therefore, according to this poster, would not do so. He or she naturally didn't do any experiments in a vacuum chamber to prove this accusation
-
...to dismiss the idea that powders do not form imprints without water for cohesion is utterly ignorant.
That statement almost tempts me to crack a bag of flour and see if childhood memories of it taking the imprint of a fist, and sticking together to make "mountains" with ridiculously steep sides, without requiring moisture, are reliable or not.
Then again, 2015's flour might be nothing like 1950s flour. [CT Mode]The wheat it comes from has probably been deformed by the constant pollution from the chemtrails that the gubmint keeps spraying us with. And now, of course, we have all the crop circles messing up our wheat too.[/CT Mode]
-
Na! It's GMO all the way down.
-
Someone bought a tub of simulated stuff and lobbed some hobnails in it. So it must be fake.
At least they will not go hungry, all that flour on the moon. Lots of bread.