Recent Posts

61

The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...

« Last post by TimberWolfAu on January 04, 2026, 10:14:24 AM »

Meanwhile Rasa is assembling a whole new collection of smoking guns. Ooh goody!

In the end, isn't this just that camera is closer to the astronauts own shadow, so will see the umbra portion of their shadow more clearly than the umbra of the further astronaut? That as a shadow gets further away from the object that is casting the shadow, the umbra expands and becomes easier to see from a distance.

From my own \/, the green arrows show where the shadow is furthest from the casting object, causing them to soften/blur, whilst the red arrows show that when the object is near, the shadow is a lot sharper. Added bonus, this is in sunlight too. Took a whole bunch of examples for their current shadows claim, I might even get to use them when my suspension expires, if I don't just get banned outright first.

62

The Hoax Theory / Re: Apollo 16 Grand Prix and frame rate

« Last post by Jason Thompson on January 04, 2026, 05:36:19 AM »

That is definitely a flaw, yes. It's a rather glaring one, and I wonder how it went unnoticed given that you can clearly see the TV camera on the rover so it obviously isn't being used to record this footage! Even if the author didn't know they systems by sight, it's a fundamental part of any rigorous study to properly identify the source of the material you're working from. How often have we had that argument with HBs here? It's not hard to find that information and it should have been step 1 of the whole process.

There are other questionable aspects too, such as trying to measure the position of a cloud of dust particles, which is only visible when enough grains gather in the same spot in space to be resolved by the film camera. I don't think you can assume the track of a visible cloud of particles can be treated as a single entity under ballistic conditions.

All of which means that, while the error in the time factor of the calculation is not enough to change the conclusion from lunar gravity to Earth gravity, there is a fundamental flaw in it which means it's hard to use this to defend the reality of Apollo while maintaining arguments about the provenance of source materials as a defence against HB claims.

63

The Hoax Theory / Apollo 16 Grand Prix and frame rate

« Last post by Peter B on January 04, 2026, 04:04:04 AM »

Someone has raised a point on YT about a scientific paper by Mihaly Horanyi which discusses the Apollo 16 Grand Prix footage (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258468670_Tracking_Lunar_Dust_-_Analysis_of_Apollo_Footage)

In Part 2 "Analysis of the 'Grand Prix' Footage", Horanyi says:

As is the case for most modern video cameras, the frame rate of the TV camera used during the Apollo 16 mission was 29.97 fps...

Then, later, he says:

The time interval between frames is fixed by the frame rate to be 1/29.97 s.

However, obviously, the Grand Prix footage was recorded on the film camera at 24 fps. Doesn't this mean Horanyi has made a mistake in his calculations, and that his conclusions are therefore invalid?

Thank you for any assistance.

Cheers!

Peter

64

The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...

« Last post by onebigmonkey on January 04, 2026, 03:03:45 AM »

Meanwhile Rasa is assembling a whole new collection of smoking guns. Ooh goody!

He has declared that shadows are under studio lights (with converging light beams no less) because the shadows are blurry at the edges.



His evidence that studio lights would produce this effect is as follows:








Pretty convincing, no?

It has not occurred to him that the shadow he points out as sharp is between two blurry shadows. How would that work Rasa?

How are you defining sharp Rasa? What arbitrary standard are you applying? IS it, do you think, that the nature of the powdery surface, with a hint of astronaut movement, might be causing that blur? Have you considered that the nature of the ground is reflecting light all over the place, and that the shadow is exactly what you'd expect? Like this:



Dean Talboys has also declared that the shadow doesn't match the undulating ground surface, and it ws probably added after the fact. Guess it doesn't appear in the 16mm footage and live TV then, right?

65

The Reality of Apollo / Re: Radiation VAB Data - Where?

« Last post by Obviousman on January 04, 2026, 01:06:17 AM »

Why not ask the blunder to show his calculations on how much the astronauts should have received through the VARB?

66

The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...

« Last post by Obviousman on January 04, 2026, 01:03:14 AM »

I did heaps of debunking work regarding Jack White's absurd claims about 20 years ago. If you ever want work regarding specific claims (e.g. When at Surveyor the image of the Apollo 12 crew does not show the LM in the distance, etc), let me know which claim and I'll dig up my old images / posts.

CHeers

What I would be intersted in is if Jack White's 'research' exists outside the largely meme based format on aulis, ie where he lays out his processes, sources, that kind of thing. What's exhibited at aulis are effectively his conclusions, not how he arrived at them.

Let me give you an insight into the "rigour" of Jack's 'investigations': I once accused him of dismissing my rebuttals out of hand, not reviewing what I have provided. His reply was words to the effect of:

I am always open to new evidence supporting the claim the Moon landings were real however since we know the landings were faked, any evidence in support of the landings must also be faked and therefore a waste of my time to examine.

67

The Reality of Apollo / Re: Radiation VAB Data - Where?

« Last post by bknight on January 03, 2026, 11:51:33 PM »

Why not ask the blunder to show his calculations on how much the astronauts should have received through the VARB?

68

General Discussion / Re: The Trump Presidency

« Last post by LionKing on January 03, 2026, 05:26:42 PM »

It seems he is intending to seem crazy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madman_theory

69

The Hoax Theory / Re: Watching the detectives...

« Last post by onebigmonkey on January 03, 2026, 05:42:19 AM »

Meanwhile, Dean Talboys is at a loss as to how the LRRR was set up, because they couldn't bend down properly. "Don't tell me they used a spirit level", he says. One of his responders is mystified that there are no photographs or videos of them doing it.

Sorry Dean, but they used a spirit level. It was spring loaded to unpack itself by pulling a release cable, and preset for the correct angle. A levelling leg could be manipulated using the universal tool until a bubble spirit level was in the right place, and a gnomon alllowed it bto be oriented correctly using the abngle of the sun at deployment.

ALl documented in this https://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/ephemera/Partners/ALSEP.pdf (page 81 et seq.), and covered here

complete with training footage.

Photos AS11-40-5942 to 5945 show Aldrin carrying, then putting down, the LRRR. AS14-67-9385 shows the bubble spirit level. https://apollojournals.org/alsj/a15/a15v.1252825.mpg shows Dave Scott finishing off the LRRR set up.

There's a lot of nonsense talked about the reflector and how you can bounce signals off the moon and how the unmanned ones work just fine.

The problem with signal bounce is that the width of the signal as it arrives means there's doubt over the distance because the moon is a curved surface, and the wide signal is affected by that curvature. If you have a reflector and you know exactly where it is, you can be more precise about signal travel time and therefore distance.

Sure, unmanned ones work, if you can find them - one of the Russian ones was lost for years. The fact is that we have documented evidence of three Apollo LRRRs being installed at specific locations, adn a signal is returned from those specific locations. Sorry Dean.

70

The Reality of Apollo / Re: Book Review/New Book!!

« Last post by TimberWolfAu on January 03, 2026, 04:19:19 AM »

I honestly don't know if I can keep going.

Almost halfway, but now, apparently, NASA hid turtles in the photos........ I kid you not.

So many massive leaps made from single photos, that are destroyed by other photos taken from different angles.

For what's supposed to be the result of years of research, and apparently 20 years of experience in the space industry, I thought it would have more than personal incredulity and "the shadows look weird".