What Happened on the Moon

[BDL]

I’ve come across some of David Percy’s claims from his movie “What Happened on the Moon”. I haven’t watched all of it, just what I linked below. Admittedly, I don’t think I know enough about Apollo technology or the history to be able to refute his claims alone.

To me, his “wires” are most likely just lens flare, but I’m not sure how to make sure of it.

With this second clip, he claims that the camera position in two photos (from separate missions) were taken seemingly “too high”. David also (I think) claims that the horizon should always be level with their visors. I’m not really sure what to think of that since I’ve never really put much thought into it. I disagree with David’s “issues” with the Apollo 12, as it seems the camera position is exactly as it should be. Though, I guess that may be more of a subjective opinion since I’m unsure of how to verify it myself.

He then goes on to talk about a photograph of Buzz Aldrin that admittedly seems like it was taken from a higher position. I’m unsure of what to make of this. Is it possible that Neil Armstrong was standing on some small bulge of ground so he could get a little higher to get a picture of the scene?
Or maybe Armstrong and his EVA suit was just taller so he got a higher a slightly higher view of the scene?

I’m not sure what next claim even is. He says something about some rolls of film from Armstrong’s camera. Some photos are brought up, but they appear as if there was a spotlight used. These “spotlight photos” were touched up a little (as I remember, at least) but I’m not sure if that’s relevant to his initial claim.

Has anyone ever watched What Happened on the Moon? Of course, I do know that David Percy is pretty wrong on all accounts, but I’m having a bit of a difficult finding out how. Any help and answers are very appreciated! Thank you.

[Kiwi]

Has anyone ever watched What Happened on the Moon?

Yes. It has been thoroughly debunked for well over a decade. JayUtah has a section about Bennett and Percy at his website Clavius:
http://www.clavius.org/bibaulis2003.html

Back about 2002 to 2005 Percy closed down the public section of his website when Jay and I and IIRC an Australian guy (but not our fellow-members Peter B and Obviousman) were backing him into a corner with some very curly questions.

I have typed up a lot of what's said in the long-winded three parts of the programme of around 3 hours 40 minutes, and included some of the rebuttals — a few of my own and some by other people. The whole lot from two versions on DVD takes up 28 pages, 30,689 words and 180,818 characters.

My big question is:— When hoax-believers got to 0:23:58 where the trees and shadows are shown, did they use their brains and perform the one simple check of Percy's and Bennett's claims that most people can perform? Did they pause the video and lay straight pieces of paper along the shadows and prove to themselves that Percy was lying?

Here's that section and a little bit more:

0:23:52   Ronnie Stronge:  However, the Apollo pictures, those with the reticules, were not taken as stereo pairs.  [Not true at all.  There are many stereo pairs.]
0:23:58   Shadows in photos
0:24:07   David Percy:  In these earth pictures of typical tree shadows, notice the parallel lines of shadow on the ground.  [Not true — check this.  Two pieces of paper laid along the shadows will meet just outside the top right of the screen.]
0:24:08   Tree shadows — two trees
0:24:13   David Percy:  And also that the shaded side of the trees is very dark, which does not allow for any visible detail.  These points are both logical and unsurprising.  [It's also logical and unsurprising that the shaded side of tree trunks is dark because their colour is dark, just like the rocks on the lunar surface.  And it is logical and unsurprising that they could be lightened by a suitable increase in exposure, just like subjects on the moon.  Note also that the distant buildings are lit up, even though they are in shadow too.  This is logical and unsurprising too, because they are light-coloured, although nowhere near as light as a white spacesuit.]
0:24:14   Tree shadows — three trees.  [Two pieces of paper laid along the left and centre shadows will meet just outside the top left of the screen.]
0:27:50   Percy's shadow analysis is wrong — shadow directions can vary depending on what they fall on.  The correct method is to connect part of an object with the corresponding part of its shadow.  With a single light source, all the lines will then meet at some point — either where the light source is or at its opposite point.
0:28:00   'C' rock — Ralph Rene.  [The 'C' is merely a hair, probably in the enlarger, on one particular print run.]
0:29:05   4 — The Speed of light
0:29:23   David Percy — Fill-in light
0:29:27   [David Percy points out a silhouetted horseman, but neglects to point out the other horseman is lit up, and without the fill-in flash that he maintains is necessary]
0:29:44   Spacesuit photographed in a studio
0:30:14   [Photo AS16-114-18423.  There is natural fill-in light on the white suit, and the camera's aperture was opened to increase the exposure.]
0:30:35   [Percy claims that the shaded part of the astronaut should be mostly dark, but ignores:  1. That the spacesuits were highly reflective.  2. That the increased camera exposure — four times more — has also lightened the shaded side.]
0:30:48   David Percy:  Such detail can only be revealed by the use of an additional light source, so we have to conclude that a secondary light source was used to create these lunar surface pictures.  [Nonsense.  Any experienced and competent photographer should be able to produce a similar result using only sunshine.]

If anyone wants the entire document, send me a personal message with email address. It is an .odt Open Document Text file, which should be readable in any word-processor, but tell me if you can't read those files and what other format you prefer, such as M$ Word.

[Kiwi]

Continued:

0:30:59   Jan Lundberg
0:31:08   The first images
0:31:16   Bill Wood, Coms Engineer, Goldstone, California during Apollo
0:31:44   Bill Wood, Goldstone
0:32:26   Douglas Arnold
0:32:45   Aldrin exiting the LM
0:33:20   David Percy:  Aldrin is apparently lit.  [He is, but only by light bouncing off both the lunar surface and Armstrong's spacesuit.  Plus the camera's aperture has been opened by two f-stops, giving four times the exposure required by a down-sun photo.  Careful observation of the shadows and light areas in high-resolution copies of photos AS11-40-5866 to 5869 shows that most of the light is coming from low down and from the sides — the lunar surface.]
0:33:52   David Percy:  Aldrin descending the ladder in total shadow.  [If he was in total, black shadow, no detail in his spacesuit would be visible in the TV image.  Light was being reflected back into the front of the LM from the lunar surface.  The fact that the astronauts could see things from there says light had to be reflected back there, otherwise they would see nothing.]
0:34:16   David Percy:  Secondary lighting.  [Yes, but not artificial light — sunlight reflecting off Armstrong's spacesuit.]
0:34:23   Unilluminated rocks.  [A totally different thing to an astronaut in a highly reflective white spacesuit.  The rocks are dark, and very little light is reflected down at ground level.  Note in the above photos that Aldrin's boots get darker as he gets closer to the surface.]
0:34:35   Ian Crawford
0:35:22   David Groves' assessment of the "secondary" light.  [He ignores the fact that Armstrong's sunlit suit produced the light.]
0:35:37   David Groves
0:36:54   5 — Artificial lighting
0:37:12   [Here, Armstrong is in the sunlight and casting a shadow.  His spacesuit would reflect a lot of light.]
0:37:30   Fill-in light on a model LM.  [Not like the light in the Aldrin photos, which is clearly very soft and coming from a very low angle — the ground.]
0:38:05   Jan Lundberg
0:38:31   The moon reflects 7% of the light that hits it, the same as asphalt.  [But it only takes an increase in exposure of four f-stops to fully expose that 7% reflected light.  Stand over some sunlit asphalt and examine the shaded side of your hand.  Move it around and notice just how much light the asphalt can reflect onto it.]
0:39:11   David Percy:  The side of the craft nearest to us should be absolutely black.  [Rubbish.  The highly reflective mylar and aluminium is reflecting the lunar surface, plus the camera aperture has been opened to lighten it further.]
0:39:27   Douglas Arnold
0:39:29   Aldrin standing by the flag.  Note his face, looking at the camera — AS11-40-5875
0:39:58   The famous photo of Buzz Aldrin, AS11-40-5903
0:40:16   Apollo images
0:40:33   AS11-40-5903.  The photo shown is extremely contrasty, not like the original.  Percy ignores the fact that light is reflecting off the ground, the lunar module, and Armstrong's spacesuit.
0:41:24   Ian Crawford
0:41:51   Camera attached to chest.  "Central reticule should be in abdominal area."  [Not so at all.  The camera could be tilted up or down.]
0:42:31   60mm lens on the Hasselblad.  Some people get this wrong and think an 80mm lens was used on the lunar surface.
0:42:31   David Percy:  ...if the camera is positioned at eye level...  [Wrong.  Armstrong is standing on a small rise and Aldrin is standing in a small crater, as can be seen in other photos.  Look at closeups of the reflection in Aldrin's visor.  The distant horizon cuts through the level of Armstrong's camera at his upper chest, exactly where it should and contrary to what Percy claims.]
0:43:04   David Groves
0:43:34   Ian Crawford
0:43:48   David Groves
0:44:32   David Groves:  It would have to actually be two feet.  [Not true.  The distance between eye level and an upper-chest-height camera is no more than one foot.]
0:44:40   Brian Welch:  I'll be honest with you.  I think that's pseudo-scientific nit-picky claptrap.  And again I don't know why we should spend even a moment trying to judge that.
0:44:51   6 — Photo anomalies
0:45:28   David Percy — High camera examples.  [The moon is covered with bumps and craters, so it is no surprise that the surface height varies by a metre or two.]
0:46:44   Ronnie Stronge:  So what does Hasselblad have to say about this classic Aldrin picture?  Does it look to Jan Lundberg as though the subject was lit?  [Lets get nit-picky at Percy:  Of course he was lit, otherwise he couldn't have appeared in the photo.  It takes light to make a photo, David.  You should know that.  Don't you mean, "Lit by artificial light"?]
0:46:52   Jan Lundberg:  Yes, it seems like he is standing in a spotlight and I can't explain that.  Erm... that escapes me.  Why?  So maybe you have to find Armstrong and ask him.
0:47:11   David Groves
0:47:12   [The image shown is not the true shape — headroom has been added.  In the original, the edge of the frame touches the top of Aldrin's PLSS.  The camera was tilted down and that is why the central reticule, or fiducial, is down on Aldrin's leg.]
0:48:06   Ian Crawford
0:48:17   Ronnie Stronge:  Why is the centre reticule not in the centre of the image?  [It is.  Percy and Groves have simply not done their homework.]
0:48:21   Brian Welch
0:48:52   Brian Welch:  The fact of the matter is we did go to the moon.
0:49:24   Ian Crawford
0:49:59   Apollo Images
0:50:45   Ronnie Stronge:  In Western Australia during the live telecast of Apollo 11 in 1969, many viewers in that region of Australia, including Una Ronald, were to have an extraordinary experience.
0:51:00   Una Ronald, Resident in Western Australia during Apollo:  When this Moon landing was in the offing, I, for one, decided to stay up to watch the live telecast and I did. And we saw a lot of activity on the television screen from the control centre.  A lot of anticipation, a lot of excitement.  [The event she describes actually happened at just after 11:45am in Western Australia, so she could not have "stayed up" to watch it live.]
0:51:16   Mike Collins in collar and tie
0:51:18   Honeysuckle Creek, Australia, 1969
0:51:18   Ronnie Stronge:  But before we get to what happens next, we need to know how the TV coverage of Apollo 11 was supposed to have reached our screens.
0:51:25   Bill Wood, Goldstone:  Just shortly before Armstrong stepped on the Moon, you can actually see the switch take place where it goes from this stark black-and-white to a little better, and they stayed with the television signal from Honeysuckle Creek.  So when Armstrong stepped on the surface of the Moon it actually came through Australia, but at the time it was reported as being through Goldstone.  The voice came through Goldstone, but the TV pictures came from Australia.
0:52:06   7 — TV coverage
0:52:06   Ronnie Stronge:  It appears that correct information was apparently withheld at the time as to what was supposed to be happening with Apollo 11's reception.
0:52:14   Una Ronald:  As I watched this person walking, a Coke bottle in the lower right quadrant of the screen...
0:52:21   The "Coke bottle" appears on-screen
0:52:24   Una Ronald:  ...it seemed to be kicked over and rolled across, and for me that was just astounding and I exclaimed aloud at the time, "It's a fake — it's a set up!  They're not on the Moon at all! Look at this, it's a Coke bottle!"
0:52:37   Una Ronald:  And they were going to broadcast the same film again in the morning and I phoned several of my friends who watched it, "Did you watch?" and they hadn't, but they were going to watch in the morning.  And I waited, of course, to say, "Well, did you see it?"  But it didn't happen.  I watched the second telecast, there was no Coke bottle, which led me to believe at the time that it might have been edited out.
0:53:02   Una Ronald:  I was convinced it was fake, but why?  Why it should be faked.  Why is it such a set-up?  Two or three others of my acquaintance did see it and furthermore there were letters written to the West Australian newspaper.  They mentioned the Coke bottle.  [The West Australian has been checked by Peter Barrett of Canberra and Doug Bennett (Kiwi) of Manawatu, New Zealand, and there are no letters about a Coke bottle.]
0:53:18   Una Ronald:  I waited for it to brew up.  I thought, "My goodness, there's going to be a glorious ding-dong here, going on about this Coke bottle."  But suddenly there was nothing, nothing at all.  And I presumed that those who saw it denied their own senses as people will do.  Began to think, well, they couldn't have seen it, or perhaps it was there and that was okay, they'd thrown some rubbish out of the spacecraft, or something like that, it could have been.
0:53:44   Una Ronald:  People will invent all kinds of solutions to what is not explained.  [It seems that Una Ronald has done exactly that.]
0:53:49   [All the time Una Ronald has been on-screen, the minute hand on the clock behind her has not changed position.  It's a simple wind-up clock — no need to go out and buy a battery.  How terribly suspicious!  It is entirely possible that this is whistle-blowing by the Aulis film crew.  (See, it's easy to make 2 + 2 = 5.  Anyone can do it, just like David Percy.)]

[Kiwi]

Regarding the jumps and "wires", and Dave Scott's hammer and feather experiment.

The aerial on top of the astronauts' PLSS was shaped like a carpenter's retractable steel measuring tape, a curved, semi-rigid, but flexible band. At times it brightly reflected the sun into the TV camera and freaked out its sensors, causing a large flare. At other times it would reflect the black lunar sky and therefore be invisible, and again at other times it might reflect the grey lunar surface or the lunar module, giving a much weaker flare than the sun.

1:58:21   David Percy: In the 1999 revised edition of Apollo, From the Earth to the Moon... [It was not a NASA production.]
1:58:34   From the Earth to the Moon is a studio set-up, with many parts of it unlike what actually happened on the moon
1:58:45   Dust billowing from the rover's wheels in From the Earth to the Moon.
1:58:58   16mm movie film of the Apollo 16 Lunar Rover
1:59:01   One big arc of dust off the left rear wheel, and no billowing
1:59:09   David Percy: The re-writing of the record, for which there is allegedly already authentic documentation, does not in any way help to preserve the real credentials of the original. It only demonstrates that in a probable attempt to avoid the scandal of the millennium, NASA has chosen to support a revised edition of Apollo, but in our view the agency has chosen poorly. [Percy seems to be getting confused between real life and a TV production.]
1:59:30   TV film of Jack Schmitt running
1:59:36   David Percy: There is no evidence at all of any astronaut making a leap or a jump anywhere near a height commensurate with one-sixth g possibilities. [Only as far as Percy knows, even though he claims to have searched the entire Apollo record. Neil Armstrong jumped high up the ladder at the end of the Apollo 11 EVA, and most of the astronauts tried jumps, but they were limited by the danger of falling and damaging their life-support systems.]
1:59:42   Apollo 16 jump salutes
1:59:56   Wire supports
2:00:05   David Percy: Here is a sequence from one of our own productions.
2:00:07   Sequence from Nightschool, Digital Equipment Corp, 1991, filmed using wire technology
2:00:41   Apollo 14 "ping"
2:01:00   Apollo 17 "ping"
2:01:13   Apollo 16 "floating" astronaut
2:01:13   David Percy: In this footage from Apollo 16 we have telltale evidence of a slightly floating or dangling effect at the jump salute location. It's as if the weight is being taken off the astronaut's feet just a second or so too soon. [In Percy's opinion. Perhaps what we are seeing is actually the effect of one-sixth gravity. Keep in mind that Percy is only showing limited clips that suit his argument. All the TV and 16mm film taken on the moon can be bought on DVD — http://www.spacecraftfilms.com — and viewed on large TV screens. It gives an entirely different point of view to that provided by Percy to watch long, unedited portions of continuous lunar activities, with astronauts moving considerable distances and the TV camera panning and zooming over large areas and showing the lunar sky. There is never any sign of lighting rigs or wire rigs.]
2:01:27   Apollo rehearsal rig
2:01:37   Apollo 16 astronaut getting off the ground. Note his extended left arm. The other astronaut is holding his hand to help him up. [Percy doesn't seem to consider that the astronaut may actually be getting up in one-sixth gravity and with his colleague's help, but instead insists that he is being helped up by a wire, which we cannot see, and nor is there any evidence of an overhead rig.]
2:02:07   Apollo 17 "slow-motion" jump
2:02:13   Apollo 17 jump speeded up
2:02:21   David Percy: The well-rehearsed, pre-recorded material was apparently slowed down by 50 percent when we saw it on TV. [But again, Percy has shown only one small excerpt that suits his argument. Watching the entire footage paints an entirely different picture.]
2:02:33   Astronaut running toward the TV camera
2:03:37   Apollo 16 jump salute speeded up
2:03:55   Ian Crawford — Apollo 15's hammer and feather drop
2:04:50   Film of Apollo 15 hammer and feather drop
2:05:04   Note that the feather is held horizontal, unlike in the other drops Percy shows
2:05:09   Ian Crawford: This is also a very difficult image to fake.
2:05:12   David Percy: Well actually, it isn't at all difficult to fake. NASA itself would repeat the very same trick, this time officially, in the 1999 story From the Earth to the Moon. [Again, Percy insists that it is an official NASA production, which it is not.]
2:05:22   Clip of hammer and feather from From the Earth to the Moon. Note that the feather is held vertical.
2:05:30   Hammer and feather dropped. The feather rotates due to air resistance.
2:05:31   Cut to the actor's feet. The hammer comes down at a different angle to the last scene and the feather is again rotating.
2:05:34   Apollo 15 drop
2:05:40   David Percy: Before NASA re-enacted the whole thing officially... [Percy seems desperate for us to believe that From the Earth to the Moon was an official NASA production, but it was copyrighted by Home Box Office, a division of Time Warner Entertainment Company. The producers were Brian Grazer, Ron Howard and Michael Bostick, and the Executive Producer was Tom Hanks. The credits state: "This motion picture is a dramatization based on certain true facts. Some of the names have been changed and some of the events and characters have been fictionalized for dramatic purposes."]
2:05:47   Aulis's experiment. Again, the feather is held vertical and looks like it might be weighted. We wonder why.
2:06:04   Aulis's experiment slowed down
2:06:13   Image Anomalies
2:06:25   David Percy: All the apparent mistakes that we have observed are, in our view, deliberate. We think it very possible that some of those who were involved in the design and execution of the sets, the photography, lighting and production, were perhaps very distressed when they realised what they were expected to do under the guise of service to their employers and their government. For NASA is a government agency and their contractors grade their staff with security clearances in the same way as the military do.
2:06:51   David Percy: It is possible that instead of courting what could be life-threatening danger by standing up and blowing the whistle in public, these brave souls encoded their work with deliberate mistakes that would be detected sometime in the future, long after the emotion of the event had cooled. [So that Messiah Percy could save us, perhaps? It is equally possible that David Percy is sitting there in purple silk underwear, fishnet stockings and red stiletto heels, but that doesn't mean that he actually is.]

[Abaddon]

Has anyone ever watched What Happened on the Moon?

Yes. It has been thoroughly debunked for well over a decade. JayUtah has a section about Bennett and Percy at his website Clavius:
http://www.clavius.org/bibaulis2003.html

Back about 2002 to 2005 Percy closed down the public section of his website when Jay and I and IIRC an Australian guy (but not our fellow-members Peter B and Obviousman) were backing him into a corner with some very curly questions.

I have typed up a lot of what's said in the long-winded three parts of the programme of around 3 hours 40 minutes, and included some of the rebuttals — a few of my own and some by other people. The whole lot from two versions on DVD takes up 28 pages, 30,689 words and 180,818 characters.

My big question is:— When hoax-believers got to 0:23:58 where the trees and shadows are shown, did they use their brains and perform the one simple check of Percy's and Bennett's claims that most people can perform? Did they pause the video and lay straight pieces of paper along the shadows and prove to themselves that Percy was lying?

Here's that section and a little bit more:

0:23:52   Ronnie Stronge:  However, the Apollo pictures, those with the reticules, were not taken as stereo pairs.  [Not true at all.  There are many stereo pairs.]
0:23:58   Shadows in photos
0:24:07   David Percy:  In these earth pictures of typical tree shadows, notice the parallel lines of shadow on the ground.  [Not true — check this.  Two pieces of paper laid along the shadows will meet just outside the top right of the screen.]
0:24:08   Tree shadows — two trees
0:24:13   David Percy:  And also that the shaded side of the trees is very dark, which does not allow for any visible detail.  These points are both logical and unsurprising.  [It's also logical and unsurprising that the shaded side of tree trunks is dark because their colour is dark, just like the rocks on the lunar surface.  And it is logical and unsurprising that they could be lightened by a suitable increase in exposure, just like subjects on the moon.  Note also that the distant buildings are lit up, even though they are in shadow too.  This is logical and unsurprising too, because they are light-coloured, although nowhere near as light as a white spacesuit.]
0:24:14   Tree shadows — three trees.  [Two pieces of paper laid along the left and centre shadows will meet just outside the top left of the screen.]
0:27:50   Percy's shadow analysis is wrong — shadow directions can vary depending on what they fall on.  The correct method is to connect part of an object with the corresponding part of its shadow.  With a single light source, all the lines will then meet at some point — either where the light source is or at its opposite point.
0:28:00   'C' rock — Ralph Rene.  [The 'C' is merely a hair, probably in the enlarger, on one particular print run.]
0:29:05   4 — The Speed of light
0:29:23   David Percy — Fill-in light
0:29:27   [David Percy points out a silhouetted horseman, but neglects to point out the other horseman is lit up, and without the fill-in flash that he maintains is necessary]
0:29:44   Spacesuit photographed in a studio
0:30:14   [Photo AS16-114-18423.  There is natural fill-in light on the white suit, and the camera's aperture was opened to increase the exposure.]
0:30:35   [Percy claims that the shaded part of the astronaut should be mostly dark, but ignores:  1. That the spacesuits were highly reflective.  2. That the increased camera exposure — four times more — has also lightened the shaded side.]
0:30:48   David Percy:  Such detail can only be revealed by the use of an additional light source, so we have to conclude that a secondary light source was used to create these lunar surface pictures.  [Nonsense.  Any experienced and competent photographer should be able to produce a similar result using only sunshine.]

If anyone wants the entire document, send me a personal message with email address. It is an .odt Open Document Text file, which should be readable in any word-processor, but tell me if you can't read those files and what other format you prefer, such as M$ Word.

Indeed. Percy needs to explain this...


https://i.imgur.com/fyiPrQ4.jpg