Faking Space: Auditing Apollo, A Photographic Investigation

[nickrulercreator]

Probably shouldn't have, but I posted a reply in the comments. I'm waiting to be called a retard, or for it to get deleted. Here's a copy. Please critique:


BEGIN
This is ridiculous.

1. The "moisture" on the flag is quite clearly a shadow, or an effect of reflected light due to the angled fabric. The flag is clearly creased, so there will be differences in the orientation of the fabric. Light reflects back at the observer best when the observer is directly between the light source and the fabric. If this is not the case, the fabric will appear dimmer. You can see this from a different angle in this photo: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20380HR.jpg. The area that appears to be moisture is now brighter, while the brighter, more sun-lit areas are now dark. It's the same in this one: http://tothemoon.ser.asu.edu/data_a70/AS17/processed/AS17-134-20377.png, and this one: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-134-20382HR.jpg. What you now have to explain, since you made the claim, is HOW the flags supposedly got their moisture.

2. This site is also the only place I could find that image on the right showing changes made: http://www.ninfinger.org/models/LM-11/LunarModuleOrion.html. No where does it mention the removal of a helium tank.

3. There IS evidence the engine was fired. Let's break it down by claim.

"Lack of visible exhaust" This is not true. Just as the ascent stage took off, a plume can be seen exiting the engine here:

Very briefly you can see a flash and plume exit the engine. This is exhaust from the propellants igniting. After that, there is no exhaust, nor should there be. The propellants burned were N2O4 and Aerozine 50. When burned the exhaust is virtually colorless and transparent. The titan rockets that carried Gemini capsules into space used Aerozine 50, and had a similar lack of exhaust plume. The fourth answer on this site goes into much more depth: http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html

"No heat waves" there shouldn't be any. Heat waves require an atmosphere. There is none on the Moon..

"No crater" there shouldn't be any crater. This requires a bit of math. The Lunar module's engine bell had a diameter of 54 inches: http://www.friends-partners.org/mwade/craft/lmdlsion.htm. The lunar module at landing had a power of 3,000lbf. The area of the engine bell was 2290in^2. 3000/2290 is about 1.5 psi. This means that, at the end of the engine bell, the pressure of the exhaust was 1.5 psi, this is actually less than your footprint on Earth. Additionally, because its in  a vacuum, the exhaust plume would spread out more as it left the engine bell, reducing the pressure. Finally, the engine never got close to the surface as it was running. The engine stopped a few meters above the surface, and the LM fell the rest of the way, so the pressure at the surface was never enough to make a crater, just blow the dust around (which we can see in photos).

"No scorching on the paint/exhaust bell housing". There was no paint on the engine so we can rule that out. As for scorching on it, that really would've been impossible to see. The outside of the bell would not have any scorching since no exhaust touched it, but the inside would. The only problem is that the descent engine was a few inches above the surface when on the Moon, so looking up and into the engine bell would've been impossible for an astronaut. There's no way you can know, for certain, that there was "no scorching."

"No dust on footpads." Nor should there be. In an airless environment, dust doesn't billow like it does on Earth. It moves in a straight line, and keeps moving in that line. Before the pads even got close to the surface, all the dust was blown away to the sides of the LM. Very little of it was sent up and any that was traveled in an arc away from the LM. There was no way for dust to settle on top of the landing pads.

4. The checklist was for astronauts to look at so they didn't have to memorize every task that they had to do. Let's break down your claims again.

"Information contained months in advanced was impossible for NASA to know" Why? Why was it impossible?

"NASA knew the exact size, shape, and location of each rock" Where does NASA claim to have this information in the checklists? No specifics are given in your images, only general examples of rock setups.

"NASA knew the exact time astronauts would arrive at each rock" No they didn't, where does NASA say this in the checklist? What NASA is likely saying is what time they want the astronaut to arrive to a STATION, not any specific rock. They can figure this out based on the speed of the rover, and how long it'd take to get to the station on the Moon. The time assumes everything is going correctly and the astronauts are not behind schedule. They do not claim to know what time the astronauts will arrive at each rock.

"NASA knew the camera settings" Of course they did, why wouldn't they? How is this supposedly impossible? It's easy for professional photographers to figure out the settings needed to expose photos correctly.

"NASA knew the position of the sun" Of course they would know this. It can be calculated. Why is this impossible?

"NASA knew where footprints would be." How did they know this? Where does NASA say they know this? What evidence do you have that shows us that NASA says where the footprints will be?

"NASA knew the mineral composition of rocks before they were analyzed" Where does NASA say they know this in the checklist?

5. NASA is not saying "ALSEP photos taken" in past tense. You failed to read the second line. The full text reads "ALSEP photos taken at (F:11, 1/250), which are camera settings. This is being used as a guide to tell the astronaut which photos will be taken at what position relative to the ALSEP on the Moon.

Also, if it was impossible for the astronauts to get instructions from the film crew and had limited vision, why didn't the astronauts on Apollo 11 have checklists then?

6. What is so impossible about knowing the location of the craters for Apollo 17? How is this impossible? NASA had imagery of the landing sites at this point in time and knew the location of every crater in the area. They knew this prior to the landings thanks to impactor and orbiter missions that took photos of the site. Why is this supposedly impossible? You also fail to explain where it says one astronaut is operating 2 cameras to take photos at the same time. I'm guessing it's the checklist on the left (A16), but no where does it say any of what you claim. You also present no evidence for the claim that "Jones" was an inspector for filming and would be in that location.

7. The video was NOT shot prior to the mission taken place. The only section done before the mission launched was that one scene shown. The camera was calibrated, and information presented on the cards so that NASA could know what settings were used by the camera. That is when the film was shot. The film later on, the actual film of astronauts or whatever, was not shot on the same date.

8. All LMs were dropped prior to the final touchdown. They had sensors sticking out of the landing pads that detected the surface. When the surface was touched, the engine was cutoff, and the LM dropped the remaining meter (or so). It was not done on accident, and did not result in any damage to the LM, other than a slight dent in the engine bell of the Apollo 15 descent engine. This did not damage any of the ascent stage, though.

I won't be watching part 7. This is already enough BS for me.

[onebigmonkey]

I'd add a couple of things to your list there nickrulecreator.

The mission EVAs were constrained by resources, and as such the timelines for each EVA were pretty tight. Each stop was planned very carefully and any unplanned overstays had to be approved - possibly with time being deducted from other sections of the EVA.

It is therefore entirely reasonable that they would know when they were due at a specific stop.

As for knowing where rocks and craters were, the early missions relied mostly on Lunar Orbiter images, but later ones used images taken from orbit by other Apollo missions. Apollo 17, for example, was very well covered by Apollo 15's Panoramic camera which has a resolution almost equivalent to the current LRO.

[smartcooky]

8. All LMs were dropped prior to the final touchdown. They had sensors sticking out of the landing pads that detected the surface. When the surface was touched, the engine was cutoff, and the LM dropped the remaining meter (or so). It was not done on accident, and did not result in any damage to the LM, other than a slight dent in the engine bell of the Apollo 15 descent engine. This did not damage any of the ascent stage, though.

By way of illustration...


Here are the ground sensors stickong out of the bottom of the landing feet. They are 53 inches (almost 1½m) long.


Here you can see the shadow of the ground sensor as Apollo 11 lands. The moment it touches the ground, the LMP gets a contact warning light, the engine cuts off and the LM drops the last 1-1½m onto the lunar surface.

I won't be watching part 7. This is already enough BS for me.

You're very brave watching as much as you have. I wouldn't risk the potential brain damage from exposing it to so much stupid.

[MBDK]

Here you can see the shadow of the ground sensor as Apollo 11 lands. The moment it touches the ground, the LMP gets a contact warning light, the engine cuts off and the LM drops the last 1-1½m onto the lunar surface.

Perhaps my memory is messing with me, but didn't Apollo 11 actually keep the engine firing until final touchdown (the only LM to do so, I believe)?

[JayUtah]

Perhaps my memory is messing with me, but didn't Apollo 11 actually keep the engine firing until final touchdown (the only LM to do so, I believe)?

Yes.  There was some debate over this quite a few years ago.  Mark Gray and I convinced ourselves after looking at the highest quality 16mm film transfers that the DPS cutoff actually occurred after touchdown.  It's difficult to see because of the sheet of entrained regolith that you have to look through.

[nickrulercreator]

So I got into contact with Eric Jones over 4:57 in the video regarding the area on the right labeled "jones."

Turns out its actually a crater, not a person. Here's what Eric said:

Sometime after the cuff checklists were printed but before the Apollo 17 launch, Jack named a cluster of craters along their planned route to Station 6 in honor of American Revolutionary naval officer John Paul Jones.  The following is from https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17.site.html

“Jones (crater) - 'Named for John Paul Jones (1747-1792), Scottish-born naval hero of the American Revolution who established his adopted country as a seafaring nation which was, eventually, without peer.’

[nickrulercreator]

It also appears that my comment was deleted from the video. Who would've guessed?

[Obviousman]

They don't want any nasty ol' facts disrupting their fairy tale!

Just remember HB Rule No 1: "My ignorance is better than your facts"

[cambo]

“Any claim that somehow he could follow up with something much closer to reality, when he was already pushing the limits of what could be achieved at the time needs extraordinary evidence to back it up.”

Extraordinary evidence? On nearly all the photos and videos, allegedly taken on the moon, that have background scenery, we can see a clear line between the edge of the stage and the fake scenery, or should I say, most of us can. You can post pictures of landscapes on earth, showing the same effect, but the difference between the earth images and the alleged lunar images, is that the edge of the stage is only a few yards away in the moon shots, which you refuse to see, as Mr Armstrong and co. have that covered by telling us that distances are hard to perceive on the moon. We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.

“Have you ever actually been on a dirt road?  Because I have.  I've also seen people driving on beaches.  Which are sand, last I checked, and still had plumes of dust behind people driving.  Because sand comes in many particle sizes, down to dust caused by friction of particles rubbing against one another.  Take a geology class.”

Why take a Geology class when I got YouTube?

“Engineers don't just blindly follow blueprints.  Especially not the ones designing the craft.”

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work. The people assembling the parts, were only required to be proficient in the use of a spanner.

“If the LM were plastic, the engineers would know that it would fail, because plastic is insufficient for mission requirements.”

Oh come on, it’s sarcasm! Do you need a custard pie in your face before you can see humour?

“So where were all those inquisitive hoax theorists back then? In those days, everyone was high on pot and rode around in vans, decorated with flowers, so I’ve been told”

“I thought you were old enough to remember it”

I wasn’t there to witness it, as I live thousands of miles away, but I can remember reading an article in a newspaper at the time. I’ll try and dig it up for you.

“If you do perhaps five minutes of research into his life, you will learn that there are no periods of his life when you can fit in filming the Apollo missions, given things like his filming style.  What do you know about his filming style?”

1968: 2001: A Space Odyssey.

1969: Napoleon (the greatest film never to be made) scrapped

1969: Apollo 11 & Apollo 12 (the sequel)

1970: Production starts on A Clockwork Orange. Released 1971.

As for his direction techniques, all I can say is, he was bloody good at what he did. One of my favourite films was Shawshank Redemption, but I hadn’t a clue who directed it until I looked it up a moment ago.

http://www.lavideofilmmaker.com/filmmaking/stanley-kubrick-film-techniques.html

“Why would you hire Kubrick, a notoriously prickly director with a distinctive style, to film something that you don't want to have Kubrick's style”

I would say they only needed him for the special effects, and that was it. They knew they would have to film indoors, as even the slightest breeze would expose the fraud, which is why they would have required those front projection techniques to give the illusion of distance. His directional skills would have been at a minimum, as NASA would know what they wanted their men in the spacesuits to do, and they would also write the scripts. Kubrick was only there to try and make it look authentic.

The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”. Once you realise this, the other clues jump out at you. It becomes so obvious that the job interview represents an interview, Kubrick may or may not have had with the president, and the rant at his wife concerning his contract and responsibilities also becomes obvious. He is either telling us he was involved, or he was merely having a laugh to fuel the speculation of a conspiracy. I personally don’t think it was the latter, as it would be a lot of trouble to go to, just to wind people up.

“How do you show two people wandering over literally miles?”

I must have missed that one, so you are telling me there is an uncut scene where they walk for miles? Really?

“YouTube hosts all sorts of charlatans, but you've got it precisely backwards--they're afraid to come here because they'll have their ignorance shown for what it is, and they don't get to feel special anymore”

No, the reason they don’t come here is because of the derisive abuse they will receive, which is the same reason you wouldn’t attempt to debate on YT. To be honest, I wouldn’t post comments over there either, but to say they are all charlatans, just goes to show your unwillingness to consider other people’s observations and opinions, as you have already had your mind made up for you.

“Is it your contention that the signals Baysinger picked up came from somewhere near the moon, but not necessarily the moon itself?”

It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.

“Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11”

“Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it”

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p30a.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p32c.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p33a.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p37a.htm

Source.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/section1.htm

“Prove it wrong. Where is the evidence that says the image of Earth doesn't match the satellite record?”

I went onto your site, and after reading your homepage, containing the usual derisive comments towards the people you think you are trying to educate, I went straight to your cloud evidence. At first, I found it quite compelling reading, but then I noticed there didn’t seem to be a single link to this satellite record, you mention. Where are the links to these satellite image archives, as all you have are images, without any proof of where they came from?

This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told, as long as it comes from one of your trustworthy sources, so you expect people to do the same with the information you provide on your site. Unfortunately for you, you lost that trust from the beginning, due to your choice of words on your homepage.

“And you come to that conclusion how? Did you work it out for yourself? Let's see that working, or is it hidden away on microfilm somewhere?”

The images I posted were from the third in a series of transmissions, shot during Apollo 11’s alleged journey to the moon. The first two alleged broadcasts were just practice sessions, that weren’t broadcast to the public and the third out of the four transmissions on its outward journey was the only live broadcast aired to the public.

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/06day2-tv.html

At the start of the first alleged practice transmission, we see the segment included in the Sibrel edit, when a third party voice instructs the alleged astronauts to talk. Why would they need direction from another source, telling them when to speak, of all things, when they had that fella in Houston? It’s like actors in a play receiving cues from the bloke with the script. It sounds as if they were practicing the length of time to wait before responding to the control centre.

A transparency was obviously used to create the illusion of earth in the third broadcast, as was the case with the first alleged transmission, as when the camera is at the back of the mock-up craft and we see the floodlight to the left, the entire earth is still visible, which just isn’t possible, taking into account the size of the window in relation to the size, the earth should be from 130,000 miles, and you all know this fact better than I do. One of the images below, depicts a bright blue sky, and yet the other shows us the whole globe, without any part of it being cropped off by the edge of the window. This snippet of evidence alone, should be enough proof for most people.





The NASA apologists will point out that there are instances, where we see the alleged earth disappearing behind the window as the camera moves, but what they fail to mention is that these instances come from the second alleged broadcast, where we can see that the alleged earth is noticeably different in colour from the first and third videos, which suggests a different method of trickery was used.



They have either used an internally lit globe hanging outside the window, or another transparency stuck to a window, set into a black partition wall. Also, the quality of the interior shots are very poor and dark, compared to what we see in the first and third transmissions, as they say they were getting bad reception, but it’s more likely, a poorer picture was necessary in order to mask the trickery from the earth window. When the camera moves back from the window, near the end of the transmission, and the alleged earth disappears from view, the view resembles what we would get from a window with a street light outside. There’s nothing in the other two transmissions that come close to matching that view in the second video. This would suggest they were experimenting with different ways to portray the earth from a far distance, before deciding which method to use for the final cut, which would be passed off as the live transmission, people seen on their TV sets.



See the white dot in the picture below? That’s apparently the earth, you’d be forgiven for thinking they were half way to the Sun!

As for zero gravity, apart from the torch trick, there is next to no suggestion of it at all. During the third transmission, one of the supposed astronauts says “Zero G is very comfortable, but after a while you get to the point where you sort of get tired of rattling around and banging off the ceiling and the floor and the side”. So with nearly three hours of footage, over four transmissions, we never see an example of this? All we get is the very odd close-up view of a person, with a slight hint of a swaying motion.

For the next piece of evidence, all the credit goes to you, onebigmonkey, as it did at the start, when you first reminded me of the footage, while going on about your cloud evidence.

[frenat]

We also have strong evidence of wires in scenes such as the jump salute and numerous occasions when getting to their feet after falling.

none of which require wires. If they had wires, why fall in the first place?

The designers obviously new they were designing something that wouldn’t work.

Sure, let's add hundreds more to be in on it.

The references to Apollo in The Shining, were just too obvious to be a coincidence. The jumper on its own could be just coincidence, but when we see the words on that piece of paper in the typewriter, it becomes obvious he is telling us something, as the first word is not ”All” it is spelt “A11”.

did you know many old typewriters don't have a separate 1 and L key? the typist had to type a lower case "l" for the one and as a result the font was made so it could work for both.

It would seem that there would have to be something within close proximity of the moon, whether it was an orbital craft or something lying on the surface, relaying the radio signals, as various third parties were able to pick up the signals, which they all believe, came from the vicinity of the moon.

Then you need a separate team designing those spacecraft, and launching and operating them.  None of which there is evidence for.

A transparency was obviously used to create the illusion of earth in the third broadcast, as was the case with the first alleged transmission, as when the camera is at the back of the mock-up craft and we see the floodlight to the left, the entire earth is still visible, which just isn’t possible, taking into account the size of the window in relation to the size, the earth should be from 130,000 miles, and you all know this fact better than I do. One of the images below, depicts a bright blue sky, and yet the other shows us the whole globe, without any part of it being cropped off by the edge of the window. This snippet of evidence alone, should be enough proof for most people.

A transparency with current weather that shows signs of rotation?  Amazing! 

Looks like glare on the window IIRC caused by the coating on the windows and seen in other footage including some from the shuttle.

[cambo]

CONTINUED…..
Now before I go further, let’s get one thing straight. I am with you in the opinion that Bart Sibrel is a total w@nker and I cannot stress enough, what a complete c@ck he is. The way he conducted his interviews were nothing short of disgraceful, as he would have extracted far more information from those men if he’d conducted those interviews in a polite and respectful manner, rather than put them on the defensive with his scathing accusations and insults.

So, onebigmonkey, unlike your satellite images, I noticed plenty of links to Apollo photos and videos. Among them was a link to a rerun of a live news broadcast from the time, which showed the alleged live TV broadcast from that third video. It lasted 16 minutes, but should have lasted 26 minutes from where they joined the alleged live feed, to the point where they cut back to the studio.

The missing 10 minutes includes a key part of the footage which Mr Bart Sibrel alleged was proof of fakery. The supposed live footage cuts from a point where we see the alleged earth in close up, to a point ten minutes later in the original, where the man in Houston control says “we can still see the earth through the left window” and we have to wait a further few seconds for the footage to cut back to full screen from the control room, by which time, the camera is being reconfigured for interior viewing. Now why would he bother mentioning something like that? The same reason you would tell someone that their shirttail is hanging out I suppose. How embarrassing would that be if other people spotted it?

When I first seen Sibrel’s edited footage of the event, even though, by that time I had already decided Apollo was a hoax, I brushed it aside as weak evidence, as people had stated that the footage was freely available on an official Apollo 11 DVD. It turns out, that the information was misleading, as Sibrel received the tape in 2000, and released the film “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon” in 2001, but the said footage wasn’t released to the public until 2002 on a triple DVD set entitled “Apollo 11: Men on the Moon” and even then, it still wasn’t in its entirety, for example, the “talk” scene was omitted, and the word is also missing from the Apollo journal. Why?

https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap11fj/04nav-housekeep.html

http://www.collectspace.com/resources/reviews/dvd/apollo11_men_moon.html

They were obviously forced to release it, due to the increasing controversy surrounding the tape, in order to make us believe they had nothing to hide. The leaked tape had a caption at the beginning, with the words “This film of the Apollo 11 Mission was produced as a report film by THE MANNED SPACECRAFT CENTER and is not for general public distribution” and as we see from the live news report, part of the footage really was unseen by the public, even at the time of the alleged event.

I’ve spent a lot of time, since I viewed that live news broadcasts, searching for other live news broadcasts, reporting on that alleged broadcast, but it seems that the ABC network have the only record of the event, as numerous other networks have followed NASA’s example in taping over historically notable events. I’m sure if it wasn’t for that intrepid reporter and film maker, Bart Sibrel, we would never have gotten to see the missing footage, albeit, still in edited form. So I have to agree with Sibrel and David Percy, in that those videos are undeniable proof, of a cover-up, but not while in LEO, as they assumed, but in a mock-up craft on earth.

Well, onebigmonkey, it seems that all that work you put into your cloud evidence was based on a fake TV broadcast, and don’t forget to provide those links to the archives, where you got those cloud pictures from, not that it would mean anything now, as my evidence is pretty much nailed on as proof.

“You are beneath every bit of contempt I have for you, and not worthy of any insults I could be bothered to type. You have presented no evidence, simply regurgitated verbatim long discredited nonsense put out by a liar and a fraud”

Whereas I think you are the dogs’ b@ll@cks, as without your unwitting help, I probably wouldn’t have gone back over this evidence, so thanks again for supplying me with the ammunition I needed to kick all your sorry little butts! Oh, the irony! Although the man was a dick, and maybe a fraud, because of the way he obtained the odd interview, which would also make him a liar, all I can say is, it takes one to know one.

It seems pointless, me replying to the rest of the responses on here, now that I have proved NASA to be a bunch of frauds, but I’ll do it anyway, as long as you don’t mind me coming across as being smug, condescending, sarcastic and above all, darn right rude, as I think we all deserve it.

“On the other hand, the Apollo feather is released flat and keeps that orientation all the way to the ground - no tumbling or spinning”

Another instance of a deluded mind defending the indefensible. The feather in the sideways drop by the youtuber neither tumbles nor spins, whereas the feather on the movie set does at least two full rotations before it hits the ground.

“It is also obvious that both times in the youtuber video, the hammer landed first.”

You sad nit-picking individual.

“I would spell it out for you, but I get the feeling, you are deliberately acting dumb”

“Nope, just confused. But if you refuse to clarify, I guess I'll just have to declare myself the winner and move on”

Ok, where do I start? The rocket launches, using the working bits to get it out of sight, or at least to a point after the producer cuts to the control room. It then runs out of juice and the entire rocket, including the bits that don’t work, fall into the ocean. Some years later, they say they’ve recovered a first stage rocket. But I was implying that the third stages and LM’s from all the lunar missions are also down there, which are the bits, that if found and reported, would give the game away. On second thoughts, make that just the third stage, as the LM would just add unneeded weight. If I was any good at drawing, I’d have a go at doing you a diagram.

“Ready to tell me why you need blueprints for the LRV when you can see it unfold, or do I have to declare victory on that point, too?”

That one’s yours to keep. Use it wisely.

“The LM is a spacecraft. We know how they work in space. Your own intelligence doesn't seem to be conspicuous at the moment”

We know how they work in space? Don’t you mean “we knew how they worked in space”?

No they didn’t. They knew how to launch a rocket, and that was about it. How could they build something, to do something that’s never been done and be so confident of it working first time, they would put three men on board, knowing that a failure meant certain death?

“For the last time, it’s sand!”

“Except for all the times it's seen not acting like sand at all.”

Oh no, not another one with a dust fetish!

“And as usual with anyone who tries to replicate it, they fail to do it without stacking the odds in their favour by holding the feather vertical as opposed to horizontal”

It was a two minute video, and you couldn’t even bother to watch it to the end.

“I would expect to see a few inches of lunar dust, cleared away, extending a few metres from the craft, and ending with a uniform ridge, where the dust had settled.”

“if your expectations match how it should really have looked, why wasn;t it made to look that way if it was faked?”

Because they probably overlooked it the first time and so had to make the rest of the mission’s match, along with some dodgy contrived explanation of why lunar dust is impervious to a rocket blast.

“for instance, how they made a simulator to simulate something, which the craft had no experience of”

“Physics is a wonderful thing: it allows you to model and simulate without actual experience.”

And then you test the real thing and die.

“And you selectively edit to make a point. Sad really. What do you actually get out of this?”

I’m just honing my typing skills. I’m up to three words a minute now.

“All three of your videos involve the use of CGI”

“Prove it”

There are instances of obvious fakery on board the alleged ISS, even today, so it is only logical to assume that all of it is a combination of CGI and simulation in a plane.

WARNING! The naughty man, talking on this video says a bad word.

“Bullshit. No-one with a serious interest in a debate starts the debate by dictating that everything that contradicts him is fake, wherever or whoever it comes from”

So what is the difference between you and I? I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions, where as you are convinced that it is all genuine. I came here thinking the Rover wouldn’t work, but now, thanks to certain people on this forum, I believe, if it were possible to get it on the moon, it would work. Have you ever conceded you were wrong in regards to anything concerning this subject, or is your head so far up your pompous arse, that you can’t hear logical arguments from the non-brainwashed among us?

“It is clearly not at all interested in any kind of debate; its sole purpose is to insult, wind up and demean everyone here. That makes it a troll”

It? Doesn’t that make you a troll?

“it wasn't something they had "no experience of", since there had been multiple missions of both manned and unmanned craft before Apollo which provided plenty of data on the environment they'd be operating in”

That’s if you believe those other missions took place, as alleged, and even then, the logical thing to do, would be to test the newly designed hardware unmanned.

“Taking it to extremes, here's a lunar lander game - https://phet.colorado.edu/sims/lunar-lander/lunar-lander_en.html - not very accurate, but gives you an idea of what can be done even with very basic physics!”

Yeah, that’d work!

“Saying you can't possibly simulate a deep space trajectory -- despite the ground truth of a number of said trajectories that agreed with the previous predictions and thus validates the models, is like saying you can't cook from a recipe”

That is assuming the person who created the recipe isn’t pulling your plonker.

“Notice also, that were I of a mind, I could demonstrate the exact Apollo effect”

Which one?

“The gases are emerging from the engine bell at a couple of thousand metres per second and interacting with material (dust, sand, whatever) on a Moon with one-sixth of the Earth's gravity: that material is going to disappear over the horizon rather than settle on the ground a few metres away”

You have your assumption and I have mine, but if your assumption is correct, there would only be bare rock for miles, or at least till we get to the edge of the soundstage.

“Please tell us, exactly how much attention is appropriate?”

I would ask you to ignore the posts, that you deem to be nonsense, which would mean I shouldn’t get any attention at all, but you wouldn’t be able to resist telling me this, and therefore I would still be getting attention. I challenge you all to ignore me from now on, it’ll give me a well-deserved rest, and I would also have the last word. It’s not gonna happen, is it!

“As for the article you link, it contains all sorts of errors and omissions which show the analysis to be about as useful as a sunroof on a submarine”

http://www.whale.to/b/mullins6.html

I never read a word of that article, I just seen the title and posted it. I was going with my assumption that Russia must have been pretty certain they never went, but the fact that the Russians never made a song and dance about it, even going to the lengths of congratulating them on their astonishing achievements, tells me that the Cold War wasn’t as reported, as far as Apollo was concerned anyway. I think you are grossly underestimating the powers of governments and possibly an even higher, unseen power, who knows?

“All three videos involve the use of CGI, do they? Including the one from Skylab (the astronaut running and somersaulting around the ring) which was filmed in 1973. CGI in 1973? Seriously?”

The one with Skylab gives a brief mention to Joseph P. Allen on-board the alleged Space Shuttle, which used CGI, so yes, that video involved CGI. 

https://ak3.picdn.net/shutterstock/videos/1006693933/preview/stock-footage-circa-astronauts-prepare-food-on-board-the-space-shuttle-discovery-sts-a-candy-floats-in.mp4

The one with the watch and the burrito, the longest portion of uncut film was 27 seconds. Why so many cuts, when the film would’ve been the same length without the cuts? Do I have to tell you how it was done? So I may be wrong about the use of CGI on that one.

Did you not wonder why the person running round the ring, doesn’t float away from the ring every time he takes a step? No gravity means weightless and therefore there would only be his momentum holding him to the ring, which would work with, let’s say a bicycle, but not a person running. It would be easier to do in earth gravity. Even Stanley Kubrick realised this, five years earlier, which is why the characters in 2001 had Velcro on the soles of their shoes.

In videos from Skylab, it’s very rare to see the entire ring, but if you watch from 3:15 in the second video, you’ll notice the ring is angled inwards, so it is narrower in diameter at the top than the bottom, and no, it’s not an illusion. Let’s see if your deluded brain can work out why it was made that way.

And just for fun.

[Jason Thompson]

“The LM is a spacecraft. We know how they work in space. Your own intelligence doesn't seem to be conspicuous at the moment”

We know how they work in space? Don’t you mean “we knew how they worked in space”?

No they didn’t. They knew how to launch a rocket, and that was about it.

Bull. Physics is physics. A rocket works the same everywhere. It makes no odds what the spacecraft looks like, the principle of operation is the same.

How could they build something, to do something that’s never been done and be so confident of it working first time, they would put three men on board, knowing that a failure meant certain death?

Argument from incredulity is irrelevant. Firstly, landing on the moon had been done before, and secondly, the vehicle was tested in flight unmanned and manned. It worked. What was so unique about landing the LM that made it impossible to believe a couple of professional test pilots would voluntarily pilot it to a risky landing?

“Physics is a wonderful thing: it allows you to model and simulate without actual experience.”

And then you test the real thing and die.

Why? What was so impossible about simulating something using the known laws of physics?

“Bullshit. No-one with a serious interest in a debate starts the debate by dictating that everything that contradicts him is fake, wherever or whoever it comes from”

So what is the difference between you and I?

I haven't dismissed everything you can possibly provide as fake before you even provide it. Not that hard to understand, is it?

I am convinced that a very large portion, if not, all of manned space flights are fake, plus a fair portion of unmanned missions, where as you are convinced that it is all genuine.

The difference is my conclusion was arrived at with a sound understanding of science and physics whereas yours is based on incredulity and a strange conviction that because you don't get something it cant be real.

I came here thinking the Rover wouldn’t work, but now, thanks to certain people on this forum, I believe, if it were possible to get it on the moon, it would work.

Thanks to certain people on this forum who provided you with a piece of footage that takes all of three seconds to google up from the web, and which you didn't even know existed. Says a lot about your abiity to research the subject, doesn't it?

Have you ever conceded you were wrong in regards to anything concerning this subject

Several times over the last decade and a half. Your failure to elicit such a response does not mean it can't or hasn't happened.

or is your head so far up your pompous arse, that you can’t hear logical arguments from the non-brainwashed among us?

Your arguments are not logical. It is not logical to begin a debate by dismissing everything and everyone that disagrees with you.

That’s if you believe those other missions took place, as alleged, and even then, the logical thing to do, would be to test the newly designed hardware unmanned.

Why? How many aircraft were ever tested unmanned before taking off with a pilot in?

But in any case, the Apollo spacecraft were tested unmanned. Your failure to understand that testing does not mean flying the entire mission is your probem, not ours.

You have your assumption and I have mine, but if your assumption is correct, there would only be bare rock for miles, or at least till we get to the edge of the soundstage.

Why? How deep is the rock and how much regolith would have to be blown away to expose it, and is the engine capable of excavating that amount? Same old 'it either blew all or none of the dust away' crap.

[smartcooky]

<irrelevant bollocks snipped>

I guess you really do believe your own ignorance

[smartcooky]

Why? How many aircraft were ever tested unmanned before taking off with a pilot in?

Few, if any, of the weird and wonderful "X-planes" of the 1950's and early 1960's were test flown unmanned (at least I don't know of any). They took their first flights manned. That is what test pilots do!! The reason being that control systems were not yet developed to be reliable enough to control aircraft remotely.

In fact, it was for this reason that the GAF Jindevik, a remote controlled drone developed in Australia for target towing, was first tested using a manned prototype.

This is a case of the exact opposite of what cambo is claiming, testing the aircraft manned before allowing it to be flown unmanned!!


 

[onebigmonkey]

“Although you are right in saying that satellite weather predictions were still being developed, I wouldn’t go as far as to say it was in its infancy, as the first weather satellite was launched nine years before Apollo 11”

“Your handwaving it away doesn't make it so. Prove it”

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p30a.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p32c.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p33a.htm

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/p37a.htm

Source.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-168/section1.htm

I'll be generous and assume you aren't being deliberately obtuse. I am well aware of the history of meteorological satellites. The point I made was that the science of understanding what was in the images was still in its infancy and a long way from being able to predict weather patterns from them. I repeat: even today forecasting is not done primarily from images taken in the visible spectrum.

“Prove it wrong. Where is the evidence that says the image of Earth doesn't match the satellite record?”

I went onto your site, and after reading your homepage, containing the usual derisive comments towards the people you think you are trying to educate, I went straight to your cloud evidence. At first, I found it quite compelling reading, but then I noticed there didn’t seem to be a single link to this satellite record, you mention. Where are the links to these satellite image archives, as all you have are images, without any proof of where they came from?

This is the difference between you and me, as you will believe everything you are told, as long as it comes from one of your trustworthy sources, so you expect people to do the same with the information you provide on your site. Unfortunately for you, you lost that trust from the beginning, due to your choice of words on your homepage.

Diddums. It's my site, I pay for it, I decide the content and I am under no obligation to massage the egos of idiots.  You are also completely wrong. I provide sources to all the images I used in the introduction to every mission. If you bothered to look at all of the pages you might find that I actually own physical copies of some of them, and it's only the expense of it that stops me buying more, like this one:

https://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=18269247226&searchurl=kn%3Dmeteorological%2Bdata%2Bcatalog%26sortby%3D17%26n%3D100121503&cm_sp=snippet-_-srp1-_-title3

“And you come to that conclusion how? Did you work it out for yourself? Let's see that working, or is it hidden away on microfilm somewhere?”

The images I posted were from the third in a series of transmissions, shot during Apollo 11’s alleged journey to the moon. The first two alleged broadcasts were just practice sessions, that weren’t broadcast to the public and the third out of the four transmissions on its outward journey was the only live broadcast aired to the public.

Again, you haven't been paying attention. The footage you cite was broadcast on TV news, and images from them appeared in the next day's newspapers. An original copy of a still from one of those broadcasts was one of the first things I asked you about. The TV broadcasts were also discussed in detail in this book

https://www.amazon.co.uk/10-Historic-Conquest-Reported-Television/dp/075676159X

published in 1970 and a copy of which I own. Colour stills from them appear in there.

Far from being some sort of secret Sibrel supposedly stumbled across they were always known about and the content was always available.

At the start of the first alleged practice transmission, we see the segment included in the Sibrel edit, when a third party voice instructs the alleged astronauts to talk. Why would they need direction from another source, telling them when to speak, of all things, when they had that fella in Houston? It’s like actors in a play receiving cues from the bloke with the script. It sounds as if they were practicing the length of time to wait before responding to the control centre.

Why do assume that it says 'talk'? Did someone tell you? You are making a priori judgements based on someone else's script and fitting your conclusions to 'evidence' accordingly. As for your later comment, I own a copy of the Apollo 11 Spacecraft Films box set, and the "talk scene" is not omitted.

A transparency was obviously used to create the illusion of earth in the third broadcast, as was the case with the first alleged transmission, as when the camera is at the back of the mock-up craft and we see the floodlight to the left, the entire earth is still visible, which just isn’t possible, taking into account the size of the window in relation to the size, the earth should be from 130,000 miles, and you all know this fact better than I do. One of the images below, depicts a bright blue sky, and yet the other shows us the whole globe, without any part of it being cropped off by the edge of the window. This snippet of evidence alone, should be enough proof for most people.

"Obviously"? What seems obvious that it is Earth, showing the exactly what it should show. Have you any proof as to how big the Earth should appear from that distance? There's plenty of astronomical software to help you out there. It isn't showing bright blue sky, it's showing glare through the window with the camera set to interior exposure.

The NASA apologists will point out that there are instances, where we see the alleged earth disappearing behind the window as the camera moves, but what they fail to mention is that these instances come from the second alleged broadcast, where we can see that the alleged earth is noticeably different in colour from the first and third videos, which suggests a different method of trickery was used.

Steady now, you're letting your confirmation bias show.

They have either used an internally lit globe hanging outside the window, or another transparency stuck to a window, set into a black partition wall. Also, the quality of the interior shots are very poor and dark, compared to what we see in the first and third transmissions, as they say they were getting bad reception, but it’s more likely, a poorer picture was necessary in order to mask the trickery from the earth window. When the camera moves back from the window, near the end of the transmission, and the alleged earth disappears from view, the view resembles what we would get from a window with a street light outside. There’s nothing in the other two transmissions that come close to matching that view in the second video. This would suggest they were experimenting with different ways to portray the earth from a far distance, before deciding which method to use for the final cut, which would be passed off as the live transmission, people seen on their TV sets.

And we're still waiting for you to come up with any kind of sensible suggestion as to how they managed to produce a live colour image of Earth with accurate weather imagery superimposed on it for a live TV broadcast. "It was a transparency" doesn't fall into that category because at the time of the broadcasts they did not have the images they needed to show the whole globe. How would your transparency manage to reproduce signs of rotation when it is filmed for extended periods?

See the white dot in the picture below? That’s apparently the earth, you’d be forgiven for thinking they were half way to the Sun!

Amazing how it resolves to Earth when they zoom in on it though.

Among them was a link to a rerun of a live news broadcast from the time, which showed the alleged live TV broadcast from that third video. It lasted 16 minutes, but should have lasted 26 minutes from where they joined the alleged live feed, to the point where they cut back to the studio.

The missing 10 minutes includes a key part of the footage which Mr Bart Sibrel alleged was proof of fakery. The supposed live footage cuts from a point where we see the alleged earth in close up, to a point ten minutes later in the original, where the man in Houston control says “we can still see the earth through the left window” and we have to wait a further few seconds for the footage to cut back to full screen from the control room, by which time, the camera is being reconfigured for interior viewing. Now why would he bother mentioning something like that? The same reason you would tell someone that their shirttail is hanging out I suppose. How embarrassing would that be if other people spotted it?

Because Apollo 11 had already told them they were going to the inside view and were reconfiguring the camera but that wasn't showing in what was being seen back on Earth. Your trying to weave something significant out of smoke. If you check the transcripts you'll find that the ABC broadcast you link to joins the Apollo 11 broadcast almost immediately after it begain. The missing 10 minutes may be missing from the internet, it does not mean that they are missing from the original broadcast. Sibrel's claim that they were not publicly available until 2002 is very much at odds with the opening screen in this

which shows that the footage was available in 1994.

I've already addressed the rest of your comments: I do provide links, claims by Sibrel that the TV footage was somehow secret are nonsense, and it was physically impossible to produce a live image of Earth. Your evidence is not 'nailed on' - it pretty much isn't your evidence, it's just a regurgitation of someone else's.