Evan Burton Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 T Although the lunar photographic record appears to be provably fabricated that does NOT necessarily prove that the lunar landings did not occur. No, the people who claim the photographic record of the lunar landings have been fabricated have been conclusively proven wrong. No doubt at all. ALL the claims have been proven false - but that won't stop those same people making the claims and fooling the laymen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted July 22, 2010 Share Posted July 22, 2010 (edited) For resources on whether or not we went to the moon, visit http://assassinationscience.com for links to these: New Work on Moon Photographs http://www.aulis.com/jackstudies_index1.html Russians letting the cat out of the bag http://english.pravda.ru/science/19/94/377/9994_moon.html Moon Movie http://moonmovie.com/ Top Ten Reasons Man Did Not go to the Moon http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/default.asp Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Moon Landings? http://www.assassinationscience.com/HowKubrickFakedtheMoonLandings-1.pdf Conspiracy Theory Did we land on the moon? NASA erased moon footage http://community.livejournal.com/ontd_science/25244.html Here are three interviews archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 Rich DellaRosa The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part II FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009 Rich DellaRosa The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part I WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2009 Bart Sibrel "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon Although the lunar photographic record appears to be provably fabricated that does NOT necessarily prove that the lunar landings did not occur. No, the people who claim the photographic record of the lunar landings have been fabricated have been conclusively proven wrong. No doubt at all. ALL the claims have been proven false - but that won't stop those same people making the claims and fooling the laymen. Edited July 22, 2010 by James H. Fetzer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 Professor, Your links prove my point. I'll copy your post and start a thread over in the PC board, and point out how every one of them is wrong. Spectators are welcomed, even encouraged. If you have question, please post them there and I'll be more than happy to answer them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 For resources on whether or not we went to the moon,visit http://assassinationscience.com for links to these: New Work on Moon Photographs http://www.aulis.com...ies_index1.html Russians letting the cat out of the bag http://english.pravd.../9994_moon.html Moon Movie http://moonmovie.com/ Top Ten Reasons Man Did Not go to the Moon http://www.moonmovie...vie/default.asp Did Stanley Kubrick fake the Moon Landings? http://www.assassina...nLandings-1.pdf Conspiracy Theory Did we land on the moon? NASA erased moon footage http://community.liv...ence/25244.html Here are three interviews archived at http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 4, 2009 Rich DellaRosa The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part II FRIDAY, AUGUST 28, 2009 Rich DellaRosa The Apollo Moon Landing Hoax, Part I WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 12, 2009 Bart Sibrel "A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 Okay, let's start. New Work on Moon Photographs http://www.aulis.com...ies_index1.html All of Jack's photographic claims have been proven wrong but it doesn't stop him making them. He even insists that the lunar module was build with compartments in different locations to what he claims, despite every photograph, manual, drawing and person showing him to be wrong, and Jack being unable to produce one image, drawing, diagramme, etc to back up his claim. Why? Because if he admitted he was wrong then the particular claim he makes falls apart.... and he won't admit his Apollo claims are wrong. All of Jack's erroneous claims are addressed in this thread on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Since you have never studied them and have no idea what points they make, how can you possibly know that "every one of them is wrong"? I am afraid you have overplayed your hand, Evan. You are faking it. Professor, Your links prove my point. I'll copy your post and start a thread over in the PC board, and point out how every one of them is wrong. Spectators are welcomed, even encouraged. If you have question, please post them there and I'll be more than happy to answer them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 Russians letting the cat out of the bag http://english.pravd.../9994_moon.html Let's examine what the article say, and check the accuracy. "Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn't allow to perform complicated space maneuvers" That statement shows a large degree of ignorance regarding science. The basics of manoeuvring in space were worked out by Sir Issac Newton and Johannes Kepler, further refined by people like Tsiolkovsky, Oberth and others (see here). The development of small rocket engines and thrusters allowed the provision of impulse. The four gimbal gyro allowed a spacecraft to maintain a stable reference platform in space. Radar could be used for accurate distance calculation. All were available well before the first manned flight into space. "Right at that very time John Kennedy addressed the Congress and asked for $40 billion for realization of a Moon shuttle program." That's not quite right. Kennedy set the task for the US to "...before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth...". The paragraph in the article also gives the incorrect impression that this occurred right after the USSR launched Sputnik; in fact it was after the US had placed it's first man in space. Also, he was asking for about $8 billion over the next five years. The total cost of the entire programme would not be known until much later. The total cost of the Apollo programme, including the Apollo-Soyuz Test Program and Skylab, was about $19.5 billion (source). "Some of the pictures revealed unnatural shades and sometimes even disagreed with the fundamental physics laws. American engineer Ralph Rene was the first who notices these faults: he declared that there was no Moon landing at all and that all pictures and films about the flight to the unexplored planet were a fake. " The "shades" have been explained and there was NO conflict with physics; in fact the appearance conformed with physics rather than what people "thought" they should see. Ralph Rene (1933 - 2008) claimed to be an engineer but admits he is "self taught" and held no formal qualifications whatsoever. Some of his other claims were that Einstein's Theory of Relativity was wrong, that Newton's Law of Universal Graviation was wrong, and that Pi was in fact equal to 3.146264. "What is interesting, only several tens of pictures about the Moon flight out of the total number of 13,000 pics held by the NASA were published in fact." Completely wrong. There are multiple sites that have every single image taken during the missions. A recommended site is the Project Apollo Archive - Image Gallery. Images from the missions were available shortly after the astronauts returned from the missions. All images could be requested from NASA (this was in the days before the internet!). "Scientists and engineers studied all information concerning America's Moon flight more carefully and passed a severe verdict: flight of American astronauts to the Moon is just a carefully considered leg-pull." Lies. The scientific community, nor the aerospace engineering community, did no such thing nor ever gave any such 'verdict'. Notice the article does not give any reference regarding this. This would be exactly the same as my publishing an article regarding the JFK assassination and saying "all the experts have studied the evidence and concluded that JFK was killed by Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone". "Even people ignorant of space technologies understand that then-level of technological and electronic development wouldn't allow to perform complicated space maneuvers connected with docking and undocking of the Apollo carrier rocket that was separated from the module with people inside it." See my previous response. Also, transposition and docking in orbit was demonstrated with the Gemini spacecraft with the Agena and adapter spacecraft. Please also note that the LM was NOT manned when 'separated' from the S-IVB stage. "What is more, return back of the carrier rocket was also quite a problem. The Apollo onboard computers performed even poorer than present-day calculators. " Yes, the Apollo Guidance Computer (AGC) had less memory than a modern day digital watch, or calculator. The fact is, it didn't need to have a large memory like today. Firstly the majority of calculation were done on Earth prior to the mission or during the mission using the Mission Control computers (which were quite large and powerful, in terms of those days). Secondly, the onboard computers were sufficient for what was needed. The concept had been proven prior to Apollo, once again with the Gemini flights. Don't believe it? You can get the original specs for the Apollo AGC and build your own. You can programme it with the original programmes and see if it can handle them. Whats more, go see experts in digital computing and ask them if the whole thing is possible. You could read this book, but best if you go talk to experts yourself and get the details direct from the experts. "Former NASA staffer Bill Kaysing, the author of the book "NASA Never Landed a Man on the Moon", confessed that even the Agency itself considered the possibility of man's landing on the Moon was 0.0017% at that period (which was practically nothing!)." More blatant disinformation or poor research on the part of the author. Bill Kaysing was an employee of Rocketdyne, the company that built the F-1 engines for the first stage of the Saturn V rocket. He had nothing to do with the spacecraft, in either design nor construction, nor was an employee of NASA. Worse still was that he was a technical librarian, not a member of the design or construction staff of the engine. Note again there is no reference for the figure quoted. "It is not ruled out that Americans did fly to the Moon, but didn't advance further than its orbit. Robots did the rest of the work. However, it is also unlikely that 382 kilograms of Moon soil could be delivered to the Earth after three expeditions (Soviet Moon research vehicles brought just 0.3 kg), because additional kilograms of burden are risky for a rocket." So the samples were obtained by robotic means? Then how is it that the Soviets - who held the lead in robotic exploration - returned so little? "It was faked" I hear some cry.... but scientists can tell the difference. "When the Apollo-Moon module system was studied more carefully, it became clear that two astronauts in space suits couldn't find room in the module, not to mention the Moon robot that couldn't be placed there even non-assembled. " Strange. I'm not sure what they are talking about. Are they talking about not fitting inside the Lunar Module? "What is more, astronauts couldn't squeeze through a narrow tunnel between the space ship and the module." Wrong again. Remember, they didn't wear EVA suits when going through the tunnel. "In fact, an exit hatch opens inward, not outside as the legendary documentary demonstrates. The documentary was probably shot in a cargo bay of a swooping supersonic airplane to create an effect of weightlessness." Again strange. All the images and footage show an inward opening door for the LM. I'd like to see any mission images which show an outward opening hatch. (more to come) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 "It is strange but not a single star could be seen on the pictures of the Moon flight. Stars are even brighter in space than as seen from the Earth. Instead, there was blue light streaming into the illuminators of the space ship, at the time when it is known that open space is absolutely black." Oh god, not this claim again. Does anyone with a modicum of intelligence and having checked reality believe this? Let me explain. If you can't be bothered, see here. The eyes see things that are not recorded on photographic film, at times. It all depends on the sensitivity of the film to light (the ISO setting), the amount of light let in (the aperture) and the length of time that light is allowed to get in (the shutter speed). The film was optimised for the condition either inside the spacecraft or on the lunar surface, not for taking images of space. Here is an experiment you can try. Take your camera, and switch it from AUTO to say apature F8 at shutter setting of 500 (1/500th sec). This would be acceptable for a lot of daylight photography. Even try it in fairly low light, such as indoors under interior lighting. Go even more, trying a couple of fluros in small area like the command module. Then go outdoors at night. Let your eyes adjust (there's a clue) for about 15 minutes. How many stars can you see on a clear night? Now point your camera with the aforementioned settings at the sky and take a photo. Do you see any stars? Do you see all the stars you saw with your eyes? Congratulations - you are part of what some people call "the Apollo Conspiracy". "Apollo landing was also strange: running of the engine didn't move a single stone or a speck of dust on the Moon surface." Once more - wrong. Firstly, during the final stages of the landing the LM descent engine was running at about 10% of thrust, not maximum thrust. Secondly, there is evidence of the thrust from the LM descent engine on the lunar regolith. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5921HR.jpg "After that, the module settled on a flat surface. Pressure of a jet engine would inevitably make a crater on the place of landing while braking. As is know, the Moon gravitation makes up 1/6 of the Earth gravitation. A cloud of dust thrown from under the Apollo wheels should have been six times higher than depicted on the photos." Apart from the fact that the throttle setting was at about 10% of thrust, the claim that thrust would have made six times "more" dust is ridiculous. F = M a. BTW - they were not wheels, but landing 'pads'. "As for the shadows that astronauts and their apparatuses cast on the Moon, they were of different length and direction, at the time when it is known that the Sun is the only source of light on the Moon." Another well disproven claim. I could do it here, but instead please look at these links: http://www.clavius.org/shad15.html http://www.clavius.org/trrnshdow.html *sigh* If you are not convinced at this stage that the Pravda article is anything but, then have a look here. (continued) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 It may also seem strange that not a single picture of the Earth as seen from the Moon was made during the expedition. It may seem strange, but the author of this article has not done the most most basic of research before making / parroting claims: Apollo 11 image during lunar orbit Apollo 17 from lunar surface (continued when I get a chance) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 Since you have never studied them and have no idea what points they make, how can you possibly know that "every one of them is wrong"? I am afraid you have overplayed your hand, Evan. You are faking it. Professor, Your links prove my point. I'll copy your post and start a thread over in the PC board, and point out how every one of them is wrong. Spectators are welcomed, even encouraged. If you have question, please post them there and I'll be more than happy to answer them. Professor, that is the most disingenuous reply I have seen you make. I invite you to a one-on-one debate regarding the Apollo moon landings on this board, moderated by John Simkin. I'll not use any moderator powers during this debate, and subject myself solely to the opinions, decisions or whims of John Simkin. I am confident of my expertise and can provide evidence supporting such. I invite you to debate me on Apollo, and show your own expertise and give supporting evidence of such. What could be more fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 And let me guess that the good Professor will find some reason to avoid debating me on this topic. Please prove me wrong - a simple one-on-one debate.. against someone you believe has "... never studied them and have no idea what points they make...". Let me iterate: I consider myself an expert regarding the Apollo programme and am happy to discuss any aspect of the Apollo programme, and have to provide evidence to support my opinion regarding the Apollo programme. Will you do the same, Professor? It matters not, really - ask your questions but people will see your falsehoods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 And let me make clear, if it were not from the previous posts - I have studied the Apollo programme (as well as the Mercury and Gemini programmes) extensively and consider myself very well inforrmed on those programmes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 Professor Fetzer has questioned my abilities regarding the Apollo program in this thread. I invite him to debate his areas of concern with me on this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 I'll have to take a small break whilst i have some "off forum" time. Be back soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest James H. Fetzer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Evan, I was making a simple point. Unless you have already studied the sources I was citing, you cannot know that every point they make is false, since you don't even know what points they make! Are you now declaring that you have studied Jack's Apollo work, "Moon Movie", the reasons we can't have gone to the moon, "Conspiracy Theory", and the rest of the sources I have cited? HAVE YOU ALREADY STUDIED THEM? It's fascinating how quickly someone like you can jump the gun. You have a very short fuse. I have the pleasure of dealing with many who are unqualified to make the claims they make, now including you! Evan, they are the experts on Apollo, not me. I find your challenge very interesting psychologically. But let's cross the logical horizon first. In the course of your rebuttals--which, of course, are going to show that every point they make is wrong--be sure to explain WHAT POINTS THEY ARE MAKING. I can tell you right now that you could not possibly have studied "Moon Movie" or "Conspiracy Theory" AND STILL BE MAKING SUCH AN ABSURD CLAIM. Show us that you pack the gear, Evan. Take them apart. Just be sure to explain the points they are making before you claim to have defeated them. Is that OK? Since you have never studied them and have no idea what points they make, how can you possibly know that "every one of them is wrong"? I am afraid you have overplayed your hand, Evan. You are faking it. Professor, Your links prove my point. I'll copy your post and start a thread over in the PC board, and point out how every one of them is wrong. Spectators are welcomed, even encouraged. If you have question, please post them there and I'll be more than happy to answer them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now