Dave Greer Posted February 19, 2007 Share Posted February 19, 2007 Two of the main Apollo consiracy proponents, David Percy and Bart Sibrel, have alleged in DVDs for sale on their respective websites, that TV footage shown from Apollo 11 allegedly taken several hours after Trans Lunar Injection, was in fact faked in low earth orbit. Specifcally, Percy states that the astronauts used transparencies over the porthole to fake an image of earth while they were still in low earth orbit. Sibrel claims that the round shape of the porthole was used to imitate the spherical shape of the earth. A new set of videos by "Low Gravity Films" debunking various aspects of the Apollo CT claims has been released on Youtube. Percy and Sibrel's claims are shown to be false in Parts 4 and 5 of this series, available at the link below.. Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 4 Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 5 In particular, Part 5 shows convincing evidence that the Apollo 11 CSM was indeed en route to the moon, not in LEO as has been claimed. Can Percy and SIbrel's claims re the Apollo 11 footage finally be laid to rest? I welcome any sensible contributions or discussion of the author's claims. The rest of the series is available for viewing below. I've selected parts 4 and 5 for discussion as it focusses on the specific claims by Percy and Sibrel. Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 1 Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 2 Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 3 Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 4 Lunar Legacy Episode 1, Part 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Using alleged NASA photograpy as PROOF that other alleged NASA photography is GENUINE is akin to the fox saying "What missing chickens? I ain't been near that henhouse!" after being left to guard the chickencoop. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Using alleged NASA photograpy as PROOF that other alleged NASA photography is GENUINE isakin to the fox saying "What missing chickens? I ain't been near that henhouse!" after being left to guard the chickencoop. Jack I see you are back commenting on Apollo Jack. There at least two threads with emperical evidence that proves your claims wrong. How about doing the honorable thing and admit your errors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Using alleged NASA photograpy as PROOF that other alleged NASA photography is GENUINE isakin to the fox saying "What missing chickens? I ain't been near that henhouse!" after being left to guard the chickencoop. Jack Jack Percy and Sibrel were both very specific about how the TV footage was faked. The author of the films I've linked shows quite clearly that they are wrong in their analyses. Remember, Percy and Sibrel are claiming that the footage is faked, so have the burden of proof to demonstrate that the footage was faked. IMO the evidence they have put forward has been shown to be flawed. If either of them was present on this forum I would ask them to defend their claims in the light of this video. As far as I'm aware neither of them are, so it's left to the members of this forum to decide for themselves whether Percy was right, whether Sibrel was right (remember they both made different claims as to how the TV footage must have been faked), or whether Lunar Legacy films was right. Having examined films from all three sources, the Lunar Legacy films footage shows quite clearly where SIbrel and Percy were wrong. It also shows good evidence to suggest the Apollo 11 CSM was not in LEO but Trans Lunar Coast. How about focussing on the specifics instead of resorting to rhetoric? PS I echo Craig's request about re-visiting the photography thread to either defend or withdraw your claims re shadows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 (edited) Using alleged NASA photograpy as PROOF that other alleged NASA photography is GENUINE isakin to the fox saying "What missing chickens? I ain't been near that henhouse!" after being left to guard the chickencoop. Jack LMAO !!! Jack ... It looks as though the opposition still wants to discuss why Lamson had to become a contortionist to try to prove your anomalous astronot shadows study wrong .... and it looks as though the foxes outnumber the hens around this particular barnyard also ... Too funny ! Edited February 20, 2007 by Duane Daman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Using alleged NASA photograpy as PROOF that other alleged NASA photography is GENUINE isakin to the fox saying "What missing chickens? I ain't been near that henhouse!" after being left to guard the chickencoop. Jack LMAO !!! Jack ... It looks as though the opposition still wants to discuss why Lamson had to become a contortionist to try to prove your anomalous astronot shadows study wrong .... and it looks as though the foxes outnumber the hens around this particular barnyard also ... Too funny ! Duane How about addressing the points raised in the thread topic? As you've raised the topic of Jack's studies I'll bump that thread so can properly discuss it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig Lamson Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Using alleged NASA photograpy as PROOF that other alleged NASA photography is GENUINE isakin to the fox saying "What missing chickens? I ain't been near that henhouse!" after being left to guard the chickencoop. Jack LMAO !!! Jack ... It looks as though the opposition still wants to discuss why Lamson had to become a contortionist to try to prove your anomalous astronot shadows study wrong .... and it looks as though the foxes outnumber the hens around this particular barnyard also ... Too funny ! You might want to withdraw those remarks in light of the new images I posted that were made to deflect White's objections. No twisting needed in these images. It might help if you understood WHY I needed to turn to the degree I did in the first set of images, because if you did you just might not look so silly making statements like the one you made above. Does the term angle of view mean ANYTHING to you? Now can either YOU or WHITE dispute the results with emperical evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Dave .... I've already watched this video evidence before ... and sticky dirt and a non-waving flag are hardly proof that these nasa films were taken on the moon . The behavior of the dust acts as though it is hitting an atmosphere behind the moon buggy ... Plus , if the buggy were really hot doging about in 1/6 g it would have flipped over , considering it's very narrow wheel base . Sorry , but viewing contrived nasa films is exactly what Jack said it is .... asking the fox why the chickens are missing . I have read where the expected dust behavior upon the lunar landing was to billow up in clouds that would have taken a very long time to disapate because of no air resistance in a vacuum and also the light gravity field ...... I read where nasa was concerned if Armsrtong would even be able to see to land , gauging by the dust which was kicked up by the unmanned Surveyor missions, which apparently bounced three times before setting down , creating enormous dust clouds as it bounced .... Was this information incorrect ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 20, 2007 Author Share Posted February 20, 2007 Dave .... I've already watched this video evidence before ... and sticky dirt and a non-waving flag are hardly proof that these nasa films were taken on the moon .The behavior of the dust acts as though it is hitting an atmosphere behind the moon buggy ... Plus , if the buggy were really hot doging about in 1/6 g it would have flipped over , considering it's very narrow wheel base . Sorry , but viewing contrived nasa films is exactly what Jack said it is .... asking the fox why the chickens are missing . I have read where the expected dust behavior upon the lunar landing was to billow up in clouds that would have taken a very long time to disapate because of no air resistance in a vacuum and also the light gravity field ...... I read where nasa was concerned if Armsrtong would even be able to see to land , gauging by the dust which was kicked up by the unmanned Surveyor missions, which apparently bounced three times before setting down , creating enormous dust clouds as it bounced .... Was this information incorrect ? Duane Did you actually watch parts 4 and 5? They refer specifically to Percy and Sibrel's claims of Apollo 11 faking shots of the earth while in LEO. I doubt very much you've seen them before as part 5 was only uploaded to Youtube yesterday. Maybe you're confusing this with another film. Watch parts 4 and 5 that specifically address Percy's and Sibrel's claims, and also offer good evidence supporting the CSM being in TLC, not LEO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 No, I haven't watched part 4 and 5 .... It was part 1 and 2 I saw a few days ago ... I've watched so many of these video clips that it's difficult to tell them apart sometimes .... I will check out parts 4 and 5 and see what I think . You didn't answer my question about the way the dust allegedy behaved with the Surveyor missions ... I have read conflicting views about the way dust acts in a vacuuum and in a lesser gravity field .... I believe it was James Collier who brought it to everyone's attention in his documentary 'Was it Only a Paper Moon ' , that the dirt flying up behind the buggy in the nasa videos , acted as if it were hitting a wall of atmosphere , so the buggy footage could not have been filmed in a vacuum on the moon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 No, I haven't watched part 4 and 5 .... It was part 1 and 2 I saw a few days ago ... I've watched so many of these video clips that it's difficult to tell them apart sometimes .... I will check out parts 4 and 5 and see what I think .You didn't answer my question about the way the dust allegedy behaved with the Surveyor missions ... I have read conflicting views about the way dust acts in a vacuuum and in a lesser gravity field .... I believe it was James Collier who brought it to everyone's attention in his documentary 'Was it Only a Paper Moon ' , that the dirt flying up behind the buggy in the nasa videos , acted as if it were hitting a wall of atmosphere , so the buggy footage could not have been filmed in a vacuum on the moon . I'd rather keep this thread just on topic, we both know they can become rather spaghetti-like! As you've asked twice though I'll gie you a brief answer - if you want to discuss it further can I suggest a new thread? (I hope the 'Apollo apathetics' on the forum don't mind the proliferation of Apollo threads). I'll answer your question re Surveyor very simply - I haven't heard about dust bouncing three times before settling, or creating huge clouds. As to the question of how dust behaves in a vacuum and 1/6th g. Well, since the lunar surface is effectively a vacuum, you would not expect to see the kind of atmospheric effects we see on earth. Let's think about what happens on earth. It is not as simple as Collier states (paraphrasing) "the dust is kicked up, then hits a wall of atmosphere, then stops". I have never seen dust behave like this, have you? Fine dust thrown into the air on earth will remain suspended in the atmosphere for an indeterminate length of time, affected by several factors such as particle size and weight, wind speed and direction. Heavy clumps of soil will not be affected by the atmosphere in the same manner as fine particulate matter. The atmosphere may well contain turbulence as well - such as that caused by vehicle movement. This caused swirls and eddy currents that will trap particles. Thermals may cause dust to rise further upwards. Here is what a dune buggy or quad bike can do to dust:- Now let's think about how dust would behave on the moon. We can completely ignore atmospheric effects when considering dust thrown up by the lunar rover. However, gravity is much less than it is on earth. That means that each dust particle will rise and fall in a ballistic path. With gravity being lower than on earth, surely lunar dust would be "in flight" for much longer? Not necessarily - on earth, atmospheric effects can cause dust to remain in the atmosphere for a long time. So, how does this expectation fit with the actual evidence? Look at the video of the Apollo 16 "Grand Prix" where the rover was put through it's paces. Collier is stating that the rooster tails create clouds of dust that hit the atmosphere and then stop. All that is happening, is that lunar dust is being kicked up, and then falling back down to the surface. This process happens 6 times slower than it would do on earth (if there were no atmospheric effect) due to the lower lunar gravity. Collier mistakes this as being evidence of "an atmosphere". If there was an atmosphere that was able to stop the dust and suspend it in mid-air, then it would stay there and billow about in the eddies and currents left in the rover's wake (see the earth buggy footage). Instead, you see the dust falling back down to the surface (the higher the rooster tail, the longer the dust is in flight). http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/a16f.grandprix2.mov I've seen it suggested that TV and film footage was slowed down by half to mimic how it would look on the moon if filmed on earth. Look at the exact same footage, this time played at 60 fps instead of 30. Do you see clouds of dust "hitting an atmosphere"? Does the footage in any way resemble the earth buggy footage I posted, or any footage you care to show? If you disagree, then please explain how the lunar dust should have behaved, and why you believe that to be the case. So much for a short answer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I will admit that the lunar buggy dust looks nothing like the dune buggy dust but that could be due to the type of dirt involved and the speed of the vehicle . When the film was speeded up to double it looked like it was in Earth's gravity . I don't know how moon dust should behave , as I have read conflicting information on this subject .... If it was such fine dust , then why are the bootprints so crisp looking ? ... and if it stuck to everything like glue , then why do most of the Apollo photos show very little no dust on the LM pads ? .. In the original Surveyor photos , it's landing pads were covered with dust . Plus there are photos where the buggy tires are very dirty in one photo and then completely clean in the next ... I will see if I can find any info on the dust behavior from the unmanned missions ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin M. West Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 If it was such fine dust , then why are the bootprints so crisp looking ? The dust was created by the billions of impacts since the moon was formed. Since there is no significant weathering on the moon, the dust particles are very jagged, unlike, for example, sand on earth which has smooth round particles. The dust holds a footprint so well because the jagged particles interlock easily and don't flow like dry sand would. ... and if it stuck to everything like glue , then why do most of the Apollo photos show very little no dust on the LM pads ? .. In the original Surveyor photos , it's landing pads were covered with dust .I could be wrong, but I believe the surveyors didn't shut down their engines until they were on the ground, so the exhaust would have blown dust directly onto the pads. The apollo LM shut off its engines while it was still a few feet off the ground, too high for the footpads to be in the exhaust 'splash'. When they shut off the engine, the dust it had been blowing outwards would have settled before the footpads hit the ground.Plus there are photos where the buggy tires are very dirty in one photo and then completely clean in the next ... Examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Greer Posted February 21, 2007 Author Share Posted February 21, 2007 I will admit that the lunar buggy dust looks nothing like the dune buggy dust but that could be due to the type of dirt involved and the speed of the vehicle . True. When the film was speeded up to double it looked like it was in Earth's gravity .Another "agree to disagree" moment, as I can't find any footage taken onn earth that looks like this this, but I can find loads that shows billowing dust.I don't know how moon dust should behave , as I have read conflicting information on this subject .... If it was such fine dust , then why are the bootprints so crisp looking ? ... and if it stuck to everything like glue , then why do most of the Apollo photos show very little no dust on the LM pads ? .. In the original Surveyor photos , it's landing pads were covered with dust . If you don't know how moon dust should behave, then why are we having a discussion about how it appears to behave in the rover footage? What I'm saying is, you have no way of knowing whether what you're seeing could possibly have been taken on the moon or not. If that's the case, why bring it into the discussion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duane Daman Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 (edited) Speaking of moon dust and how it behaves .. I just read a few articles about Smart 1 crashing into the lunar surface and upon impact it sent up gigantic dust plumes, miles into space , which remained suspended for hours while the scientists studied them to get an understanding of what the lunar soil might be composed of . Okay, two questions ... If the moon has no atmosphere and is a complete vacuum then how did the lunar dust reach miles into space above the surface and stay suspended for several hours ? ... Why didn't it just drop like a rock in the vacuum of space above the moon ? And if the Apollo astronouts brought back 840 pounds of moon rocks , plus lunar soil samples , then why are scientists so excited about studying this dust cloud to see what the lunar soil might be composed of ? Does this not send off just a few tiny little alarm bells among the most die hard Apollo fans that something is very wrong with the entire Apollo picture ? http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/SMART-1/SEMI0USMTWE_0.html "I'm sure you're about to rewrite the article but I have to say I was tickled by the "huge plums of dust" (yes plums) from the impact... not cheese after all then..." "Even without the mission controllers' help, the moon's gravity inevitably would cause SMART-1 -- now out of fuel -- to crash. But the agency has designed the spacecraft's final course to kick up enough debris so astronomers can analyze the cloud with instruments linked to their telescopes to gather more information on the composition of the lunar surface. " http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...MNG5HKUCSQ1.DTL Edited February 21, 2007 by Duane Daman 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