Duane Daman
-
Posts
1,910 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Duane Daman
-
-
Then go ahead and refute them instead of pretending that the discussion is about my lack of photographic knowledge ...
In other words .... Put your money where your big , rude mouth is .
-
This is almost too funny for words !
Herr lamson wants me to take photographs of astronot's visors with reflections in them and smudges on them to prove my point !! .... Now I really am ROFLMAO !!!
Evan wants me to post my "original work" so it can be ripped apart by Herr lamson and Co. .... and thinks that the evidence that Apollo was a hoax , provided by PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS and SCIENTISTS is NOT proving my point , but rather makes it weak ?? ... I can hardly believe what I'm reading .
Then we have Dave posting more anomalous photos from Apollo 17 which shows what looks like a spotlight and he wants everyone to believe that it's just more smudges on the visor !
Then he alters that other weird looking black thing at the bottom of this visor reflection and wants us to think it's the shadow of the astronot taking the photo !! ... And if that isn't funny enough , he continues to post the Apollo 12 fan blade reflection anomaly and pretends that's it's four bladed shadow belongs to the astronot taking the photo ....UNBELIEVABLE !
Evan ... We all know what the original Apollo 12 photo looks like ... It is astro-actor Conrad standing next to the Surveyer III stage prop .... But the Surveyor prop is NOT causing the anomalous fan blade object that is reflected in Conrad's visor , for the simple reason that there is nothing on that Surveyor prop which looks like the reflected artifact .... The Surveyor has two large WIDE pieces at the top of it which in no way could have morphed into those four slender fan blades .
Well, maybe in Dave's world it could morph into sometinhg it isn't ... But only after he has very cleverly ( NOT ) altered the photo ..
You guys are getting more desperate every day with your lame attempts to suppress the Apollo hoax evidence ... I guess when scientists , physicists, and professional photographers finally speak out against nasa's phony moon trips , everyone does back flips to pretend to refute their evidence ..... I hope all you all flunkies are being well paid by nasa because if not , you are really wasting your time .
The hoax evidence has been classified top secret until the year 2026 and most likely won't even be released then , if the military /industrial complex has anything to do with it ... The fact that Evan wants us to believe that the only evidence being held classified is the medical records of the Apollo astro-actors , is beyond ridiculous ....
You know , I really expected more from the nasa defenders here ... Your arguments are just as lame as on every other forum I have posted the conspiracy evidence on .
-
If you can't see the shadow of the fan shaped object it's because you don't want to see it .... It's very obvious where it is ... Just look below the object and to the left a bit , in the third photo you posted ..
What kind of original work did you have in mind ? ... And what is wrong with posting articles of other peoples opinions and evidence , as long as it gets the point across ?.. Other members here do it all the time .
-
THE APOLLO HOAX FAQ version 4.3 - July 2004
Written by Nathan Jones
Subject: (1) Forward and Intent
In recent years there have been many criticisms and refutations made in various media of the Apollo record, the so called proof of the Apollo space missions that allegedly landed astronauts onto the surface of the Moon during the period 1969 to 1972. The criticisms and refutations by authors such as David Percy, Ralph Rene, the late James Collier, Bill Kaysing and others take the form of analysis of the photographic record and video footage shot by NASA astronauts and questions about the iability of other aspects of the operation such as the flight worthiness of the Lunar Module (LM) and the radiation risk posed to astronauts who venture outside of the Earths protective shield - the Van Allen belts. Critiques of the Apollo record have sprung up all over the internet in various websites and in the form of books, television documentaries and video presentations such as James Colliers "Was it only a Paper Moon?". Counter claims (debunking arguments) made by so called "skepti-bunkies"have also appeared in websites such as
http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm
and http://www.clavius.org/techengine.html
A rational and scientific analysis of many of the Apollo anomalies is made here in the form of a FAQ.
Subject: (2) Table of Contents.
(1) Forward and Intent
(2) Table of Contents
(3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?
(4) The public are dumb, they'll buy into any idea say the Apollo fanatics.
(5) No stars are visible in the images, where are they?
(6) The flag waves.
(7) There's no dust on the lander footpads.
(8) Why is no engine noise audible in the LM radio broadcasts?
(9) Where are the flames from the landers engines?
(10) What about the shape of the exhaust and its effects?
(11) Was the Lunar Module (LM) tested on Earth?
(12) Where's the blast crater?
(13) Dust kicked up by the Rover wheels acts strange.
(14) Radio telemetry proves man went to the Moon say Apollo fanatics.
(15) Laser ranging reflectors on the Moon are proof right?
(16) Why don't they point the HST at the landing sites?
(17) The Russians had to be in on it right?
(18) What about Apollo 8, 9 and 10?
(19) The radiation hazards facing the missions.
(20) The Lunar surface brightness misconception.
(21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein, shadows and perspective.
(22) What still film was used?
(23) In a vacuum there is no heat?
(24) The noon day temperature misconception.
(25) How did the space suit cooling system work? (or not) (NEW)
(26) How much insulation does it take to keep an astronaut warm?
(27) Can the Moon rocks be faked?
(28) Is unmanned retrieval of Moon rocks possible?
(29) The Eagle landing site anomalies. (NEW)
(30) Some skeptics websites.
Subject: (3) What does it take to prove we went to the Moon?
I would remind the reader that It's up to scientists and claimants of this or that fact to provide proof of their claims.
That's how it works in science and to do this scientists use something called "the scientific method". When they are done
presenting their case anyone may examine it for errors and so forth. If we find flaws or errors in their method or in the
results of their scientific work then we may call in to question the validity of their claims. It's just not up to us to prove
that man did or did not walk on the Moon. We are only to show that the evidence as presented to us is faulty, contrived or in some way unrepresentative of what we know and we may then throw the evidence out. Claims based on discredited evidence have no scientific validity and may be ignored or discarded altogether. Sometimes people claim Apollo is a historical fact and that it is different from scientific fact. But Apollo was not so long ago that we must rely on peoples memories and just a few scraps of circumstancial evidence. No, the Moon landings were exceedingly well documented with photographic imagery and technical data pertaining to the missions and to the Lunar environment. It is those facts that we may scrutinize. The landing claims are just that, claims. It is the factual evidence upon which the balance of probability weighs.
Subject: (4) The public are dumb, they'll buy into any idea say the Apollo fanatics.
Many of the NASA "believers" (aka debunkers some of them) that swallow the NASA story hook line and sinker usually end up making remarks of this kind or worse. It has been said that up to 20% of the American public believes we did not go to the Moon and that there is no idea so dumb that they will not buy it. Or something of that sort. This is a non-argument. It is neither supportive of nor detremental of any scientific analysis of the Apollo record. It is merely an attempt at ridicule and should be ignored.
Subject: (5) No stars are visible in the images, where are they?
In order to capture stars on film you need very long exposures in comparison to "daylight" scenes even if the sky is pitch
black. Just try and take a photo of stars for yourself whilst including some brightly lit scene (say a lighted car park at
night) and you should find that the car park images are "burned out" when the stars begin to show in the pictures.
Though it's correct that stars will have been absent from the Lunar photographic images it is strange that none of the
astronauts remarked on the stars in the sky. The stars really will have been a magnificent sight at all times from the Moon.
Subject: (6) The flag waves.
The only footage I have seen where the flag waves or flaps about is when the astronaut is adjusting the flag pole. Because he had his hand on the flag pole and was making adjustments to it then I would expect the flag to wave around for a time. Note also that the flag had a rigid horizontal support along the top.
Subject: (7) There's no dust on the lander footpads
The Moon has no atmosphere in which eddies and such can cause the dust to swirl and "float around". Dust is "shot" away when there is no atmosphere. Therefore it is difficult to say whether the foot pads would have been covered in dust with any certainty. The chances are that some hollows and crevices will contain trapped dust but all of the images I have seen look remarkably clean. Nothing conclusive here in my opinion though.
Subject: (8) Why is no engine noise audible in the LM radio broadcasts?
Hmm... Your guess is as good as mine. At least we should hear the sound of the attitude control thrusters right? The LM was pressurized to about 5 psi (oxygen rich atmosphere) during the landing and ascent phases of the missions so that the astronauts could breath the cabin atmosphere. The LM cabin will have been filled with the sound from the engine and control thrusters. The following website has an account from a book about the shuttle describing the noise from the engines on the space shuttle orbiter; http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm
Quote: "The forward primary thrusters sound like exploding cannons at thrust onset". Each primary thruster produces a thrust of only 870 pounds. The LM engine produced a 3000 pound thrust and would have made much more violent sounds and actions. "jets of flame shoot out from the orbiter's nose. ...The orbiter reacts to the primaries' shove by shaking slightly and moving very noticeably. For the crew on board, a series of attitude changes using primaries resembles a World War I sea battle, with cannons and mortars firing, flashes of flame shooting in all directions, and the ship's shuddering and shaking in reaction to the salvos". How come the Lunar Modules attitude control thrusters were not heard as they were fired on and off during flight corrections? They were 110 lb thrusters each and there were 16 of them. Debunkers claim that once in constant burn that the LM motors were very quiet and they would not have been heard. Even if that were true and I'm not personally convinced that it is what happened to the noise from the attitude control thrusters which will have been firing intermitantly? The ascent engine was mounted inside the cabin only inches away from the astronauts and there was no noise pick up by the astronauts microphones, not even after they had been actuated by the astronauts own voice during comms. Remember that the Lunar Module was of a metal construction and any engine sounds or vibration will have easily been transmitted through the structure just like road noise from your car tyres is transmitted into the passenger compartment where the driver is seated. Debunkers have made comparisons with engine noise levels inside commercial jets claiming that passengers cannot hear engine noise coming over loadspeakers when the pilot addresses them on the intercom so why should anyone expect to hear engine noise over the radio say by ground controllers? I say that the reason passengers may not hear engine noise via the loadspeaker is because the passenger compartment is already filled with engine noise so what comes over the speaker is overwhelmed by existing similar noise. As for not hearing engine noise via radio comms I'm 100% certain I heard just that many times over vhf radio myself!
Subject: (9) Where are the flames from the landers engines?
The Lunar Module engine and the Space Shuttle Orbiter both use hypergolic fuel engines of the same type and fuel and yet the Space Shuttle Orbiter does produce a visible exhaust flame but the Lunar Module never did. The flame from the Orbiter is plainly visible in the image at this website: http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm.
It is often claimed that a visible flame is produced during ignition transients only but images of the Titan2 rocket which used exactly the same fuel and oxidizer mix as the LM produced copious amount of visible exhaust flame but the LM never did. Comparisons of LM type engines and other types have been made but when considering them the reader must insure that they are fair comparisons. For example exhaust nozzles must not flare excessively thus diluting the exhaust and its luminosity. Flared exhausts result in wasted thrust and will not be part of a working system.
Subject: (10) What about the shape of the exhaust and its effects?
It is often claimed that in space the exhaust spreads out greatly immediately it exits the exhaust nozzle but that is wrong. Take a look at the photograph at the url http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm and see how much the flame spreads. It spreads only a little. Also the exhaust bell on the LM will have been only a couple of feet above ground as the LM touched down and given that the bell was five feet in diameter the ground just below will have felt the full effects of the engine as it set down. From a couple of feet away the LM motor should have left unmistakeable marks on the Lunar surface where it blasted the surface powder (which was inches thick) away. It is a matter of record that during the Eagles descent the motor was not turned off until after the Eagle had set down.
Subject: (11) Was the Lunar Module (LM) tested on Earth?
Basically, no. The Lunar Module was the vehicle that was supposed to take the astronauts down to the Moons surface and allow them to take off again back up to rendezvous with the command Module. The LM just wasn't designed for reuse and for flight in Earths gravity where it's weight would have been six times what it would have been on the Moon. That's why they developed simulator vehicles for training. NASA had Lunar Module "simulators" built for astronaut training but four out of the five training/research vehicles crashed. NASA experimented again with VTOL (vertical take off and landing)rockets during the 90's and had some successes but cancelled the program in 96 just after it's last test ended in a crashed landing. NASA claims that the LM underwent successfull "testing and manouvers" out in space and in orbit around the Moon. Given the record of the training vehicles that would have been risky. On Earth the pilot could (and did) eject in cases of failure but in space it would almost certainly mean curtains for the astronauts flying the LM. The simulators or training vehicles were actually called LLRV's and LLTV's - Lunar landing research vehicles and Lunar landing training vehicles but they were nothing like the LM. See here: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apoollrv.htm.
Jim Collier the late investigative reporter had some remarkable things to say about the interior conditions and dimensions of the Lunar Module based on measurements of the crew cabin simulator at Houston Space Center and the LM museum piece in Washington. In his video he is seen to measure various dimensions of the LM crew cabin simulator including the hatches through which the astronauts would have had to egress. He concluded that the astronauts suited up and with their back packs on would not have been able to get out of the LM. That there was not enough room for them to manouver in the cabin also. He discovered that the clearance between the LM/command Module hatch and the top of the ascent engine housing was only three feet and yet in the Apollo 13 mission, NASA's own footage shows astronauts plunging through wide open space into the LM cabin when there should have been a rocket motor engine in the way but the footage clearly shows the astronaut diving through as if it was not there to obstruct him. How could that be unless the Apollo 13 footage was a fake, a set up, all a fraud, he asks? While Collier was no physicist and that is obvious in his video I have no reason to doubt his sincerity, or his ability to use a tape measure.
Subject: (12) Where's the blast crater?
The Moon is covered in powdered rock and rubble. The dust has a consistency described as being like cornflour. The blast
emitted by the descent engine 3000 or so pounds and averaged out over the exit area of the exhaust "bell" came to about 1.5 pounds per square inch. That's some draft. In some instances it is known that the rocket motor was still firing when the LM set down. There should have been a lot of evidence of disturbed surface soil. There should have been a "star burst" type of pattern on the ground made by the relocated powder but there was none. See this image: as11-40-5921.jpg. It's not a blast crater, it's more like someone swept up with a broom just underneath the bell. All the pictures I have seen showing the ground under the bell are like that.
Subject: (13) Dust kicked up by the Rover wheels acts strange.
A claim on the badastronomy dot com website said; "you will see dust thrown up by the wheels of the rover. The dust goes up in a perfect parabolic arc and falls back down to the surface. Again, the Moon isn't the Earth! If this were filmed on the Earth, which has air, the dust would have billowed up around the wheel and floated over the surface. This clearly does not happen in the video clips; the dust goes up and right back down. It's actually a beautiful demonstration of ballistic flight in a vacuum". So, badastronomy dot com tells us how it is supposed to be, what is supposed to happen on the Moon, however frames from NASA's own footage of the Lunar rover show us a very different picture. It reveals the presence of atmosphere. In parts of the rover footage "vertical walls" or "curtain" formations of dust are seen to form in the wake of the dust kicked up by the rear wheels. Look at http://www.empusa.demon.net/Lunar/Lunar6.jpg and notice that clouds of dust form behind the rover's wheels.
It looks just like there is an atmosphere! It is easy to get the curved arc effect driving on sand for example so a few ballistic looking dirt trails proves nothing here but the impeding effect of an atmosphere is absolutely conclusive.
Subject: (14) Radio telemetry proves man went to the Moon say Apollo fanatics.
Jodrell Bank and various scientists around the world might have pointed their antennae at the Moon and received signals from that direction in space but that does not prove that man set foot on the Moon.
Subject: (15) Laser ranging reflectors on the Moon are proof right?
No, they are not proof that astronauts put them there. NASA and debunkers have claimed that astronauts placed reflectors on the surface of the Moon so that astronomers may bounce laser beams off of them in order to better determine various Lunar parameters, distance from Earth, period and so on. That fact is often incorrectly cited as a proof. There may well be reflectors on the Lunar surface but that doesn't prove anyone set foot on the Moon. The Russians deposited a reflector during their Luna (Lunakhod) series of unmanned missions to the Moon some time in the early nineteen seventies. In fact the Russians were first with the ability to "soft land" instrument packages on the Moon in February 1966 with the Luna 9 mission. The Soviet success was closely followed by the American Surveyor missions which also "soft landed" instrument packages. No proof of a manned Moon landing there then.
Subject: (16) Why don't they point the HST at the landing sites?
Even today, the largest telescopes in the world and the Hubble space telescope (HST) do not have the resolving power to identify the LM or what would be left of it on the Moon's surface. The smallest object they can discern is something about the size of a football pitch at the distance of the Moon and even then it would be hard to tell exactly what it was they were looking at. In order to make a specific determination you will need more information than size alone.
Subject: (17) The Russians had to be in on it right?
No, the Russians would have exposed the Missions if they could have. The 60's was the peak of the propaganda wars between the US and the USSR as it was known then. There was no known technology available that could detect the presence of humans aboard a capsule from a distance. The only means of detecting a hoax would have been from the "leakage" that may have resulted in relaying communications from the Earth to the capsule in order to make it appear to originate from the capsule or from the Lunar surface. That would not have proven a problem however as microwave links are highly directional and thus inherantly very "leak proof" and when that is coupled with secure communications methods such as frequency hopping, spread spectrum techniques, encryption and any other unusual modulation methods it's virtually certain that an outsider of that time would not have detected it.
Subject: (18) What about Apollo 8, 9 and 10?
Apollo 8 orbited the Moon and returned to Earth. Apollo 9 never left Earth orbit. The astronauts allegedly practiced deploying and docking with the LM. Apollo 10 practiced everything but the landing itself. Lunar orbit, deployment and docking with the Lunar Module. If they were "real" then there's no technical reason we could not have gone on to land astronauts on the Moon is how the argument goes. The answer to that is, why should the deployment and docking trials of the LM be any more real than the Moon landings? If the LM wasn't fit to land on and takeoff from the Moon with then why would anyone risk any space manouvers with it? It would have been illogical to do so. Apollo 8, 9 and 10 don't prove astronauts landed on the Moon.
Subject: (19) The radiation hazards facing the missions.
- From http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm "According to an expert at DERA in the UK: Radiation is the biggest show stopper affecting mankinds exploration of the universe. As far as the probability of encountering SPEs or solar flares went, the thin-walled Apollo craft (from 8 through to 12) travelled during a solar maximum period, a time when there was a likelyhood of three or four severe flares per mission. The ability to predict solar flare activity was very poor indeed. The CSM did not have any shielding against such an event. Neither did the LMs, nor did the spacesuits". Even NASA admitted that should there have been a severe flare while astronauts were on the Moon the likelyhood would have been a fatal dose of radiation. There is no comparison with the international spacestation which does have shielding and which orbits inside the protection of the Earths Van Allen bands as well. Now here's what is typically said in response to questions about the problem of radiation: from: http://www.clavius.org/envsun.html . A major solar event doesn't just cut loose without warning. It is possible to observe the "weather" on the sun and predict when a major event will occur. And this is what was done on the Apollo missions. To be sure, the missions were planned months in advance and the forecasting was not that farsighted. But they would have had enough warning to call off the mission should a solar event have started boiling up from the depths of the sun". Except that's not quite right, It takes millions of years for anything to "boil up" from the depths of the Sun and It just wasn't possible to accurately predict when a solar flare would occur. About the best that could be done is say they correlate with high sunspot numbers but the Sun can have high sunspot numbers for months on end.- From http://www.Lunaranomalies.com/fake-moon.htm
"As to the issue of solar flares and the danger they presented, there simply weren't any major ones during any of the Apollo missions. So the biggest reason that none of the astronauts died from their radiation exposure was that they simply did not get a bad dose to speak of". That's right, they gambled with the astronauts lives. The chance of encountering a severe solar flare was 3 or 4 per mission, any single flare of which could have proven fatal to the crew. To tackle this problem NASA had a "Sun" watch going by the name of SPAN, the solar particle alert network. This was a network of telescopes that monitored the Sun day and night for flares. It was known that electromagnetic radiation, the gamma and radio bursts for example would reach
the Moon (and Earth) well ahead of the solar particles that were thought to be more dangerous. This might have bought
anywhere from 10 to 100 minutes time for the astronauts to find shielding from the deadly particle stream. NASA says
the astronauts would have been ordered to leave the Moon and fly back up to the safety of the command Module. But the
command Module didn't have the sheilding to protect against a severe flare. Oops! Another NASA clanger. Another potentially serious radiation hazard are the Van Allen belts or zones. They are regions in space near the Earth where the Earth's own magnetic field traps and "concentrates" radiation from the Sun. The most damaging form of radiation that we need worry about are the solar wind particles that the Sun continuously emits and which is prevented from reaching the Earth's surface by the Earths magnetic field. Whilst we are protected from this radiation on the Earth just above us at a range of approximately 500 to 20 thousand miles the radiation is concentrated and transit times through these regions must be kept to a minimum. It is not thought that any of the Apollo mission astronauts will have spent sufficient time in the Van Allen belts for it to have been a worry. The International space station however must keep clear and thus orbits underneath the Van Allen zones and whilst keeping away (most of the time) from a related problem known as the South Atlantic Anomaly.
Subject: (20) The Lunar surface brightness misconception.
It is sometimes argued by Apollo yes men that the surface of the Moon is so bright that it accounts for all the so called fill-in lighting that critics of the Apollo record claim has been used. For example it has been argued that, "One celebrated picture shows an astronaut with the sun behind him, and the Lunar lander and American flag reflected in his visor. According to critics, the astronaut should have been merely a silhouette. And so he should, if he weren't surrounded by brightly-lit ground. If the full Moon can brightly illuminate the earth from 250,000 miles away, just imagine what it can do to an astronaut standing on it". That argument is about as wrong as it can get. Here's what NASA had to say about the Moons surface brightness. From: http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Academy/UNIVERSE/MOON.HTML "Next to the sun, the full Moon is the brightest object in the heavens. However, its surface is rough and brownish and reflects light very poorly. In fact, the Moon is about the poorest reflector in the solar system. The amount of light reflected by a celestial object is called the albedo (Latin: albus, white). The Moon relects only 7% of the sunlight that falls upon it, so the albedo is 0.07."The reflectance of grey paper is 18% and the Moon (close up) is brown with a reflectance of only 7%. This means that close up on the Moon the lanscape is going to look very gloomy because the ground is brownish and the sky is black.- From a distance the Moon might be a beacon of light(comparatively) but it's not that way close up. Now, concerning the photography, the Lunar soil has a reflectance of 7% and the astronauts in their white suits have a reflectance close on 100%. Slide film cannot cope with a 10:1 highlight to shadow ratio and so it cannot be reflected light from the ground that provided fill-in lighting when the sunlit subject is correctly exposed for highlights.
Subject: (21) Photographic anomalies, heiligenschein, shadows and perspective.
Note, all the images referred to here used the same file name as that used in the NASA online archive and were easily located with Google <filename> or alternatively at the following websites:
http://Lunar.arc.nasa.gov/archives/images/USA/
Apollo_11/Spacecraft/medres/
http://Lunar.arc.nasa.gov/archives/images/USA/
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/
kippsphotos/apollo.html
The following images all contained "photographic" anomalies or inconsistencies. In aS11-40-5903.jpg there is a strong lighting hot spot very near the subject and the brightness of the ground fades rapidly into the distance to nothing. The hot spot is indicative of spot lighting and may not have been caused by the Sun which illuminates all the ground equally and nor is it caused by reflections from Lunar Module panels or altered surface characteristics due to the ground being swept by the landing engine exhaust gases (see section 28 for more about this). Neither is the hotspot due to a curious phenomena that goes by the name of "heiligenschein" effect. Lighting has to originate from behind the observer in order for heiligenschein to be visible but in this case the Sun is almost 90 degrees to the right of the camera. Some of the shaded areas of the astronauts suit is brighter than the Lunar ground which if it is the only source of fill in (light reflecting from the ground acting as fill in light) is not possible. Why is the brightness of the astronauts suit (his right ankle/calf) so bright near the ground? There should be much less reflected light reaching him down there and yet the brightness is the same as it is at the top of his suit. Try looking at as11-40-5902.jpg for all the same anomalous features and inconsistencies. What about the following images, 10075741.jpg and 10075742.jpg. In these images Mt Hadley is the back drop but with a small change in veiwing position and a slight increase in camera height of a couple of feet the top of Mt Hadley has completely changed it's angle relative to the horizontal. Mt Hadley is 3 miles in back so a small shift of a few feet in camera position ought not to produce such a large shift of perspective at the top of Hadley. Many images look like the background is dropped in to the foreground and some are obviously air brushed just like
10075841.jpg. There are many more examples of images that are not right and which may be described as fakes. In some NASA film footage included in the late Jim Collier's video "Was it only a paper Moon?" Young and Duke of Apollo 16 can be seen against exactly the same backdrop on two different EVA's (EVA1 and EVA2) which were on different days at alleged different places and in different directions from the LM base camp. On EVA2 Young describes the scene as "absolutely unreal". On another EVA to and from a site near Hadley Young makes a similar remark about the scenery being unreal during the return journey when exactly the same backdrop (which should have been laterally reversed with respect to the origin but which was not) was displayed as that used in the forward (to) journey. Of course the whole debacle is explained away as human error in the editing room by debunkers. What can I say except, "It's absolutely unreal". Next have a look at AS14-64-9089. Examine the astronauts shadow paying particular attention to the shadow of his legs. See anything funny about them? They are like matchstick leg shadows. Compare them with the astronauts legs which are wide due to the bulk of the space suit. Both shadows also exhibit straight edges which do not correspond with the form of the astronauts legs and if there were to be a terrain feature such as two parallel trenches that modified the fall and representation of the shadow from the cameras veiwpoint I very much doubt it would happen twice and exactly in parallel like that. The ground looks reasonably flat there anyway. It's an obvious fake shot.
Subject: (22) What still film was used?
- From http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm "It was actually ordinary Ektachrome film emulsion. However, it is now claimed by the Enterprise Mission (post justification) that there was a special transparency film created for these missions under a NASA contract. Called XRC,apparently this was a specially extended range color slide film that allowed the astronauts to take perfect National Geographic-quality pictures. So you might ask how does the agency justify the fact that according to Kodak in 1969 and confirmed again in 1997 the film was just ordinary 160 ASA high speed Ektachrome?" Ordinary ektachrome slide film will shatter at -4F. The Lunar temperature will drop to as low as -200F in the shade and the cameras had silver cases presumably to reflect the solar heat so how did the film stay warm enough not to shatter?
Subject: (23) In a vacuum there is no heat?
"So it may be +200F in the Lunar sunlight and -200F in the shade, but in a vacuum there is no heat". Wrong! There is plenty of heat in the vacuum and especially close in to a star. Heat is energy and there is plenty of it in the "vacuum" of space in the form of an energy flux. The sun pours out massive amounts of heat energy and other radiation. We can feel this heat energy often termed infra-red when we feel the Sun warming our skin. At the distance of the Earth (and this goes for the Moon too) the amount of heat energy in the "vacuum" of space amounts to 1.36Kw per square metre also known as the solar irradiance. Both the Earth and the Moon receive this amount of energy from the Sun but at the Earths surface you can sometimes subtract about 30% from the solar irradiance figure due to reflection by clouds in the atmosphere. What people often confuse is emperature with energy. Things can have high temperatures but very little heat. Or even low temperatures but have large amounts of heat. That is because heat is energy and not temperature. Hot and cold are measures of temperature not heat. So, again things can be hot and have very little heat if they have small specific heat capacities. The amount of heat an object or material may hold varies with it's specific heat capacity and has nothing to do with its temperature or how hot it is.
Having said all that physicists do actually ascribe temperatures to energies too but that need not concern us here. There is also no such thing as a completely empty vacuum with no energy in it. There is a virtual partical flux throughout the whole of space and there is a base level of energy associated with that flux. It's called the zero point of energy. It's not zero energy but a baseline of energy below which we cannot work with.
Subject: (24) The noon day temperature misconception.
It is often said or implied that it takes 14 days for temperatures to reach +200F on the Lunar surface. That is plainly wrong. Claims that astronauts landed on the Moon during the "Lunar morning" in order to "avoid noon day heat" are ridiculous. They might say they landed at that time but it would not have helped them to avoid any heating problem that they will have faced. Heating to +200F or more can happen in less than 24 hours of exposure to sunlight on the Moon's surface. Here's how; surface temperatures (not the regular air temperature measurements) may reach 200 degrees fahrenheit on Earth in places like deserts and so forth. If we consider that during the night the temperature may in all probability have dropped to freezing (-32F) or near freezing then we may note that the Sun's energy in a matter of only a few hours (less than 12 hours) will have brought about a temperature rise of around 200 degrees fahrenheit and that is after the additional cooling effects of atmospheric convection which are not found on the Moon have done their worst. If we remove atmospheric cooling then the ground will heat up much faster because there will be no convective heat losses caused by the presence of the atmosphere which are far more severe than the radiative losses and the final temperature may even be more than 200F. Now that is a very important point to understand. The heat losses into the atmosphere are more severe than the radiative losses per unit time. On the Moon there is no atmosphere so this avenue (atmospheric losses of heat) does not exist and radiative cooling only will occur. Since radiative cooling is smaller than losses due to atmospheric effects then comparable surfaces on the Moon will experience a faster temperature rise than their Earthly equivalent. Now, hypothesizing a world where the minimum starting temperature is -200F (that's what the surface temperatures on the Moon can cool off to during the night and in the shade) those same 12 hours
of sunlight would also easily bring a rise in temperature of 200F. Cooling processes are faster at higher temperatures so it is easier to bring the temperature up from low values than it is to raise the temperature starting with high values. Thus there is no special difficulty here just because we are starting with a large night time low of -200F. We can see now that it is easier for the Sun to raise the temperature of a surface on the Moon starting from -200F. Now if in 12 hours the Sun can warm a desert surface to +200F from a night time low of -32F with the added severe heat losses caused by the atmosphere then on the Moon the same heating time will cause a larger and faster heating response. What this means is that we can expect a Lunar surface to go from -200F to +200F in less than 24 hours. Actually in significantly less time than 24 hours. None of this takes into account that the Lunar day is 14 Earth days long. What that fact results in is even more extended periods of heating since the Sun's rays will be shining down on any particular surface at any given angle for 14 times as long as they do on Earth. Searing heat for 14 times as long! An important factor in all this is the angle which the surface presents to the rays from the Sun. In the Lunar morning it will be hillsides and other vertically oriented things (like astronauts and their Lunar Modules) that will feel the full force of the Suns power. When the Sun is overhead at 7 days it will be surfaces like horizontal ground and the tops of things like the Lunar Module that will capture the full magnitude of the Suns heating power. Landing on the Moon in the "morning" just means that the insulation in the soles of the astronauts boots will not have to work so hard since the angle presented to the Sun rays by the surface of the ground is not optimal for maximum exposure and thus the current temperature of the surface will be lower as a result of that. If he picks up a boulder which had presented a surface facing toward the Sun then that surface will be searing hot and the insulation in the astronauts gloves will be working hard to protect him from the heat.
Subject: (25) How did the space suit cooling system work? (or not)
They had backpacks which dissipated heat via the sublimation of ice from a porous plate located inside their backpack which, presumably, because it would have been in the shade and out of the sunlight would have been very cold. The trouble with this is that we now know that ice deposits have been found on the Moon's surface on the permanently shady side of some polar craters. So, water ice either "evaporates" away or it doesn't. Which is it? Actually if we study the phase diagram for water we discover that water does actually exist as both solid and vapour below it's freezing point. Not only that but that it (water ice) exerts a vapour pressure from its solid form (of which there are several) and it is this which carries away the heat load produced by the astronaut as he toils on the Lunar surface. Just like we lose heat by water evaporation from our bodies when we are hot the porous plate in the backpack dissipates heat generated by the astronaut which would make it unbearable inside the space suit otherwise. The trouble with this is that the vapour pressure of solid ice decreases rapidly with temperature and below zero degrees Celsius it is a small fraction of what it is at room temperature. And at very low temperatures like -200F it is quite negligible. In basic terms what this means is that there is not enough water vapour emitted (sublimated) by the solid ice on the plate to cool the astronaut fast enough. Not unless he has a porous plate with maybe 4 times or more the surface area of the human body. And that is at the melting point not -200F where something the size of a football field will be required. So, the temperature of the plate if it is a small one will have to rise significantly in order to increase vapour pressure as it inadequately tries to dissipate the heat generated by the astronauts metabolism and in a short time it will have melted all the ice on the plate. Thereafter huge coolant water losses ensue as the liquid water practically explodes out of the plate and into the vaccuum but the plate cannot cool down with this expansion because the astronaut is heating it to this point. Liquid coolant water loss ensues. How much and at what rate depends on the size and properties of the porous plate of course. The astronauts backpack would have to have housed many porous plates in order to have provided sufficient vapour pressure in order to provide sufficient cooling of the astronaut but there is no mention of multiple plates just "a porous plate". Not only that but the backpack would have to have been continuously vented to prevent heat build up and "melt-down" but the backpacks appeared to be closed. Postulating that they had a small aparture for water vapour to escape from would still cause heat build up in the interior of the backpack as the warm vapour touched the insides of the backpack. Any usefullness provided by insulating the insides of the backpack from solar radiation would have rapidly been lost and the temperature inside the backpack where the plates were would have risen untill it reached "melt-down" and liquid water loss ensued. The porous plates should have been located outside in free space and shaded from direct sunlight in order for the system to work correctly.
Subject: (26) How much insulation does it take to keep an astronaut warm?
Not much. The biggest problem is in keeping him cool. However,.. In order to maintain a normal temperature (37C) the human body (naked) would have to radiate about 800 watts of heat to the cold sky of space. With an average layer of clothing the losses can be considerably reduced to around 200 watts but the average daily calorific intake is only sufficient to support losses of around 100 watts. Therefore a little more clothing on top will suffice to stay warm under a cold sky and losses would then be at the normal 80 to 100 watt level which is easily sustained given proper calorific input.
The reader should not allow himself to be confused here because of the fact that a cooling system was also required for the astronauts. You see a spacesuit is a tightly closed environment, it is highly insulated from losses to the outside as well as affording strong insulating properties from the searing inward heat of the Sun. Basically, it shuts out the external thermal environment and the astronaut must be kept in an artificially created atmosphere within the suit. Without built in thermo-regulation an astronaut performing heavy aerobic work or exercise in a closed environment permitting no heat dissipation could as a worse case scenario find his body temperature trying to go from 98F to a theoretical 140F but of course nature butts in at 111F and the astronaut dies.
Subject: (27) Can the Moon rocks be faked?
They don't need to be faked - see section (27) While I do not offer an opinion on the authenticity of the
samples I think it is important to "tidy up" a couple of related issues.
- From http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/Conspi...GototheMoon.htm
"You simply do not see unaltered olivine on earth. This could not have been faked. These rocks have grains easily visible
to the unaided eye, which means they cooled slowly. To have made these materials synthetically would have required keeping the rocks at 1100 C for years, cooling them slowly at thousands of pounds per square inch pressure. It would have taken years to create the apparatus, years more to get the hang of making the materials, and then years more to create the final result. Starting from Sputnik I in 1957, there would not have been enough time to do it. And, you'd have to synthesize several different types of rock in hundred-pound lots".
The curator at JSC claims that sample sizes are of the order of a few tens of milligrams. That's sugar lump size. There's no need to manufacture "hundred pound lots at once or in single pieces. I'd think the manufacture of small sample sizes is
easier and faster than large ones. "All I did to get the Moon rock specimens (on loan) was write in and sign an agreement to keep the materials secure when not in use. NASA had no control over any non-destructive tests I might do when I had the specimens. I could have, for example, zapped the rock with X-rays to get its chemical composition. So the faked specimens would have to stand up to any kind of scrutiny that researchers might give them". Researchers had to supply a protocol to the curator at JSC that described exactly their intentions. If anything "funny" happened or showed in undisclosed testing then they broke protocol. "Whoever came up with the faked specimens would have to have devised a story of Lunar evolution to fit the samples".
Lunar evolution is still undecided. We still aren't sure exactly how the Moon formed. Whether it is a piece of the Earth broken away after a collision with a small Mars sized planet or whether the Moon evolved on its own in an orbit near ours and was captured. The former hypothesis was not even publicly proposed until the Kona conference in 1984!
"And you'd have to put in exactly the right amounts of radioactive elements and daughter products to get the rocks to date radiometrically at 4 billion years old - older than any terrestrial rocks. And you'd have to anticipate the development of new dating methods not in use in 1969 and make sure those elements are present in the correct abundance. And it's not like adding carrots to a stew, either. To mimic the results of potassium-argon dating, you'd have to add inert argon gas and trap it just in the potassium-bearing minerals, and in exact proportion to the amount of potassium".
K-Ar dating is often unreliable. Volcanoes that errupted only a few hundred years ago yeild dates of millions of years! And
another thing, K-Ar dating is patched with fixes up to its neck and some. Depending on what you think happened to the rock sample you apply factors because of the mobility of the argon. I'm not saying K-Ar dating is total hogwash you understand but....
More info on moon rocks can be found at:
http://www-curator.jsc.nasa.gov/curator/Lunar/Lunar10.htm
http://www.space.com/news/spaceagencies/
apollo_moon_rocks_010326.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/moon_
rock_analysis_000522_MB_.html
Subject: (28) Unmanned retrieval of Moon rocks possible?
Lets not forget that the Russian unmanned mission actually brought back about 100 grams or so of Lunar rock so it wont
have been beyond the wit or wisdom of NASA to do it bigger and better will it? In the light of the above and when you take into account all the anomalies and flaws in the Apollo record that have been demonstrated to exist why should we believe that the samples were retreived manually just because they say so? All claims require evidence and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence (favourite skeptic/debunker terms of evidential proof). So where is it? According to Jim Collier "30 billion dollars were spent in sending man to the moon but all the paper work has been flushed down the toilet. All we have is a bunch of faked photos".
Subject: (29) The Eagle landing site anomalies.
Serious discrepancies in the photographic evidence still remain to be explained by the "pro Apollo" fanatics. All images may be viewed or located by google at the NASA archive as described in section 21. In attempts to explain away the lighting hotspot visible in images AS11-40-5902 and AS11-49-5903 it may be 1) postulated that it was as a result of Solar reflection off of an instrument housing panel or 2) postulated that it may have been due to changed optical characteristics of the Lunar surface after it had been swept over by the engine as the Eagle landed. The first postulate is easily falsified with examination of image AS11-40-5915 where it becomes apparent that the reflective panel is facing almost directly at the Sun and not angled anywhere near sufficiently to cause the reflection in question. The second postulate is also falsified when consideration is given to the trench dug in the ground by the footpad probe (contact probe) as the Eagle landed. The footpad is about 3 feet in diameter and the contact probe is about 6 feet in length. The boot impressions in the ground must be at least 12 inches in length. The footpad and contact probe concerned are in the lower right corner of AS11-40-5915 and it is clear that the last 3 metres if not more of flight of the Eagle was in a straight line and came in from the right side as viewed in the image. This is clearly evident from the gouge in the ground made by the surface probe which was attached to the foot pad. The lighting hotspot in the ground is to the left in the picture and if it were caused by the ground being swept by the engine exhaust gasses then that would indicate that the engine (and the Eagle) followed a last few metres trajectory different to that indicated by the gouge in the ground made by the contact probe. The swept area indicates a possible landing trajectory originating from the left side in the picture but the evidence left in the ground by the contact probe indicates a landing from the right. The only way the exhaust gasses could have swept the ground in the left of the picture and at the same time the Eagle come down to land from the right as evidenced by the trench is if the Eagle had landed with a severe list to the right. If that had happened then the probeless leg on the Eagle, the one on the right side in back of the picture would have dug into the ground first and caused the LM to spin clockwise when veiwed from above in AS11-40-5915. That would have meant that the footpad and the trapped contact probe would no longer have aligned with the trench in the ground so neatly and all in one straight line. Had the Eagle listed so during the last few metres of travel then the contact probe would have made an arc shaped trench. Thus the "swept area" is not consistent with a landing from the right as is implied by the trench made in the Lunar ground by the contact probe. This leaves the lighting hotspot anomaly intact and without reasonable explanation so far.
Subject: (30) Some skeptics websites.
While I cannot vouch for the scientific accuracy of the content in any of the following websites they may be interesting to read
all the same:
http://www.empusa.demon.net/lunar/lunar1.htm
http://internet.ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo1.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/2666/MoonHoax2.html
http://www.geocities.com/nasascam/
http://mailgate.supereva.it/sci/sci.astro/msg513662.html ( This article did not come with photos or photo links )
-
There you go rolling on the floor again ....What's the matter craig ... Can't think of any clever little way to refute Dr. Jones photographic evidence ? ... Your pathetic attempts to steer away from the evidence in this article , which tarnishes nasa's 'impecible' and 'upstanding' image , by constantly attacking my lack of photographic knowledge , is so obvious .
If the conspiracy evidence I post is nothing but "ignorant claptrap" from a "delusional crackpot " , then you wouldn't be working so hard at trying to refute it .... All of the nasa defenders work too hard at what they do ... If the conspiracy evidence is really claptrap , then why not just ignore it ? .... You all give the game away in your desperation to refute every single word I post here .... and when someone protests too much , there is always good reason.
-
Exactly what emperical proof are you asking for ? .... The Apollo 12 photo anomaly speaks for itself , don't you think ? .... It's clearly an object being reflected in the visor ... It clearly has a geometric shape which has four equal parts which resembel fan blades ... The object changes position in the visor and also elongates with the convex surface of the visor ... If you look at the three photos that Evan posted you can clearly see that the same object is being reflected in the visor and the object even casts a shadow on the ground beneath it ... And none of this would occur with a smudge on the visor .
You are ROFLMAO again ? ... From the looks of your photo here I would think that would just a tad difficult for you to accomplish ... The rolling on the floor part anyway .
Tell me Herr lamson , exactly what was your role in working on nasa's ALSJ ? .. Besides writing an e-mail to one of nasa flunky's ... ROFLMAO !!!
-
"Ah, the victim once again " .... Spoken by a true moon Nazi , who's only real pleasure in life is abusive confrontation with conspiracy researchers .... I'm not the one posting disinformation ... That would be your job.
I haven't "damaged" any of the CT's claims ... That is only more of your typical insulting tactics of shooting the messenger because you don't appreciate the message .... You are so pathetically transparent lamson .... I don't know why I even waste my time replying to your nonsense .
-
The only thing clavius got right was calling Charlie Hawkins an idiot ... Other than that , that site is nothing but nasa disinformation and lies , headed up by one of nasa's main disinformation agents ... the idiotic Jay Windley (Utah ) .
I agree with the articles I post here or I wouldn't bother to post them .... I leave the photographic proof up the professionals ... Not the one's who lie , like you do ... but the honest one's who are not afraid to admit that the Apollo photos were faked on moon sets .
-
Well if it isn't two of the defenders of the..."One Giant Lie For Mankind" ... I don't have to read any link from clavius ... It's nothing but nasa disinformation ... Just like what you post .
I would believe Jones over a xxxx like you lamson .... How's that for proof ?
-
I don't know why you lie for nasa and I don't care ... but I am very tired of you calling me ignornant all the time ...
You have no proof that the Apollo photos were taken on the moon .... In fact , none of you who defend the bogus Apollo Program have any proof that any Apollo astronots ever really walked on the moon or that the crap they allegedly flew to get there could even really fly ....
I'm sure you all must have your own reasons for coming to nasa's rescue here against the big , bad , ignorant conspiracy theorists , but if I were really such an ignorant fool , then none of you would be working so hard to try to shut me up ... or working so hard to suppress the conspiracy evidence in the first place .
-
Neville Jones is not a physicist because clavius says so ???... Too funny !
Dave ... You shot yourself in the foot when you lied about the Apollo 12 ceiling fan /stagelight visor reflection anomaly being only a smudge on the visor .... You would do anything to try to prove that Apollo was not a hoax .... but to pretend that a four bladed reflected object is only a smudge is pretty ridiculous ... Just as ridiculous as nasa's pretend trips to the moon and back .
-
It's not often that a physicist and professional photographer has the courage to speak out against nasa's phony Apollo photos and faked moon missions .... In this article Dr. Neville Jones shows clear proof that Apollo was a hoax .
......................................................
Moon hoax - Photographic claims
Some geocentric scientists accept the claims made by the American government agency, NASA, whereas others deny them. Consider for yourselves some of the wealth of evidence for and against the supposed Apollo Moon landings.
Assertions by Dr. Gerardus Bouw
Astronomer
For NASA
Responses by Dr. Neville Jones
Physicist
Against NASA
Assertion
There is a belief, officially taught to Cuban school children and held by some New Agers, the Hare Krishnas, orthodox Moslems, the Flat Earth Society, and now increasingly circulating among Christians, that the United States faked the Apollo moon landings. Many are the claims made by the promoters of the belief, and some of them seem quite convincing. Although space will not permit a detailed account of the claims and counterclaims, we can categorize most of them into several categories and look at a handful of particulars. Most arguments are photographic in nature. After careful examination of photos and NASA videos of all the moon landings, we conclude that there is no evidence that the moon photos and videos were faked.
ANSWER
Although I do not, in general, concentrate on the photographic record, because physics arguments are, in my opinion, so much stronger, I do feel that some of Dr. Bouw’s incorrect assertions need to be addressed.
There is quite a clear bias here, right from the opening paragraph. We have doubters labelled as New Agers, Hare Krishnas, Flat Earthers and communists. In his magazine, "The Biblical Astronomer," 8(83), 4, 1998, he has also dismissed those who question NASA and its claims as being "wanderers."
There will be no such bias in this review, although I note in passing that Cuban schoolchildren are clearly better educated than their Americon cousins.
ASSERTION
In order to analyze the claims made by the doubters, I examined, with remote control in hand, all of NASA's video tapes about the Apollo missions. The comments below are not made from inexperience. From 1959 through 1976 I developed and printed my own photos and slides. For black and white prints I used of Ansel Adams' zone system photography, where one exposes for the shadows and develops for the highlights. I learned color printing in 1965 when I worked all summer for Dr. Larry Helfer of the University of Rochester. We were looking to enhance subtle color differences in the lunar mare (lava) beds by taking color photos of the moon and printing them to enhance the color contrasts of the moon. The whole summer was spent taking and printing telescopic photos of the moon at all phases. I continued color printing, when I could afford it, for several more years. Also, I worked six months in the processing lab of a portrait studio, where, among other skills, I learned toning. In more recent years I've enhanced photos by computer. For samples of that, see the eclipse photos posted on the Biblical Astronomer web site and photos which appeared in past issues of the Biblical Astronomer which dealt with the face and pyramids of Mars.
In the course of all that, I learned photographic techniques such as dodging, which keeps shady or dark areas of a photo from getting too dark; burning in, which brings out details in over-exposed areas, keeping them from looking washed-out; retouching, staining a negative to remove dark spots and blemishes from prints; and enhancing and reducing, techniques to rescue underexposed and overexposed negatives or prints. About the only thing I didn't do was airbrushing, the opposite of retouching, but I've done that with computer prints. Lately I've been working with the computer color correcting and restoring faded color photos from the 1950s. In short, I do know a little bit about what can and cannot be done with photos in the lab and by computer.
No sooner had the first lunar module landed on the surface of the moon than a chorus of voices, most of them communists, pronounced the whole Apollo program a fake. Certainly given the poor quality live video presented on world television at the time, there is no way to tell the difference. They used slow-fading photoreceptors which made it look like background objects shone through the astronauts' bodies, at least until the memory of the receptors faded. But NASA did not stop with that original video. NASA released still photos and video tapes of each of the lunar landings. Based on these released photos, two men in particular have made a living from the negative view. They are Bill Bryan of Oregon who, in 1982, wrote a book called Moongate, and Ralph Rene who wrote two books in the mid-nineties: Was It Only A Paper Moon? and Did NASA Moon America?. Are they right or wrong in their claims? Let's see what we can garner from the videos, still photos, and technology.
ANSWER
The developing and printing techniques he talks of are relevant where there is reasonable contrast over the exposure. On the Moon, there would be extreme contrast, so much so that areas would either be burnt out completely or not exposed in the least. There is no way that such images could be corrected as he implies, to the degree necessary to produce such sharp photographs. (By the way, I did outdoor and studio portrait photography, both colour and black and white, together with video photography for over ten years. I, too, have developed my own films, colour negative and positive, and black and white negative.) I no longer do this, because I hold that the creation of images of living creatures is contrary to Scriptural instruction. This is the reason that you will not see photographs of people or animals on the website.
Anyone with any real experience would plainly see that the images coming from NASA are simply faked, studio shots, perfectly exposed and composed, where the level and type of studio lighting is completely controlled and metered. The astronots did not even have an exposure meter! Neither did they have a viewfinder! Anyone with experience of the Hasselblad 500EL, such as myself, will tell you that guesswork would not produce magazine after magazine of perfectly exposed and composed images. They will also tell you about the telltale signs of hotspots (indicating the proximity of highly directional light source) and infill (indicating the use of standard portrait reflectors).
There was no protection of the Hasselblad for extremes of temperature (Kodak Ektachrome, the film type used, crinkles up at well below the supposed temperature on the Moon), nor against radiation, which would have caused irreversible fogging on all images.
His comment, “given the poor quality live video presented on world television,” is a little misleading, because television networks were not allowed any “live” feeds at all. They were actually broadcasting pictures off a large screen. The images on that screen were produced by NASA. In absolutely no way can one claim that the television broadcast was of a live event.
ASSERTION
If the landing and lunar surface activities were done on earth, there should be evidence of the presence of air. After all, to create a near-perfect vacuum for a stage set covering the scope of the lunar landing area is incredibly difficult, not to mention expensive. The videos were examined for evidence of air circulation.
The Apollo 11 video is not much help there, but Apollo 12 shows the dust blowing out from under the rocket engine as the lunar module (LM) landed. The dust moved in straight, radial lines away from the touch-down point. There is no evidence of swirling as would be the case if there were air. That is, it didn't behave like the cloud of dust and flame raised by a rocket launch from earth. True, the scale is smaller here, but the principle is the same. Except for hitting certain rocks, the dust blows straight out. When the engine turned off, the dust dissipated immediately instead of slowly circulating and settling to the surface.
The lunar rover video was also examined for evidence of air circulation in the dust kicked up by the wheels. The dust kicked up in rooster tail fashion which traced out the expected parabolic shape. On earth dust swirls and stays up for a long time such as one may have seen behind a vehicle driving down a dusty road.
Apollo 15 turned the video camera of the lunar excursion module (LEM) towards the lunar module to film the takeoff. When the return craft took off, there was no billowing exhaust as would be expected if filmed in air, nor was there any evidence of condensation or steam. The flag did twist but stayed up. Besides, to keep from damaging man and machine, the thrust builds up slowly so that most of the thrust and thus the exhaust blast takes place too high above the surface to disrupt the dust.
The contention is that thousands of pounds of thrust should have produced a sizable crater. Again, most of the deceleration occurs well before landing. For the landing to be gentle enough for survival, a minimum amount of thrust is needed toward the end, near the surface. (I seem to recall that it took one pound of fuel per second to keep the lander falling at constant rate, which is to say, to be able to hover over the surface.)
ANSWER
He states, under “no evidence of air,” that, “The dust kicked up in rooster tail fashion which traced out the expected parabolic shape.” However, after having watched James Collier’s video, “Was It Only A Paper Moon,” I do not understand how he could have missed the undeniable evidence of air. Unless, of course, he has been watching NASA footage that has been “enhanced,” just as the “C” was airbrushed off the famous rock picture. (Just a thought here, why would NASA be touching up old photographs anyway?)
Within the same section, he states that, “some hoax advocates [say about the LM takeoff that] there should have been a huge flame which would destroy the LM platform and flag.” He may be right, but I have never heard this claim before.
His next comment, however, is just plain rubbish: “Besides, to keep from damaging man and machine, the thrust builds up slowly so that most of the thrust and thus the exhaust blast takes place too high above the surface to disrupt the dust.” Anyone who has seen this “thunderbirds”-style takeoff will recall the phenomenal rate of acceleration off the supposed lunar surface, and, of course, the exhaust must be pushing on something. So we are told that there is enough dust to leave zillions of footprints, but that this layer was not blasted away in all directions upon firing the engine! I do sometimes wonder about Dr. Bouw.
I have also watched Ralph Rene (whose book, "NASA Mooned America," is well worth reading) very effectively demonstrate the disruption caused by a hand-held leaf blower on a pile of gravel, as well as the almost impossible movement of his fingers in a glove pressurized to 5 psi above vacuum.
ASSERTION
There is a fable common to modern man which claims that all shadows in a vacuum are pitch black. For some reason these folk assume that without any air there would be no light to brightening the shadows. Thus they presume that the fact that we can see details of the astronauts and the lander in the shade means that the photos must have been taken in the presence of an atmosphere.
Now it is true that if we have an object alone in space, such as an asteroid, for example, the night side is as dark can be. But shadows on the sunlit side need not be so dark. The same is even truer for a large object such as the moon. On its surface, small rocks which receive little light from the surrounding surface will have dark shadows and show little if any detail on a typical photo. A taller object, such as an astronaut or lunar module, will catch light from more of the surrounding surface and will not be absolutely dark. Consider how bright the full moon appears at night. In actuality it is a bright as a granite rock at noon. Now just the small amount of moonlight we see from a full moon provides enough light to be able to read by. Imagine now that brightness multiplied tens of times over and you have a realistic picture of what the dark side of the lander or astronaut would look like. Indeed, since there is no air to scatter the light on the moon, the shadows would be slightly brighter on the moon than on earth. Since the light would emanate from all around the horizon, there would be no shadows cast by the light from the lunar landscape.
Then, too, there's earth shine. The earth as seen from the moon is much, much brighter than the moon as seen from the earth. The light from the earth would also contribute to brightening the shadows on the moon, but not nearly as much as the light from the lunar landscape. So we conclude that the absence of an atmosphere does not make the shadows on the moon so dark that one can't see features in them.
ANSWER
Next, under “no dark shadows,” he claims that, “There is a fable common to modern man which claims that all shadows in a vacuum are pitch black.” What?! This is an interesting tactic that I only realized a year or so back, by watching an awful pro-Apollo television programme. In that programme, the self-styled defender of Apollo made some outlandish claims about what people who doubted his god believed. He then set about debunking the claim. To the general viewer it must have seemed very convincing “proof” that the programme-maker’s view was correct. What a genius. But hang on a minute, who exactly made the alleged claim that he was so effectively debunking? Certainly I knew of no one.
There is some scattering of light off the surface, which is what Dr. Bouw then goes on to discuss in all but name, and there would be a small amount of “earth shine,” but nowhere near enough to ensure that we always got a good picture of the stars and stripes.
Also, on several photographs, such as one of Aldrin supposedly coming down the ladder, there is a quite distinct hotspot, as would be caused by, for example, a studio light.
ASSERTION
Some critics of NASA's lunar landings maintain that the shadows on the surface of the moon are not aligned and show evidence of multiple light sources. They claim that all shadows should be parallel since the light arrives in a near-flat plane. But such a claim does not hold in practice. I checked the shadows of a tree-lined lane and found that they are not parallel. All the shadows point towards the sun. True, in a narrow field of view (through a telephoto lens or binoculars, for example), the shadows will look parallel, but in reality they point to the sun. This phenomenon is called perspective, and artists and architects know all about it. Evidently the NASA critics don't; or they choose to ignore it.
If there are still doubters among our readers, consider another related phenomenon called which occurs when the sun shines through a hole in a distant cloud. The resulting sun rays are anything but parallel. They each trace back to the sun.
What about the shadows of the rocks? The rocks are irregular in shape, and so is the surface. Rocks lying on the rims of small depressions will cast longer shadows over the depression than they would be on a flat surface. Rocks lying next to a rise will have short shadows. Irregular peaks and vales on the rocks and surface will cause one to misjudge the lengths and directions of shadows. It is very difficult to judge the parallelism of shadows on an uneven, cratered surface. Based on that alone I found no evidence for multiple light sources. Indeed, multiple light sources would cast multiple shadows and no one claims multiple shadows to be found. More anon.
ANSWER
He continues his ridicule of those that question the Apollo programme, by claiming that we do not understand perspective.
A further outlandish claim that Dr. Bouw uses to reinforce his disdain is: “Consider another related phenomenon called [?] which occurs when the sun shines through a hole in a distant cloud. The resulting sun rays are anything but parallel. They each trace back to the sun.” Do they? In that case, the Sun would be just above the clouds.
ASSERTION
There is a series of photos which shows astronaut Buzz Aldrin climbing down the Apollo 11 lunar lander's steps . He is descending in the shadow of the lander, yet one can see details of the lander and his suit seems bright as if it's in direct sunlight. One hoax advocate claimed that it would take a three hour exposure to make the photo so bright. The claim is that the area had to be illuminated by stage lights.
Actually, the higher up one goes off the surface of the moon, the more of the moon's surface comes into view and the more of its reflected light hits from the surrounding moonscape. It is not surprising then that Aldrin's oxygen pack (which looks like a white backpack) which is pointing skyward, is darker than its underside which catches the light from the lunar surface. Now it could be argued that that's consistent with the flood-light speculation, too; but in that case we should see the shadow cast by the flood light. In none of the photos is there any evidence of a shadow cast by the hypothetical fill-light.
If the lunar landing photos were shot in a studio with flood lights and fill lights, there should be multiple shadows in many of the photos. As it is, there is no evidence of such multiple shadows. Besides, why is the lunar landscape, also supposedly lit by floodlights, overexposed in that photo? Studio lighting would make the landscape and the lander the same brightness.
A related phenomenon is the one seen in the cover photo. The lunar landscape seems to be bright near the center of the photo and then seems to fade in brightness as one gets to the edges of the photo. One only finds this in photos where the astronauts are prominent. Their white suits outshine the lunar surface and so one sees a differential reflection from the dust on the moon. The dust reflects light that hits it directly more than it reflects light which hits at an angle. Think of it this way. As the light hits a dust particle in a deep dusty surface obliquely, the reflected light is absorbed or scattered in different directions by neighboring dust particles. This is why in short exposures such as ones in which the white astronauts are prominent, the darkening is prominent. In photos where the astronauts are less prominent, the fading is barely noticeable.
Of course, a professional photo printer will "burn in" the image by letting the enlarger light shine through a small, coin-size hole in cardboard while constantly moving the card, lengthening the time that the enlarger light falls on the shaded area, thus making it look brighter on the print. It is evident that such techniques have been used on some of these prints.
ANSWER
Then consider what he says about backlighting: “If the lunar landing photos were shot in a studio with flood lights and fill lights, there should be multiple shadows in many of the photos.” Dr. Bouw has clearly no experience of studio photography. Master and slave lights would not produce multiple shadows, even if one had the slaves as bright as the master, which is unusual, but possible. For example, if you are taking a photograph of a girl in a studio you would not light her in the same way as you would a man. You would want to have quite strong and fairly even lighting, to bring out her beauty and skin tone. For a man, the standard method is to produce a rugged appearance by heavy lighting on one side of his face, such that you obtain a triangle of light on the cheek opposite the light source. But for a woman, you generally want an evenness of light to emphasize a smooth skin, with some difference in intensity to give the picture warmth and a sense of reality or interest, if you like. If I were photographing a brunette, say, I would use either three or four big studio lights. There would be the master light, positioned either to my right (illuminating the left side of her), or to my left (illuminating her right side). There would be a slave on the other side of me, set to half to three-quarters master intensity, a powerful light to illuminate the backdrop and a hair light, positioned not far above her head, with a snoot attachment. That is four powerful lights. How many shadows would I expect to see? None. The only evidence you would have in the picture that more than one lamp was used is the fact that there would be two distinct lights in her eyes. If she were wearing a space visor, then I could just remove one of those lights at the processing stage and you would be left with no evidence at all. Furthermore, a gold or silver or white reflector is not a light, but is specifically for filling in otherwise dark areas. In either case, I would not expect multiple shadows.
It is therefore preposterous to imagine that the professional photographers used by NASA would leave multiple shadows because they used multiple light sources and reflector boards. Some photographs have shadows running in different directions, that is true, but I would put this down to the superposition of images, not multiple light sources.
ASSERTION
"Why are there no stars in the lunar sky?" ask the hoaxers. After all, if there's no air on the moon then one can see stars in daylight. Certainly the statement is true, but that doesn't mean that you should expect to see any stars in the photos. To demonstrate the truth of this to yourself, take one of these three photos on a starry moonless night.
1. Take a picture of the starry dark night sky with the flash on. The photography shop won't print the blank negative, so you'll have to look at the negative to see that there are no stars there.
2. Again on a starry night, take a photo of someone under a street light. You'll see no stars in the sky.
3. If you don't have an automatic camera, set your exposure time for 1/125 second at f/8 and take a photo of the stars. This is the exposure time which roughly corresponds to the settings used on the moon.
If you think that the atmosphere dims starlight a lot here on earth -- which it doesn't if the stars are any distance above the horizon -- go ahead and set your f-stop all the way open, place your camera on a tripod, and shoot for a quarter of a second. You'll still not see any stars. Even if you exposed the film for several seconds you won't notice the stars unless you happen to have one of the very brightest or a planet in the viewfinder. You'll have to expose the film for fifteen to sixty seconds to record any more than a few stars. So we see that the lack of stars in the photos argument is bogus.
ANSWER
“That the lack of stars in the photos argument is bogus” does not explain why they simply did not photograph the stars from the lunar surface.
The Hasselblad 500 EL has far slower stops than 1/125s at f/8. Photographing the stars would have been child's play on the Moon, compared to getting such crystal sharp images of the flag and the "United States" sign.
ASSERTION
In this article we have looked only at the major claims made by those who think that NASA faked the moon landings. Only a few of the lesser claims were examined and some, like the angle of the flag and the burned-in image of the American flag on the lander, I've ignored altogether. These are too easy to counter.
In general we found that hoax advocates are ignorant of photographic printing techniques, photo enhancement techniques, and computer photo enhancement techniques. They also lack a basic understanding of modern astronomy and selenology (study of the moon's surface and rocks), no, not enough to properly state what astronomy and selenology have to say about the moon, and thus certainly not enough to offer intelligent critique. My most pessimistic appraisal of the moon hoax phenomenon is that it is designed to capitalize on the current dissatisfaction among the general American public with its cowardly, government leadership, cowed by a handful of satanic men in high places (Ephesians 6:12). Increasingly American Christians are being taken in by this hoax, and they get quite belligerent if you disagree. On the whole, American Christianity spends its money and acclaim on things and people who make merchandise of them by telling them what they want to hear, and by selling them worldly goods in "christian" wrapping paper. Lord, have mercy on us.
ANSWER
I have skipped the van Allen belts, Moon rocks and the like, because his position is based solely upon his belief in NASA claims, and because I wish to point out his photographic errors. Such circular reasoning is common with those who wear blinkers (such as those so-called scientists who advocate the idea of organic evolution, for example).
Dr. Bouw concludes with, “In general we found that hoax advocates are ignorant of photographic printing techniques, photo enhancement techniques, and computer photo enhancement techniques. They also lack a basic understanding of modern astronomy and selenology (study of the moon's surface and rocks), no, not enough to properly state what astronomy and selenology have to say about the moon, and thus certainly not enough to offer intelligent critique.”
I hope that this small appraisal of his article will show up his assertions for what they are - incorrect, ignorant and misleading.
-
Sorry pal .... but I am not the one who spews disinformation about Apollo ... That job belongs to you and your Apollo apologist friends .... You know damn good and well the Apollo photos are studio fakes but for whatever reason you choose to defend nasa's lies ..... I bet you are not only a moon nazi but a Freemason also .... Don't you guys all stick together when it comes to Apollo ? ... As a professional photographer you should know that the Apollo photos are studio fakes ... Yet you continue to claim they were really taken on the moon ... That would make you not only a moon nazi but a xxxx also ... So don't accuse me of spreading disinformation when that is so obviously what you are doing every time you defend the phony Apollo moon set photos .
-
Thanks for posting those three photos of the ceiling fan / stage light anomaly ... You just proved my point .... Smudges do NOT change shape or position ON the visor but reflected objects IN the visor DO change shape and position with the position of the convex visor .... Plus , as I have mentioned before , smudges do not have the geometric shape of an object with four blades .... So if you really believe this object is a smudge then you are either a fool or a xxxx ... or possibly both .
-
Speaking of looking up words , two can play that game ... Look up Moon Nazi ... those would be the PERFECT words to describe you ... along with a few others I won't mention ... but I'm sure you get my drift .
The only fantasy world here would be nasa's fairy tale of landing men on the moon ... The Apollo photos are so fake they are laughable .
-
A well deserved honor , only if you consider lying for nasa an honor .
-
The Apollo 17 photo you posted above clearly shows a spotlight , not a smudge .... And the Apollo 12 photo I posted shows a stage light or fan blades , not a smudge ... And the word "crackpot" is as old as Herr lamson is , and just as ridiculous as he is also ..... Is that the best you can do lamson ? .... How about throw a little "claptrap" in there too like nasa spokesman Brian Welsh did in the documentary that blew nasa's faked moon missions right out of the water .
I now undertand why Herr lamson lies for nasa but what about the rest of you ? ... Gullible geeks or paid disinformation agents , you all act the same .
-
Percy, Sibrel, Rene, White, Kaysing etc. fall into the catagory of .... CONSPIRACY RESEARCHERS .... And you're the one who is wrong , not Jack ... Especially if you really believe that Apollo 12 visor reflection anomaly is only a smudge on the visor .
-
Now back to the subject of this thread .... the anomaly in the Apollo 12 photo ... I borrowed this photo from Jack's site ... I hope he doesn't mind ....
For anyone to make the claim that this object is a smudge on the visor is absolutely ridiculous ...and I would say that they are either playing games or lying .... It is very obvious that this anomaly is either some type of stage light or possibly some kind of ceiling fan , by observing the shape of it's four blades ...
We have aready discussed the fact that this amomalous object not only changes position but also changes shape in the convex visor reflection , depending on the position of the astronots head and the angle of the camera ... It also creates a shadow of the same pattern on the ground beneath it .... These are things which a smudge on the visor could not possibly do .
Matthew ... Your vote for a complete idiot is wrong .... No one on the planet is that stupid ... Well , on second thought , maybe they are ... Look at all the people who fell for nasa's act of landing Apollo astronots on the moon !
Hawkins book is clearly disinformation , whether it was written by a game playing geek or a professional nasa disinformation agent ... but then those are one and the same , aren't they ?
-
Tool carrier harness:
Harness left on Moon, crop from Apollo 17 image (I can't find the image number right now; I'll find out which one it was)
Thanks for posting the pictures of the tool harness .... I assumed the straps had a mundane explanation but just wanted to make sure that the disinformation of them being part of a fly system, as stated in Hawkins book, was just more of nasa's stupid misinformation games .... There is not one piece of hoax evidence in that silly book that can't be easily be refuted ... So it was either written by a complete idiot or an nasa disinformation agent ... Gee, I wonder which it could have been ?
-
1. The artefact is in the same place on the visor each time (giving due regard to convex shaped visor, differing camera angles etc). The photos are taken from 3 or 4 different locations: hence, it is far more likely to be a surface feature on the visor, rather than a reflection in the visor.
Not true ... The position of the fan shaped artifact changed in location in each different photo .
2. It has the same shape in each photo. With photos taken from different locations, the shape should change noticeably if it was a reflection.
Not true ... The shape also changed with the different postions of the convex visor , proving it was a solid object reflected IN the visor ... Something a "smudge " could not do ... It also cast a shadow of the SAME EXACT SHAPE ! ... A little fact which you continue to ignore .
3. It is visible on Pete Conrad's visor in at least eight different photos - but NEVER visible on Alan Bean's visor. If it was indeed a reflection of a fan, then I would expect to be able to see it reflected in Bean's visor.
Just because the fan blade anomaly didn't show up in Bean's visor doesn't mean it isn't there .... The camera angle could have been different and not shown it .. Or a more awake quality control employee could have spoted the same amomaly in Bean's visor and air brushed it out ... There could be dozens of reasons why it only showed up reflected in Conrad's visor and not Bean's ... Even the photo shoot of the two different astro-actors could have been shot at different times and the artifact removed from the set ...
Sorry , but your argument just doesn't hold any water . ... How can you look at that fan shaped object reflected in Conrad's visor and then claim it's just a smudge ? .... Don't you care that you look like a xxxx ? ... Or is defending the bogus Apollo photos more important than your integrity ?
-
Uh oh .. there's that word "ignorant" again !
Since when is it a criminal act to work for nasa ? ... It's a crimianl act to LIE for nasa but of course when has that ever stopped anyone who works for nasa from lying ?
Everyone keeps wanting proof that the Apollo photos are studio fakes ... You mean to say that you can't tell they are fake by just looking at them ?... Unbelievable !
Anyone who is a professional photographer knows the Apollo photos were not taken on the moon ... but there are honest photographers , who want everyone to know this unhappy fact , like Jack White .... and then there are the dis-honset one's like craig lamson , who continue to lie about the phony Apollo photos because he is part of the scam .
I will posts some photos here of the real moon and also some of the Apollo moon sets and then explain why some are really the moon and the Apollo one's are not .... Maybe then you will be able to see and understand the difference .
-
Like I just posted on another thread ... The nasa defenders will stop at nothing to defend nasa's lies ... and you are no exception Dave ... You pretend to be nice , unlike the others who are so blatantly and obviously hateful in their tactics to stop the conspiracy info .... but in your pretense of being nice , you now bring up and post a photo here that I posted in the past .. And one which I already conceded to being wrong about .
At least I am honest enough to admit it when I am wrong about something ... That's more than I can say about you or anyone else who works so hard trying to refute the hoax evidence .
So why are now bringing up an Apollo 17 photo in this thread ? ... More distraction tactics would be my guess ...You can't win the argument about the Apollo 12 photo , so you bring up this one again ....
What about those fly system straps on PLSS in that amomalous Apollo 12 photo ? You think maybe nasa forgot to air brush them out of their phony photo ? .. Along with forgetting to air brush out the artifact anomaly in the visor reflection ?
Are you assigned to make up a good cover story for that little problem , or has that job been assigned to Burton ?
-
Colby ... It looks as though Mr. Simkin may be more fair than I first assumed .... I didn't come here to insult anyone .. and if you don't believe me just read my first posts here .... I was hoping to discuss Apollo with people who could act like adults about this , not schoolyard bullies ... and I tried everything I knew to get all of you to stop insulting Jack White .
Lamson did not insult me because I don't know much about photography or physics .. He personally insulted me and continuously attacked me because I know that Apollo was a haox ... He knows it too , and that's why he will do everything in his power to shut me up ... It's the same reason he attacks Jack White and his Apollo studies ....
Jack's post to me about who may be working for nasa was very informative but really not surprising at all .... Anyone who spends their lives on internet forums defendings nasa's lie of landing men on moon must have very good reasons to do so .... The internet is full of nasa disinformation agents and their main job is to suppress the conspiracy information and stop the hoax believers by any means necessary ....
So maybe John Simkin feels differently about what is really defamatory and what isn't ....and what may be the truth also ... and maybe he is not like the typical moderators of other forums , who are obviously working for nasa to stop the hoax evidence from spreading any further than it already has .
I called Lamson a Nazi because he acts like one and because he is lying about working for nasa .... I called you a xxxxx because that's what you are .... And all of you can call me whatever you please because it doesn't matter anymore ... It won't stop me from posting about the Apollo hoax .
Do you know what the main reason is that I still believe Apollo was a hoax ? .... It's because the one's who claim otherwise protest just a bit too much and they lie about this .... and when people protest too much and tell lies and will stop at nothing to shut up their opponets , and will stoop to any low life level to do it , then something is obviously very wrong and the truth is obviously being covered up .... It's people like you and Lamson and Burton and Greer and Waspie_ Dwarf and MID and Phil Plaitt and Jay windley , who prove to me that there is much to hide when it comes to nasa and their bogus Apollo Program .
Moon hoax - Photographic claims
in The Apollo Moon Landings
Posted · Edited by Duane Daman
You two sure can blow some smoke ... Too bad neither one of you have any fire to go with it .....
So this turned out just like I suspected it would ... You obviously can't refute this physicist's photographic claims , so you attack me instead .... How typically pathetic of both of you ...
This isn't rocket science kids but rather photograpic concepts that Herr lamson should be able to easily refute ... but of course as we can all see by now , the only thing this moon Nazi is capable of , is attacking Jack and me and everyone else who can see slap through nasa's lies of landing men on the moon and also their lies about their phony moon set photos ....
Just because most physicists either fell for nasa's fantasy of landing men on the moon , or are too afraid to speak out against nasa , doesn't in any way imply that Dr. Jones is wrong and the other physicists are right ... He just has what it takes to go up against the majority , where the others couldn't be bothered or are too afraid to buck the system .... For obvious reasons .
Dr. Jones has shown where nasa'a Apollo photos are bogus , faked moon set crap .... And all the two of you have shown as usuall , is that you have no real rebuttle to his claims .... Why would I need to defend his evidence when I completely agree with it ? .... The mind games you gullible geeks , clavius clones and moon Nazi's play is so silly and transparent ...
If you clowns have forgotten how the game works , then here is a little reminder for you.... I post the claims , now it's up to one of you to try to refute them ... Not for me to continue to defend them ... Remember how it works now ?
So rebutt away Mr. Big Shot Photographer ... Or don't you have what it takes to go up a physicist and a professional photographer who just blew nasa's faked photos completely out of the water ?