Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did NASA Use 1/6 Gravity Simulators to Fake Apolllo ?


Recommended Posts

Speaking of wires and special effects photography , here's a little bit of both , that were used on the Apollo 16 and 17 moonsets .

They got the 1/6 g effects down very well for the astro-NOTS on the wires , but what do you think happened with those plastic bags that fell out of their pockets at 1 g speed ? ... I guess that part wasn't in the script ?

Moon Hoax - One Six G.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcEb4zBnY1I

BTW, volcanic ash at a high altitude doesn't kick up like regular dust ... In fact it behaves just like moon dust would ... but why do you say the dust in the faked Apollo films look like it's falling in 1/6 g , when it falls at the same rate of speed that the dropped bags do ?

Unfortunately, the author of the video (greenmagoos) hasn't done any actual analysis of the video. He's just put up various undocumented clips and made the assertion that the behaviour of objects in the clips is as you would expect in a 1g environment.

For this to be taken seriously, he needs to analyze some of the footage on a frame by frame basis, then apply one of the equations of motion to the vertical motion:-

s=ut+1/2at2

with estimates and errors for

s (distance fallen)

u (initial velocity)

t (time taken)

and solve the equation for a.

Or, he could assume that he knows what the value of a is (either g or g/6), solve the equation for t, and show that it does or does not fall within the expected range given uncertainty in measurement.

In either case he needs to state what the assumed value of u (initial velocity) is. In the hammer and feather experiment, it could be assumed that this is zero. I don't think it would be correct to make this assumption in all of the clips on this video. For example, in the first clip, the astronaut moves his hand down to try and catch the bag. If his hand touched it on the way down it may have increased the velocity of the bag. In the third clip, the PLSS is bouncing up and down slightly. The bag appears to fall as the PLSS is moving downwards, possibly giving an initial velocity which would need to be taken into account.

Then we need to look at the sources of the video, and ensure they are being played at the correct speed.

The video in question hasn't attempted to do this at all, it's just a collection of clips with the implied assumption that the motion we are seeing is wrong, with no attempt at all to prove this empirically. I suppose this could reinforce someone's belief that the video is faked, who isn't prepared to actually analyse any of the footage.

The best thing about the video is the music, which I admit did take me back a few years and had me singing along!

Bravo Dave ! ... That has to be some of the best disinformation you have ever posted ! ... Did you think up those math equations all by yourself , or did you perhaps have your leader Jay and the rest of your pals at Apollo Hoax lend you a hand with this one ?

greenmagoos did analyse the videos and put them on YouTube just like he got them from nasa ... and what they show ( in spite of all your fancy tap dancing ) are objects which fall at 1 g speed in an allegedly 1/6 g environment ... The Apollo videos speak for themselves .... and the word they all speak , very loudly and very clearly is ... F A K E !

I like his song choices too ... He has a real knack for putting the right music with the right faked Apollo footage ... :D

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 93
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Unfortunately, the author of the video (greenmagoos) hasn't done any actual analysis of the video. He's just put up various undocumented clips and made the assertion that the behaviour of objects in the clips is as you would expect in a 1g environment.

For this to be taken seriously, he needs to analyze some of the footage on a frame by frame basis, then apply one of the equations of motion to the vertical motion:-

s=ut+1/2at2

with estimates and errors for

s (distance fallen)

u (initial velocity)

t (time taken)

and solve the equation for a.

Or, he could assume that he knows what the value of a is (either g or g/6), solve the equation for t, and show that it does or does not fall within the expected range given uncertainty in measurement.

In either case he needs to state what the assumed value of u (initial velocity) is. In the hammer and feather experiment, it could be assumed that this is zero. I don't think it would be correct to make this assumption in all of the clips on this video. For example, in the first clip, the astronaut moves his hand down to try and catch the bag. If his hand touched it on the way down it may have increased the velocity of the bag. In the third clip, the PLSS is bouncing up and down slightly. The bag appears to fall as the PLSS is moving downwards, possibly giving an initial velocity which would need to be taken into account.

Then we need to look at the sources of the video, and ensure they are being played at the correct speed.

The video in question hasn't attempted to do this at all, it's just a collection of clips with the implied assumption that the motion we are seeing is wrong, with no attempt at all to prove this empirically. I suppose this could reinforce someone's belief that the video is faked, who isn't prepared to actually analyse any of the footage.

The best thing about the video is the music, which I admit did take me back a few years and had me singing along!

Bravo Dave ! ... That has to be some of the best disinformation you have ever posted ! ... Did you think up those math equations all by yourself , or did you perhhaps have your leader Jay and the rest of your pals at Apollo Hoax lend you a hand with this one ?

I didn't think it up at all Duane, it's one of the equations of motion (for constant acceleration). You can look it up in a physics text book. Or you can find it on this site along with its derivation.

greenmagoos did analyse the videos and put them on YouTube just like he got them from nasa ... and what they show ( in spite of all your fancy tap dancing ) are objects which fall at 1 g speed in an allegedly 1/6 g environment ... The Apollo videos speak for themselves .... and the word they all speak , very loudly and very clearly is ... F A K E !

If he analyzed the videos, why hasn't he put his analysis online? Where are his time measurements, guesstimates of heights, margins for error, assumptions?

Let's cut to the chase. I know he didn't do any analysis. You know he didn't do any analysis. He's just looked at the videos and made the assumption that the objects behave as if in normal earth g, and decided to state it as fact. That's the sum total of his analysis isn't it? He just looked at a few videos!

Does Greenmagoos or yourself actually know how long it would take an object on earth to fall, say, 1 metre? (Let's disregard air resistance or any other external influence). How long would it take to fall the same distance on the moon? Twice as long? Should it take 6 times as long to fall, since gravity is six times weaker? Or something else? How do you come to your figure?

Come back to me when you've crunched some numbers and have some hard data, or even an answer to the very simple questions I posed to you above. Until you can manage that, all you're left with is a nice music video: not proof that the footage was faked.

Edited by Dave Greer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, the author of the video (greenmagoos) hasn't done any actual analysis of the video. He's just put up various undocumented clips and made the assertion that the behaviour of objects in the clips is as you would expect in a 1g environment.

For this to be taken seriously, he needs to analyze some of the footage on a frame by frame basis, then apply one of the equations of motion to the vertical motion:-

s=ut+1/2at2

with estimates and errors for

s (distance fallen)

u (initial velocity)

t (time taken)

and solve the equation for a.

Or, he could assume that he knows what the value of a is (either g or g/6), solve the equation for t, and show that it does or does not fall within the expected range given uncertainty in measurement.

In either case he needs to state what the assumed value of u (initial velocity) is. In the hammer and feather experiment, it could be assumed that this is zero. I don't think it would be correct to make this assumption in all of the clips on this video. For example, in the first clip, the astronaut moves his hand down to try and catch the bag. If his hand touched it on the way down it may have increased the velocity of the bag. In the third clip, the PLSS is bouncing up and down slightly. The bag appears to fall as the PLSS is moving downwards, possibly giving an initial velocity which would need to be taken into account.

Then we need to look at the sources of the video, and ensure they are being played at the correct speed.

The video in question hasn't attempted to do this at all, it's just a collection of clips with the implied assumption that the motion we are seeing is wrong, with no attempt at all to prove this empirically. I suppose this could reinforce someone's belief that the video is faked, who isn't prepared to actually analyse any of the footage.

The best thing about the video is the music, which I admit did take me back a few years and had me singing along!

Bravo Dave ! ... That has to be some of the best disinformation you have ever posted ! ... Did you think up those math equations all by yourself , or did you perhhaps have your leader Jay and the rest of your pals at Apollo Hoax lend you a hand with this one ?

I didn't think it up at all Duane, it's one of the equations of motion (for constant acceleration). You can look it up in a physics text book. Or you can find it on this site along with its derivation.

greenmagoos did analyse the videos and put them on YouTube just like he got them from nasa ... and what they show ( in spite of all your fancy tap dancing ) are objects which fall at 1 g speed in an allegedly 1/6 g environment ... The Apollo videos speak for themselves .... and the word they all speak , very loudly and very clearly is ... F A K E !

If he analyzed the videos, why hasn't he put his analysis online? Where are his time measurements, guesstimates of heights, margins for error, assumptions?

Let's cut to the chase. I know he didn't do any analysis. You know he didn't do any analysis. He's just looked at the videos and made the assumption that the objects behave as if in normal earth g, and decided to state it as fact. That's the sum total of his analysis isn't it? He just looked at a few videos!

Does Greenmagoos or yourself actually know how long it would take an object on earth to fall, say, 1 metre? (Let's disregard air resistance or any other external influence). How long would it take to fall the same distance on the moon? Twice as long? Should it take 6 times as long to fall, since gravity is six times weaker? Or something else? How do you come to your figure?

Come back to me when you've crunched some numbers and have some hard data, or even an answer to the very simple questions I posed to you above. Until you can manage that, all you're left with is a nice music video: not proof that the footage was faked.

Wow, this is hilarious.

Duane, the overriding principal of Gravity is that acceleration occurs at an exponential (square) rate over rise. You would need to integrate to find the average velocity, but the appearance of falling, which is really the effect that you are mistaking for the 1G speed of descent (I use the term speed, since you are stuck on the time of descent) would be very similar to a 1G descent as the item accelerates as a function of the square of the initial velocity (feet per second per second). Therefore the big difference would be in the first small instant of descent, otherwise it will appear similar.

To test this, time the rate of descent, integrate in increments starting at one sixth of 32 feet per second (for the first second, then use say, four seconds for the lunar test), and then integrate for the rest of the length of descent (like the next second would be a square of the previous rate, etc). This is what Dave's formula does. It looks correct. Compare this to a (earth's) 1G rate of descent (but you have to do the integration), and then you should see a difference (but it won't be a huge difference, because of the acceleration, as the falling item continually accelerates, so it looks similar, BUT you have to do the math).

You can either test it or calculate it, but you can't just say its fake cause it looks fake.

Edited by Peter McKenna
Link to post
Share on other sites

"Come back to me when you've crunched some numbers and have some hard data, or even an answer to the very simple questions I posed to you above. Until you can manage that, all you're left with is a nice music video: not proof that the footage was faked. "

I will definately do that ... But before I crunch you some numbers , you need to know that a couple of math equations doesn't prove that the Apollo video footage is real either ...

There is more proof that they were faked than you and your friends will ever be willing to admit to ... But not everyone plays the type of dishonest games that you and your friends do .

In fact , here is an article written by a fellow who believes that Apollo landed on the moon , but even he knows for a fact through his own investigations and research , that the official Apollo photographic record is a fake because what is depicted in the staged Apollo photos , doesn't at all match up or jive with what is written in the ALSJ script , or with the Hubble or Clementine photos of the same area ...

A Hidden Mission for Apollo 17 ?

http://keithlaney.net/Ahiddenmission/A17HMp3.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
"Come back to me when you've crunched some numbers and have some hard data, or even an answer to the very simple questions I posed to you above. Until you can manage that, all you're left with is a nice music video: not proof that the footage was faked. "

I will definately do that ... But before I crunch you some numbers , you need to know that a couple of math equations doesn't prove that the Apollo video footage is real either ...

No, but they will show that the footage wasn't filmed in a 1g environment.

There is more proof that they were faked than you and your friends will ever be willing to admit to ... But not everyone plays the type of dishonest games that you and your friends do .

Aw, come on Duane, play nice. I thought you'd grown out of labelling people who don't agree with you as being "dishonest".

In fact , here is an article written by a fellow who believes that Apollo landed on the moon , but even he knows for a fact through his own investigations and research , that the official Apollo photographic record is a fake because what is depicted in the staged Apollo photos , doesn't at all match up or jive with what is written in the ALSJ script , or with the Hubble or Clementine photos of the same area ...

A Hidden Mission for Apollo 17 ?

http://keithlaney.net/Ahiddenmission/A17HMp3.html

Lengthy article, I'll read over it and respond in due course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is more proof that they were faked than you and your friends will ever be willing to admit to ... But not everyone plays the type of dishonest games that you and your friends do .

In fact , here is an article written by a fellow who believes that Apollo landed on the moon , but even he knows for a fact through his own investigations and research , that the official Apollo photographic record is a fake because what is depicted in the staged Apollo photos , doesn't at all match up or jive with what is written in the ALSJ script , or with the Hubble or Clementine photos of the same area ...

A Hidden Mission for Apollo 17 ?

http://keithlaney.net/Ahiddenmission/A17HMp3.html

I intend to show that there is indeed something much more profoundly shocking about this area and mission; something obvious that had been hidden in plain site, hushed, then back-drawer relegated to a time when it could be rediscovered and brought to attention by some observant and brave mind at a time of greater social acceptability.

Well, it sounds from the off as if he's just attention-seeking, but who knows, he may have actually found something moon-shattering, so let's look at some of his evidence.

I have reasons to suspect that a lot of the photography from this traverse has been quietly suppressed or "tricked", and an equal amount of the transcripts edited for normality. Actually the social and national security reverberations of such spectacular findings might have seemed to warrant this, so there is really nothing to be held accountably wrong for. Nevertheless, the transparency of the stated geological mission as a cover for another, much more profound excursion becomes obvious upon closer review. What were they doing here? They drove through all that for rocks? No. I would like to think they were looking for a way into the massif, which may not be a natural feature at all but rather a fantastically constructed, hexagonal shaped, half collapsed ancient artifact. A remnant from a civilization unknown except perhaps through ancient legends. A real life "2001: A Space Odyssey" sort of scenario.

What? They drove around the moon looking for MOON ROCKS? Heavens above! What were they thinking?

He seems to think that the South Massif, rather than being a mountain, is actually a huge artificial construct, and the astronauts were looking for a way in! He may have the basis for an interesting novel, but it's hardly proof that Apollo photos were faked is it?

They most likely didn't find a way in, but it's not by any stretch hard to imagine they were probably hoping to. Based on the photography so far why would they not? They definitely went there rather straight away after landing, and it definitely has an artificiality appeal factor.

Unfortunately for the author he simply has his facts wrong: you can even see by the maps he's using on his website that they travelled to station 2 on the South Massive during the 2nd EVA.

Nansen appears far too shallow, and does not reconcile with the orbital photos of it nor with the exclamatory transcripted descriptions. For one, there is no shaded overhang on the massif-side, which is shown on every single orbital photo, regardless of lighting angle, for two it is not shown to be very anomalously deep, as described by Jack. we may be peering from above and behind the overhang onto the other side of Nansen, and the dichotomy in the middle may be the overhang's top edge.

Shaded overhang? In the orbital photos, the slope of the South Massif is in bright sunlight, part of Nansen is in shade. He's visually interpreted that to mean it must be an overhang. He doesn't mention how a feature such as an overhang is created on a moon with no atmosphere. Maybe his interpretation is incorrect?

Something is very wrong with this view. We are expected to believe that this single pass horizontal pan would have captured the entire height and breadth of a nearly 7000 ft tall 17 km wide massif. This is highly suspect.

That's the crazy thing about panoramic shots, they're really good at getting large features onto film in section. Of course, you have to bear in mind that this is going to play some strange tricks with perspective. Check out this panoramic photo of a very familiar setting. The billboard running the length of the pitch appears to be curved. Make panoramas out of lunar landscape photos and a similar thing will happen. It's not some bizarre, unique property of Apollo photos.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp...ium-Oct2005.jpg

...

Much of the rest of the article is taken up with the author complaining that the astronauts sounded too excited about what they were seeing, or that the photographic evidence didn't match up to the level of excitement in the transcript. I've never been to the moon, so can only speculate as to how I would react when confronted with scenes such as this:-

a17pan1230624.jpg

I'm going to speculate that I'd be quite excited. The author says otherwise. Who's to know how anyone would react, let alone a geologist on the field trip of a lifetime?

What all this has to do with your position on Apollo I'm not quite sure. OK, so this guy appears to have an overactive imagination. Maybe he should put his energies to better use and write a novel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is more proof that they were faked than you and your friends will ever be willing to admit to ... But not everyone plays the type of dishonest games that you and your friends do .

In fact , here is an article written by a fellow who believes that Apollo landed on the moon , but even he knows for a fact through his own investigations and research , that the official Apollo photographic record is a fake because what is depicted in the staged Apollo photos , doesn't at all match up or jive with what is written in the ALSJ script , or with the Hubble or Clementine photos of the same area ...

A Hidden Mission for Apollo 17 ?

http://keithlaney.net/Ahiddenmission/A17HMp3.html

I intend to show that there is indeed something much more profoundly shocking about this area and mission; something obvious that had been hidden in plain site, hushed, then back-drawer relegated to a time when it could be rediscovered and brought to attention by some observant and brave mind at a time of greater social acceptability.

Well, it sounds from the off as if he's just attention-seeking, but who knows, he may have actually found something moon-shattering, so let's look at some of his evidence.

I have reasons to suspect that a lot of the photography from this traverse has been quietly suppressed or "tricked", and an equal amount of the transcripts edited for normality. Actually the social and national security reverberations of such spectacular findings might have seemed to warrant this, so there is really nothing to be held accountably wrong for. Nevertheless, the transparency of the stated geological mission as a cover for another, much more profound excursion becomes obvious upon closer review. What were they doing here? They drove through all that for rocks? No. I would like to think they were looking for a way into the massif, which may not be a natural feature at all but rather a fantastically constructed, hexagonal shaped, half collapsed ancient artifact. A remnant from a civilization unknown except perhaps through ancient legends. A real life "2001: A Space Odyssey" sort of scenario.

What? They drove around the moon looking for MOON ROCKS? Heavens above! What were they thinking?

He seems to think that the South Massif, rather than being a mountain, is actually a huge artificial construct, and the astronauts were looking for a way in! He may have the basis for an interesting novel, but it's hardly proof that Apollo photos were faked is it?

They most likely didn't find a way in, but it's not by any stretch hard to imagine they were probably hoping to. Based on the photography so far why would they not? They definitely went there rather straight away after landing, and it definitely has an artificiality appeal factor.

Unfortunately for the author he simply has his facts wrong: you can even see by the maps he's using on his website that they travelled to station 2 on the South Massive during the 2nd EVA.

Nansen appears far too shallow, and does not reconcile with the orbital photos of it nor with the exclamatory transcripted descriptions. For one, there is no shaded overhang on the massif-side, which is shown on every single orbital photo, regardless of lighting angle, for two it is not shown to be very anomalously deep, as described by Jack. we may be peering from above and behind the overhang onto the other side of Nansen, and the dichotomy in the middle may be the overhang's top edge.

Shaded overhang? In the orbital photos, the slope of the South Massif is in bright sunlight, part of Nansen is in shade. He's visually interpreted that to mean it must be an overhang. He doesn't mention how a feature such as an overhang is created on a moon with no atmosphere. Maybe his interpretation is incorrect?

Something is very wrong with this view. We are expected to believe that this single pass horizontal pan would have captured the entire height and breadth of a nearly 7000 ft tall 17 km wide massif. This is highly suspect.

That's the crazy thing about panoramic shots, they're really good at getting large features onto film in section. Of course, you have to bear in mind that this is going to play some strange tricks with perspective. Check out this panoramic photo of a very familiar setting. The billboard running the length of the pitch appears to be curved. Make panoramas out of lunar landscape photos and a similar thing will happen. It's not some bizarre, unique property of Apollo photos.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp...ium-Oct2005.jpg

...

Much of the rest of the article is taken up with the author complaining that the astronauts sounded too excited about what they were seeing, or that the photographic evidence didn't match up to the level of excitement in the transcript. I've never been to the moon, so can only speculate as to how I would react when confronted with scenes such as this:-

a17pan1230624.jpg

I'm going to speculate that I'd be quite excited. The author says otherwise. Who's to know how anyone would react, let alone a geologist on the field trip of a lifetime?

What all this has to do with your position on Apollo I'm not quite sure. OK, so this guy appears to have an overactive imagination. Maybe he should put his energies to better use and write a novel.

WOW ... That's a very impressive argument Dave .... When you don't have a proper rebuttal , just pretend that the author of the article has " an overactive imagination " , instead of what he really possesses ... Intelligent perception , and the patience to throughly research the many anomalies in the official Apollo 17 photographic record .

You really are quite a piece of work in defending your lost cause ... and you wonder why I make the claim that you and your friends are delberatlely dishonest ??? ... Oh please .

No wonder David Percy advised me to stop wasting my time arguing with those who defend the bogus Apollo photography and alleged moon landings ... It really doesn't show good sense on my part to keep wasting my time trying to discuss this subject with any of you , when all you do is to continue to play these kind of silly games ...

Your main objective on this forum is to try to shoot me down by any means necessary ... Even if it means taking conclusive proof of photographic fraud on nasa's part ...then picking and choosing certain quotes ( out of context ) from this well researched article , and then attempting to make the author of this article look as if he doesn't know what he's looking at or talking about .... when what's really going on, is just more game playing nonsense on your part .

And then you ask what's this to do with my position on Apollo ? ... You must be kidding ! .... What this article PROVES is that the faked Apollo photography from Apollo 17 does NOT MATCH the ariel views taken by the Hubble , or the SCRIPTED FANTASY DIALOGUE written by the authors of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal .... The fact that this author really believes that Apollo 17 landed on the moon is his problem ... but at least he has the good sense and intelligence to realize that the Apollo photos were faked .

Link to post
Share on other sites
WOW ... That's a very impressive argument Dave .... When you don't have a proper rebuttal , just pretend that the author of the article has " an overactive imagination " , instead of what he really possesses ... Intelligent perception , and the patience to throughly research the many anomalies in the official Apollo 17 photographic record .

I'll agree he certainly has patience, it's just IMO his conclusions are flawed.

Especially the one about the South Massif being a 17km partially collapsed titanium and glass structure. You may call that "intelligent perception", I call it an over-active imagination.

You really are quite a piece of work in defending your lost cause ... and you wonder why I make the claim that you and your friends are delberatlely dishonest ??? ... Oh please .

You still can't help yourself.

No wonder David Percy advised me to stop wasting my time arguing with those who defend the bogus Apollo photography and alleged moon landings ... It really doesn't show good sense on my part to keep wasting my time trying to discuss this subject with any of you , when all you do is to continue to play these kind of silly games ...

Percy probably advised you not to argue with people who believe Apollo happened because he knows his arguments don't stand up to critical analysis.

I'm playing no games here Duane. You, however, seem keen to carry on throwing the insults about.

Your main objective on this forum is to try to shoot me down by any means necessary
My main objective on this forum is discussion of the Apollo landings, and the conspiracy theories surrounding it. The evidence proves to me that Apollo happened, but I'm prepared to look at any new evidence that is presented. If IMO I find that evidence to be flawed, I'll say so and explain why.

I'm not shooting you down, I'm shooting your arguments down, as I believe they are flawed. That's what debate is about. Sadly, you keep on mistaking someone disagreeing with you, and robustly arguing against your evidence, as a personal attack or vendetta.

Examples of personal attacks (that I'm sure you're familiar with) are calling people "dishonest", "blind", "pathetic", "liars", "shills", "disinformationists". On this forum, you seem to resort to these attacks when someone has pointed out flaws in your evidence. That says to me you don't really know how to defend your position. That's all well and good, all you need to do is say "I disagree with you, but lack the knowledge or expertise to explain my position further, or to counter your argument. Let's agree to disagree?" Or you could actually try and provide a reasoned, intelligent argument as to why your evidence is reliable, and why any counter-arguments are invalid. Resorting to silly name-calling, and accusing people of playing games, doesn't do you or your arguments many favours.

Even if it means taking conclusive proof of photographic fraud on nasa's part ...then picking and choosing certain quotes ( out of context ) from this well researched article , and then attempting to make the author of this article look as if he doesn't know what he's looking at or talking about .... when what's really going on, is just more game playing nonsense on your part .

The article was six pages long, I don't have the time to refute it all. Much of it was just speculation on the author's part anyway, for example his belief that they wouldn't drive to the South Massif to look for moon rocks. His exact words were:-

I would like to think they were looking for a way into the massif

Is a statement like that worthy of proper refutation? The author is entitled to think what he likes, but you can't dress his belief up as proof.

And then you ask what's this to do with my position on Apollo ? ... You must be kidding ! ....
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you think the Apollo photos were taken on cheesy looking moon-sets because it was impossible to get through the Van Allen belts or other radiation hazards, whereas the author thinks they did indeed go to the moon, but tried to cover up the huge, ruined alien arcology they found there?
What this article PROVES is that the faked Apollo photography from Apollo 17 does NOT MATCH the ariel views taken by the Hubble , or the SCRIPTED FANTASY DIALOGUE written by the authors of the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal .... The fact that this author really believes that Apollo 17 landed on the moon is his problem ... but at least he has the good sense and intelligence to realize that the Apollo photos were faked .

Unfortunately, the article proves nothing. The photos DO match. And the author has only offered his opinion that the astronauts sounded too excited for his liking. If you accept all this as proof, then you have a very poor standard of what I would define as "proof". But that's only my humble opinion, which happens to be different to yours. Agree to disagree?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Percy probably advised you not to argue with people who believe Apollo happened because he knows his arguments don't stand up to critical analysis. "

Well, if it's one thing you are , it's predictable ... I knew what your reply would be to that statement before I even read it .

No, the reason David doesn't waste his time debating on forums such as this one is because he has already proven many times over that the official Apollo photographic record is a complete fraud ... and he has much better things to do with his valuable time than to play games with Apollo apologists like you .

I haven't seen anyone refute his photographic analysis yet , but I have seen many people PRETEND to refute it ... Here's some of his irrefutable evidence right here in this YouTube video ... and I have no doubt that you will attempt to refute it with even more of your nonsense .

Moon Hoax- The Bean,The Camera,Spotlight and its Reflection

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNCFekpGRtc

BTW , bringing up past discussions ( insults included ) are part of the '25 Rules of Disinformation ' and also part of the silly game you play here .

" Unfortunately, the article proves nothing. The photos DO match "

Oh really ? ... This doesn't look like much of a match to me ... Notice the horozontal grooves on the real South Massif ? ... Well, guess what? ... They NEVER made an appearence in any of the Apollo Hassleblad photos taken on the A17 moonset .

Hubbleseesthemoona.jpg

nasa was obviously so embarassed by the Hubble photo that in the adjoining Apollo image they elected to use an image that DID NOT show the North OR South Massif because they were obviously missing the grooved features.

Hubble Shoots the Moon .

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solars...ubble_moon.html

Edited by Duane Daman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Dave ... Here are some numbers for you ....

Would you and Evan like to provide estimates of heights for the bag drops in greenmagoos video ?

It's fair to estimate that the initial velocity will be anything between 0ms2(squared) to 0.5ms2 - 1ms2 because the Astronots are not at rest when the bags are dropped.

You must also provide estimates with air-resistance.... There is no point trying to work out estimates of objects being dropped on the lunar surface if in fact they were dropped on the Earth on a soundstage or perhaps somewhere like Hawaii or another outside location .

Are you agreeable to that?

green has now provided follow up videos with time codes included.

Moon Hoax- One Six G - Night Vision Re-cut/dux

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=66pmBn7En4U

Moon Hoax - Bag Drop A17 EVA 3 STN 8

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

I would also like your estimates of height and velocities for Bertlapollo clips and also your estimates for the hammer/feather drop.

Six clips of thrown objects

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=isVO9AAAhxM

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok Dave ... Here are some numbers for you ....

Would you and Evan like to provide estimates of heights for the bag drops in greenmagoos video ?

I thought you were providing estimates?

Not to worry, if you want to do a collaborative effort. I'm pushed for time at the moment, but will hopefully be able to spend some more time on this over the next couple of evenings. Let's just iron some minor (though important issues) out.

It's fair to estimate that the initial velocity will be anything between 0ms2(squared) to 0.5ms2 - 1ms2 because the Astronots are not at rest when the bags are dropped.

Firstly, your units are wrong. Velocity is measured in ms-1 not ms2. Picky maybe, but this is an Education Forum :huh:

It's good that you realise the initial velocity may not always be zero in these clips. However, we need to distinguish between horizontal motion and vertical motion. The equations of motion hold true in any given direction, and by resolving motion in 2 dimensions into a vertical and horizontal compnent, parabolic trajectories can be quite simply modelled. In our case, we only need to consider motion in the vertical axis. this will simplify our calculations as well.

You must also provide estimates with air-resistance.... There is no point trying to work out estimates of objects being dropped on the lunar surface if in fact they were dropped on the Earth on a soundstage or perhaps somewhere like Hawaii or another outside location .

I was under the impression you thought these clips were supposed to be filmed in that very large NASA vacuum chamber? Given that you think they were filmed in a vacuum on Earth, and I think they were filmed in a vacuum on the moon, doesn't make much sense to factor that in. In any case, the equations are going to be vastly more complicated if we need to factor fluid mechanics into the equation. Isn't it the effect of gravity we're trying to determine here, so we can determine whether it's more likely the video was shot in 1g or 1/6th g?

Are you agreeable to that?

If you agree with what I've said so far.

green has now provided follow up videos with time codes included.

Moon Hoax- One Six G - Night Vision Re-cut/dux

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=66pmBn7En4U

Moon Hoax - Bag Drop A17 EVA 3 STN 8

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

I would also like your estimates of height and velocities for Bertlapollo clips and also your estimates for the hammer/feather drop.

Six clips of thrown objects

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=isVO9AAAhxM

For starters, why don't we pick one clip and look at that to begin with? Preferably one where we can see the entire fall of the bag. There's a good clip at about 1:05 in the Moon Hoax- One Six G - Night Vision Re-cut/dux video. Can you verify with Greenmagoos what mission it was, and what the time stamp was? I need this because at least one of the clips is taken from Percy's "What Happened On The moon" and appears to be sped up, so I'd like to be able to check it against a different source.

Once we have all this information, we can come up with estimates of heights, with assumed error margins etc.

P.S. I'm assuming you do now agree that s=ut+1/2at2 is in fact a genuine equation of motion and not some disinformation I made up? If not, there's no point taking this discussion any further.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok Dave ... Here are some numbers for you ....

Would you and Evan like to provide estimates of heights for the bag drops in greenmagoos video ?

I thought you were providing estimates?

Not to worry, if you want to do a collaborative effort. I'm pushed for time at the moment, but will hopefully be able to spend some more time on this over the next couple of evenings. Let's just iron some minor (though important issues) out.

It's fair to estimate that the initial velocity will be anything between 0ms2(squared) to 0.5ms2 - 1ms2 because the Astronots are not at rest when the bags are dropped.

Firstly, your units are wrong. Velocity is measured in ms-1 not ms2. Picky maybe, but this is an Education Forum :huh:

It's good that you realise the initial velocity may not always be zero in these clips. However, we need to distinguish between horizontal motion and vertical motion. The equations of motion hold true in any given direction, and by resolving motion in 2 dimensions into a vertical and horizontal compnent, parabolic trajectories can be quite simply modelled. In our case, we only need to consider motion in the vertical axis. this will simplify our calculations as well.

You must also provide estimates with air-resistance.... There is no point trying to work out estimates of objects being dropped on the lunar surface if in fact they were dropped on the Earth on a soundstage or perhaps somewhere like Hawaii or another outside location .

I was under the impression you thought these clips were supposed to be filmed in that very large NASA vacuum chamber? Given that you think they were filmed in a vacuum on Earth, and I think they were filmed in a vacuum on the moon, doesn't make much sense to factor that in. In any case, the equations are going to be vastly more complicated if we need to factor fluid mechanics into the equation. Isn't it the effect of gravity we're trying to determine here, so we can determine whether it's more likely the video was shot in 1g or 1/6th g?

Are you agreeable to that?

If you agree with what I've said so far.

green has now provided follow up videos with time codes included.

Moon Hoax- One Six G - Night Vision Re-cut/dux

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=66pmBn7En4U

Moon Hoax - Bag Drop A17 EVA 3 STN 8

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

I would also like your estimates of height and velocities for Bertlapollo clips and also your estimates for the hammer/feather drop.

Six clips of thrown objects

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=isVO9AAAhxM

For starters, why don't we pick one clip and look at that to begin with? Preferably one where we can see the entire fall of the bag. There's a good clip at about 1:05 in the Moon Hoax- One Six G - Night Vision Re-cut/dux video. Can you verify with Greenmagoos what mission it was, and what the time stamp was? I need this because at least one of the clips is taken from Percy's "What Happened On The moon" and appears to be sped up, so I'd like to be able to check it against a different source.

Once we have all this information, we can come up with estimates of heights, with assumed error margins etc.

P.S. I'm assuming you do now agree that s=ut+1/2at2 is in fact a genuine equation of motion and not some disinformation I made up? If not, there's no point taking this discussion any further.

I will provide estimates after you do ... I need to know what you think they are before I can attempt to refute them ... Sorry for using the wrong units ... Thanks for correcting them ..

But before we go any further , let's clear up some of the confusion here ... First of all , I don't remember saying that I thought this footage in question was filmed in a vacuum chamber .... It's possible that it was , since nasa had a huge one built which it could have easily been filmed in , but let's stick to the hypothesis that this is either the real lunar surface or a lunar studio in Earth's atmosphere .... That's why I would need estimates for both a vacuum and an atmosphere .... If we are trying to determine what type of gravity this was filmed in , then we will need to estimate both ... Agreed ?

We can discuss the one clip if that would make it easier for you ..." Moon Hoax- One Six G - Night Vision Re-cut/dux video " ...The mission number is Apollo 17 EVA 3 Station 8 .

167:27:58 Schmitt: Damn.

167:28:00 Parker: You got another one dropped there, Gene. Jack got it.

167:28:04 Cernan: Another one?

167:28:06 Parker: Jack's getting it.

167:28:07 Cernan: Okay. (Pause)

Another thing we need to clear up is your accusation that Percy sped up the film .... To my knowledge Percy did not alter the speed in any of the Apollo films unless he clearly stated beforehand that he did so , to make a particular point .... What makes you think Percy altered the Apollo 17 sequence ? ... What calculation have you made to suggest this?

I realize that I have thrown a lot of evidence your way but why have you chosen to ignore the Hubble photos which clearly show that the South Massif has horozontal grooves in it and the Apollo Hasslebald photos don't ? .... I think even you will have to admit that the Hubble pictures are not a match for the Apollo photos , allegedy taken at the same location .... And if you're honest about this fact , I do believe that you owe both Jack White and David Percy apologies , as it has always been their position that the Apollo photos were faked and you have been claiming all along that they were really taken on the moon .... but as we can see from the Hubble images , this is not the case .

Another subject I see you have chosen to avoid is the other video I posted here of Percy's Apollo 12 " broken camera " evidence .... He has clearly shown that this was not true and that the camera was fuctioning , showing lens flare ( your favorite thing in the Apollo photos ) and a picture which changed as the camera slipped on it's stand .... So nasa's story of the A12 camera " breaking" because Bean pointed it at the Sun , is obviously not true .... Percy also showed how the same type of camera equipment used for Apollo 15 didn't "break " when it was pointed directly at the sun .... So here again is an example of Percy providing analysis which I don't believe has ever been refuted .

If you would like to try to refute any of this evidence I just mentioned , please do so before we continue with the gravity equations ... If not , then I will accept that as your concession .

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that the actual math equation you used was an invention on your part , but only that you were using it to post more disinformation .... Sorry for the confusion about that .

Post your estimates of height and initial velocity at your convience ... I know you will need time to consult with your friends .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duane...I sent the "Hubble" image to David Percy for comments. He replied

to be careful dealing with it, as it may be a sting operation, and should not be

relied on till further investigation. He said he had studied it, and it appears

to be that NASA took a genuine Hubble (flat) photo and applied a 3-D GRAPHICS

PROGRAM to it to see what it would look like in 3 dimensions from moon surface

level...so it is not a genuine photo, but a result of a graphics program interpretation.

So be careful in making claims about it till more is known. He thinks the striations

may have been added, and are not genuine, but a NASA addition.

Jack

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...