The slow motion issue of the Apollo hoax

[graflok]

Reading the section in David's new book on the Apollo moon hoax and the material David
referenced on Jay Weidner's web site (http://jayweidner.com/) on the Stanley Kubrick/Apollo connection got me
re-thinking the moon hoax issues. Jay's web site also mentions that Kubrick, who
likely directed the fake Apollo footage, placed hints in some of his later movies
which allude to this fakery. The 1980 movie "The Shining" being the one that Jay
analyzes on his site in regards to this. After reading David's info and Jay's web
site I went out and rented a copy of the movie and watched it again. It was while
reviewing this information that something occurred to me and I suspect that Stanley
Kubrick intended it to occur to anyone who looked at all his hints. I think Jay is
very close to the truth in his analysis of "The Shining" but missed one important
point. But, more on that later.

The biggest smoking gun, in my opinion, the one that pervades nearly all the Apollo
motion picture footage showing "astronauts" moving about on "the moon" is something
so visible and so obvious that it has literally been hiding in plain sight. It is
the slow motion character of all the movement which exists in nearly all the Apollo
footage. We accepted it as real due mainly to Hollywood's depictions of men on
the moon, especially in Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey which was released the year
before Apollo 11. The Apollo "astronauts" appear to move as if underwater, walking
along the sea floor. All in slow motion. Even when they jump upwards it's all shown
in slow motion. But, there is no scientific basis for this. There is no reason that
someone walking or moving on a low gravity planet or moon would be moving in slow
motion like this. At least not while jumping upwards. What would slow them down?
They are supposedly moving in a low gravity, no atmosphere environment. What is
there to slow them down?

Astronaut runs downhill - YouTube

Astraonaut acting retarded on the moon - YouTube

Running on the Moon - YouTube

Note: if the videos above don't embed properly they are located here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDpwtnGS6uc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJJqDoPHT_c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyOt6RUs9mE

We've been conditioned to believe the slow motion image of men in space by 2 major
factors: Hollywood movies and footage of astronauts and others in zero gravity
environments such as real astronauts in orbit and others in zero gravity simulators
which are inside airplanes that dive at just the right speed to match gravity.
We've seen astronauts floating and moving slowly while suspended in zero gravity.
But this is slowness is deliberate. Making sudden movements while floating in zero
gravity can have grave consequences so such personnel are trained to move very
slowly and deliberately. They could, if they wished, move very quickly, even
more quickly than in normal gravity if they wished. There is nothing stopping
them from doing so. But, the moon is not zero gravity anyway. It is, we are
told, low gravity -- about 1/6 that of Earth.

But, if this is so obviously an error in the Apollo footage why didn't NASA catch
it? Surely the NASA scientists would know that showing the astronauts moving in
slow motion on the moon would be unrealistic. How could they miss such an obvious
error?

I believe the answer is that they didn't miss it -- they simply had no other choice.
Motion picture technology of the time simply could not realistically depict men
walking in low gravity in the way that it would really appear. The problem is that
free falling objects in low gravity would move more slowly than on earth but other
motions would move at normal or perhaps even faster-than-normal speed. This must
have presented a technological nightmare for a 1960s film maker. There was no
way to depict such a thing with live action "astronauts" moving around on a dusty
set, handling objects, etc. It was simply impossible to do at the time.

So, the probable solution was to create and release a major motion picture just
prior to Apollo 11 showing men in space and on the moon, all moving in slow
motion and tell the public that this is the most technologically accurate movie
ever made about space travel. They would even include a short scene showing men
walking on the moon, also in slow motion of course. This pre-conditioned the
public to expect that men on the moon would walk in slow motion. NASA, would act
as consultant on the movie which would receive much pre-release hype informing the
public that this movie accurately depicted men and women in space. That movie, of
course, was 2001: A Space Odyssey. For good measure they also included long boring
scenes of moon ship stewardesses moving ever so slowly around the craft and other
tedious scenes all in slow-slow motion. And, since no one noticed the slow motion
error in the men on the moon scene when the movie was released they knew they had
a green light to shoot all the Apollo sequences in slow motion. They knew the public
would buy it and this "solved" their production nightmare of depicting men moving
about on the moon in a way that would be believed by the public. After all, who here
on Earth has been in a low gravity environment and would know that the slow motion
depiction was not accurate?

Oddly enough, a number of post-Apollo Hollywood movies depicting men moving about on
Mars show them moving more-or-less normally (except when falling). Movies such as
"Mission to Mars," "Red Planet" and others are included here.

Mission To Mars - Brian de Palma - The Face, First Contact - YouTube

Red Planet - YouTube

Note: if the videos above don't embed properly they are located here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8DJDMT6JoA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZdRLy5eUkc

But, NASA tells us that Mars is a low gravity environment too. They tell us it is only
about 1/3 the gravity of Earth (they say the moon is 1/6). So, the appearance of
men walking about on the moon should be very similar to such motions on the moon.
Yet for some reason the public accepts slow-motion "astronauts on the moon" but not
slow motion Hollywood actors on "Mars." Go figure.

Jay Weidner's site discusses the hints that Kubrick placed in his post-Apollo movies,
especially in the 1980 film "The Shining" and makes some interesting and, I think,
valid points. I recommend reading it. I would only add one thing. The scene in which
the young boy Danny is seen wearing the Apollo 11 sweater is, I think, the big tip off.

Jay mentions this scene but I think he overlooked an aspect of its real significance.
Danny is playing with his toy cars when the tennis ball (thrown away by Nicholson in
an earlier scene) rolls up to Danny as he plays. Danny then S L O W L Y rises to
reveal the "Apollo 11" artwork on the sweater and then he S L O W L Y walks forward
to the mystery room saying, "Mom?" repeatedly. I believe it is Danny's slow motion
action while wearing that sweater which is Kubrick's big clue in that scene.

http://img823.imageshack.us/img823/2734/danny.jpg

Danny even keeps his arms away from his body in an unnatural way as he slowly walks forward,
much like the "astronauts" do when walking in their space suits in the fake Apollo footage.

I also suspect that Danny's repetition of the line "Mom?" in the scene may also be a clue.
"MOM" is NASA-speak for "Mission Operations Manager," someone that Kubrick would have worked
with closely on the Apollo hoax. It also stands for Mind Over Matter, a good summation of
how they solved the problem of showing astronauts moving about on the moon.

But, the above clue is simply a humorous observation. However, the slow
motion smoking gun evidence of NASA's deceit exists in much of the Apollo
footage and is there for all to see once they give it a little thought.

In any case I believe that the Apollo hoax accomplice Stanley Kubrick did at least
give us the key to unraveling the NASA scam in a way that they cannot defend as
evidenced by the debunkers on this forum who just can't seem to come up with any
valid argument about this slow motion issue. All they can do is hurl insults as
I'm sure they will do on this thread. :)

[neoconsumer]

Thanks for the excellent and thought provoking post.

I had always thought the movements looked odd - like the astronauts were "suspended" rather than in low gravity but to be totally honest the slow motion aspect really had passed me by.

I think you are right and if anything the opposite would be true (regarding speed of motion) - I think when I am running the faster I run the less time my feet are in contact with the ground and the more time they spend in the air. If you take that and add it to a low atmosphere, low gravity environment then surely movement would actually be easier and certainly faster? (Faster in the sense that you would cover more ground in a shorter time - it wouldn't look anything like earth footage in fast forward)

[david c]

Here's something I noticed about the astronauts' movements.

There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.
Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - YouTube
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that a fifty percent slow-motion was used in Apollo 11 to simulate lunar gravity. Later, they improved their methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736



(The above video "A funny thing happened on the way to the moon" keeps going on and off-line. If the above link is dead, click here)
http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=a+funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to +the+moon&hl=es&emb=0&aq=1&oq=a+funny+thin#

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
--------------------------------
When the footage from this clip is doubled, the movements look unnaturally fast.
Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - YouTube

Here it is doubled.
Jumping on the moon at double speed - YouTube

When the Apollo 11 footage is doubled, the movements look natural. This makes it very clear that they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity in Apollo 11 and a faster slow-motion (around 67 percent according to Jarrah White's calculations) combined with wire supports in the later missions.

I started a thread at Clavius on this a few years ago.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021&page=1

As you can see it's mostly tap dancing.

[graflok]

^ Very good post -- thank you david c.

I would only modify one little point.

When you say ...

"...they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity" ...

I would modify that slightly by saying ...

"... they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate what
the public has been duped into thinking lunar gravity looks like."

Because there is no reason to believe that movement in actual low gravity
environments would appear to be in slow motion (with the singular exception
of free falling objects).

But, I do fully agree with your post. I believe there is also a sped-up video
of the "astronauts" driving their moon rover around. When it is shown at
faster speed it looks exactly like someone driving it on Earth would look
(which is, of course, what it really was).

[thesloth]

graflok, this is an amazing and comprehensive analysis of what might have really happened.

But I hope the analysis would fit together seamlessly in a manner that would leave no ambiguity as to the conclusion. For example, in one comment on YouTube somebody mentioned that the bulky space-suites could have constricted the astronauts' movements resulting in slower movements. But some of the clips are clearly unbelievable given the bulk of the backpacks.

[graflok]

graflok, this is an amazing and comprehensive analysis of what might have really happened.

Glad you enjoyed it. :)


But I hope the analysis would fit together seamlessly in a manner that would leave no ambiguity as to the conclusion. For example, in one comment on YouTube somebody mentioned that the bulky space-suites could have constricted the astronauts' movements resulting in slower movements. But some of the clips are clearly unbelievable given the bulk of the backpacks.

So, put on some stiff, bulky clothing and jump upwards. Will you rise in
slow motion? No. You may not jump as high but you won't appear to
rise in slow motion as the Apollo "astronauts" do in the NASA footage.
You will move at exactly the same speed as if you jumped to that same
height without the stiff clothing. The same would be true on the moon.
Jumping up one foot in a stiff suit would be at the same speed as jumping
up one foot with a flexible suit or a clown suit or any suit.

We have been conditioned by movies and other media to think of low
gravity as an environment that causes us to move as if we were under
water.

When we are actually under water we do move in slow motion
and gravity does seem to be less because of our buoyancy. This
is our only reference for comparison so it is easy to confuse being under
water and being in a true low gravity environment. But, under water is not
a low gravity environment and the slowness is caused by the resistance
of the water around us.

But, in a true low gravity environment with little or no atmosphere there
would be nothing to slow us down when we jumped upward. We would most
likely rise at a faster speed than on Earth, not slower.

NASA and Kubrick couldn't simulate what real low gravity would look like so
they took a huge chance betting that the public would buy the slow motion
(which is easy to do) instead.

[david c]

But, I do fully agree with your post. I believe there is also a sped-up video
of the "astronauts" driving their moon rover around. When it is shown at
faster speed it looks exactly like someone driving it on Earth would look
(which is, of course, what it really was).
Here's the video of the rover sped up.
Lunar Rover sped up to double speed - YouTube

It looks about the way it would move on earth at double speed.

I started a thread at Clavius about the difference in body movements a few years ago.
http://apollohoax.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021

As you can see their responses are mostly tap dancing.

[truegroup]

Here's the video of the rover sped up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D81hZ8HcFf0

It looks about the way it would move on earth at double speed.


Yeah, apart from the soil and the dust FIRING out the back so quick, then tumbling down in a perfect vacuum ballistic arc, without leaving ANY of the soil or dust suspended.

They also used 'wires' (that look and are positioned exactly where the Radio antenna is - oddly enough, looking just like a radio antenna sideways on)

3 seconds in - 'wire' = antenna.
Astronauts falling on moon - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUwPCZNDzA8

34 seconds in 'wire' = antenna. 'Special theatre wire' now at 45 degrees!
Apollo 16 EVAs 2 (falling down on the Moon) - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ciStUEZK-Y&NR=1


Cuba Gooding Junior actually said:
Show me the wires.

He also said, not ones that look like a Radio Antenna and sit exactly where the radio antenna does, and not with an internal reflection called lens flare (the size of a football), that is also NOT a wire (and exactly where a lens flare would appear).

[tabea_blumenschein]

The astronauts appear to be moving in “slow motion” for several reasons.

First of all, the footing on the Moon won’t be as good. To see why, try this: press your hand lightly down on a desk or table, and then try to slide it along the surface. It shouldn’t be very hard to get your hand to start sliding. But if you press your hand down firmly, your hand won’t “break free” and start sliding so easily. Obviously, your results will depend on how clean or how damp the palm of your hand is, as well as what type of surface your table or desk has.

What’s holding your hand in place until it “breaks free” and begins to slide is called static friction, as opposed to sliding (also called “kinetic”) friction, which acts to slow an already moving object down. You can see from the little experiment above that static friction is greater when you press your hand down more firmly. The same is true for your feet when they are standing on some surface. If you’re on the Moon, where gravity is much weaker than on Earth, your feet aren’t being pressed down against the surface as firmly, so it doesn’t take as much for them to start sliding on the same type of surface (less static friction).

Another factor is the inertia of the astronaut plus space suit. Together they will mass over 150 kg, and that’s quite a bit of inertia – inertia being a property of how strongly something resists changing speed or direction. So when you’re dealing with something that has a lot of inertia – you in a heavy space suit – and the traction isn’t nearly as good as it would be on Earth, you’re going to want to move around slowly lest you end up falling on your face or something.

As for jumps in the air, the space suit the astronaut is wearing adds a lot of weight and also restricts movements somewhat. Therefore, the “takeoff speeds” will be fairly modest. The total time of the jump will also be 6x longer due to the lower gravity. You can see that by considering the relevant equation:

T = 2v / g

This little equation tells you how long you'll stay in the air if you jump straight up at some velocity v. The variable for gravitational strength, g, is in the denominator. As they teach you in math class, reducing a variable in the denominator by a factor of 6 increases the value of the entire expression by 6.

That’s pretty much it. Inertia, potential difficulties with footing, a heavy, bulky space suit and low gravity are sufficient to explain why the astronauts move “in slow motion.”

On the other hand, maybe I don’t watch enough movies. :rolleyes:

[moving finger]

Some other bits on it:

Take off:

No-one accelerates away from a surface when they jump, not on Earth or anywhere. The acceleration is what lifts them from the ground. The instant your foot leaves the ground you stop accelerating & start becoming subject to the forces of resistance, ie gravity. On Earth, gravity overcomes our take-off pretty quickly, on the Moon it takes longer for the lower gravity to overcome the take off, so we travel upwards further before we start to fall. The accelerating force applied is the same, but the resistance to that acceleration and the subsequent fall back to earth is slower. Do some timings on the films, see how it compares with the same activity on Earth.

Forward motion:

I once read somoen describe human forward motion as a controlled fall, and that's a very apt analysis. Everything we do when moving is designed to overcome the 1G force of Earth's gravity trying to pull us to the ground - every muscle co-ordinates in order to make sure that our movement continues in the direction we want it to and we know exactly what to expect unless something interferes with us (eg limbic disorders, a bottle of tequila). We're trained to do this subconciously from teh second we start to move around on our own.

On the Moon we have to learn to re-adjust. As the OP rightly points out, astronauts are trained not to overdo movements in zero G environments and this holds just as true in low G environments: an overcompensation for a slip or an exaggerated movement could easily end up with an astronaut on his back like a beached turtle. Movements are therefore going to be slow & considered until you get used to the environment.

As for forward motion itself, consider how we behave in our controlled fall, be it running or walking: We lift off with one foot, our body rises against gravity, we anticipate the fact that gravity will pul us back down, we have our next foot in the right place so we can push off again and continue.

The astronauts do the exact same thing with the exception that it takes much longer for them to come under gravity's influence. They spend a significant portion of each step waiting to land again. Their movement is slow looking because a lot of the time (relatively speaking) they are doing nothing, just waiting for gravity to pull them back down so they can push off again.

It's all in here:

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/iss/library/speccoll/scitre/princ.jpg

Films:

I don't think there's much point arguing over this one - people just aren't going to agree. My opinion is that it's just a film, based on a book that was made up. What I would suggest is that the idea that the public were preconditioned to accept slow motion movement under low gravity as normal is not a goer. 2001 was rightly praised for the accuracy of its portrayal of life under zero & low gravity, and also because it was pretty much one of the first films to bother to try & get it right.

You can argue the toss all you like about whether Kubrick did or did not film the moon landings, he isn't around to answer, and we can pick over alleged clues as long as we like, he isn't going to drop any more hints. It's all conjecture and unprovable, so you can't .

[graflok]

First of all, the footing on the Moon won’t be as good.

Sorry but "poor footing" does not explain the slow motion
movements in the Apollo footage. We've all seen people
walking in poor and footing they don't move in slow motion.


Another factor is the inertia of the astronaut plus space suit. Together they will mass over 150 kg, and that’s quite a bit of inertia – inertia being a property of how strongly something resists changing speed or direction. So when you’re dealing with something that has a lot of inertia – you in a heavy space suit – and the traction isn’t nearly as good as it would be on Earth, you’re going to want to move around slowly lest you end up falling on your face or something.

There's plenty of video available of astronauts walking around
on Earth in their space suits. They do not do so in slow motion.
Perhaps you do not understand what "slow motion" means?



As for jumps in the air, the space suit the astronaut is wearing adds a lot of weight and also restricts movements somewhat. Therefore, the “takeoff speeds” will be fairly modest. The total time of the jump will also be 6x longer due to the lower gravity. You can see that by considering the relevant equation:

T = 2v / g

This little equation tells you how long you'll stay in the air if you jump straight up at some velocity v. The variable for gravitational strength, g, is in the denominator. As they teach you in math class, reducing a variable in the denominator by a factor of 6 increases the value of the entire expression by 6.

I'm not disputing "total time of the jump." The issue is that
the "astronauts" both rise and fall at the same slow motion
speed which has to be fake. They may rise faster or at the
same speed as on Earth but it doesn't make sense for them to
rise slower than on Earth due to lower gravity.

[graflok]

Some other bits on it:

Take off:

No-one accelerates away from a surface when they jump, not on Earth or anywhere. The acceleration is what lifts them from the ground. The instant your foot leaves the ground you stop accelerating & start becoming subject to the forces of resistance, ie gravity. On Earth, gravity overcomes our take-off pretty quickly, on the Moon it takes longer for the lower gravity to overcome the take off, so we travel upwards further before we start to fall. The accelerating force applied is the same, but the resistance to that acceleration and the subsequent fall back to earth is slower. Do some timings on the films, see how it compares with the same activity on Earth.

There's nothing in my post about acceleration per se. It is not
an issue that I made about this. It is the speed of rise vs. the
speed of fall, both of which are obviously, consistently and
illogically in slow motion in the Apollo footage. There is no
logical reason a person's upward speed, for example, in low
gravity would be in slow motion as is shown in the Apollo
footage. He may rise faster or at the same speed as on Earth but
why would he rise more slowly in low gravity? What is slowing him
down?


Forward motion:

I once read somoen describe human forward motion as a controlled fall, and that's a very apt analysis. Everything we do when moving is designed to overcome the 1G force of Earth's gravity trying to pull us to the ground - every muscle co-ordinates in order to make sure that our movement continues in the direction we want it to and we know exactly what to expect unless something interferes with us (eg limbic disorders, a bottle of tequila). We're trained to do this subconciously from teh second we start to move around on our own.

On the Moon we have to learn to re-adjust. As the OP rightly points out, astronauts are trained not to overdo movements in zero G environments and this holds just as true in low G environments: an overcompensation for a slip or an exaggerated movement could easily end up with an astronaut on his back like a beached turtle. Movements are therefore going to be slow & considered until you get used to the environment.

As for forward motion itself, consider how we behave in our controlled fall, be it running or walking: We lift off with one foot, our body rises against gravity, we anticipate the fact that gravity will pul us back down, we have our next foot in the right place so we can push off again and continue.

The astronauts do the exact same thing with the exception that it takes much longer for them to come under gravity's influence. They spend a significant portion of each step waiting to land again. Their movement is slow looking because a lot of the time (relatively speaking) they are doing nothing, just waiting for gravity to pull them back down so they can push off again.

What we are seeing in the Apollo videos is simply filmatic slow
motion. It is obvious to the eye. It is not any form of deliberate
"compensation" by the astronauts and the slow motion equally
affects inanimate objects such as rocks and objects thrown by
the astronauts, flags and other items which cannot "compensate"
their motion as you suggest.



I don't think there's much point arguing over this one ...

Yet that is what you are doing now. :)



You can argue the toss all you like about whether Kubrick did or did not film the moon landings, he isn't around to answer, and we can pick over alleged clues as long as we like, he isn't going to drop any more hints. It's all conjecture and unprovable, so you can't .

As I noted in my OP the bit about Kubrick is simply an amusing
point to ponder.

Gravity and physics, however, are not dead and the Apollo
video footage does not agree with how people on the moon
should appear per what we know about such. They are
obviously done with filmatic slow motion which is a major
giveway that they were faked.

[thesloth]

34 seconds in 'wire' = antenna. 'Special theatre wire' now at 45 degrees!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ciStUEZK-Y&NR=1
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ciStUEZK-Y&NR=1


I'm surprised the astronauts did (or were actually required to do) something as risky as this on the moon. Looks downright dangerous! Any number of things could have gone wrong. And wouldn't there be "protocols" for how to get-up after a fall. I do wish he'd fallen over on his back though... much more fun to watch.

Also when he jumps, the dust he kicks up appears to fly up (and down) fast, maybe indicating that the film has not been slowed-down.

.

[truegroup]

I'm surprised the astronauts did (or were actually required to do) something as risky as this on the moon. Looks downright dangerous! Any number of things could have gone wrong. And wouldn't there be "protocols" for how to get-up after a fall. I do wish he'd fallen over on his back though... much more fun to watch.

Also when he jumps, the dust he kicks up appears to fly up (and down) fast, maybe indicating that the film has not been slowed-down.
.

Impossible to do on Earth - QED. No dust - none at all. It's not sand, as there would be no prints.

[truegroup]

Graflok should submit his thesis to his teacher for marking. It is equivalent to somebody signing up for the Galileo forum and submitting 'The World is Flat' you're all wrong argument. The world's scientific community is wrong as Graflok has a theory.

It is mind numbing how he cannot understand BASIC physics, the kind taught to children.

Graflok logic:

Earth - 1g - we jump normally
Mars - 4/10 g - we jump quick
Moon - 1/6g - we jump quicker
Weightless in space - no g - we move VERY fast.

Now can anyone see the flaw in that? (hint - in bold)


For a better theory, watch this video, it demonstrates a theory that is both true and workable (unlike Graflok's).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs

[frenat]

I'm not disputing "total time of the jump." The issue is that
the "astronauts" both rise and fall at the same slow motion
speed which has to be fake. They should rise faster and
fall slower than on Earth due to lower gravity.
You think they should fall at a different speed they jump? Not according to every understanding of how gravity works. Gravity affects them the same on the way up as the way down. It decellerates them the same amount on the way up as it accelerates them on the way down. That is how gravity works no matter how strong or weak it is and is one of the first things a student learns when studying parabolic motion.

[moving finger]

There's nothing in my post about acceleration per se. It is not
an issue that I made about this. It is the speed of rise vs. the
speed of fall, both of which are obviously, consistently and
illogically in slow motion in the Apollo footage. There is no
logical reason a person's upward speed, for example, in low
gravity would be in slow motion as is shown in the Apollo
footage.



What we are seeing in the Apollo videos is simply filmatic slow
motion. It is obvious to the eye. It is not any form of deliberate
"compensation" by the astronauts and the slow motion equally
affects inanimate objects such as rocks and objects thrown by
the astronauts, flags and other items which cannot "compensate"
their motion as you suggest.




Yet that is what you are doing now. :)



As I noted in my OP the bit about Kubrick is simply an amusing
point to ponder.

Gravity and physics, however, are not dead and the Apollo
video footage does not agree with how people on the moon
should appear per what we know about such. They are
obviously done with filmatic slow motion which is a major
giveway that they were faked.

You believe that it was obviously done in filmatic slow motion, but in none of the videos are any of the astronauts moving particularly slowly in terms of their getting from point a to point b. What they are doing is spending less time in contact with the ground, which means they are not able to give themselves the impetus to move forward as frequently as they would at 1g.

Look again at the way the astronauts move - if you think that this was all done in slomo, how would they have been able to accomplish the motion they have at 'normal' speed, ie so much time in the air with less time on the ground? If it's wires, what was supporting the 'slow motion' inanimate objects?

You didn't mention acceleration specifically (I'd somehow gained the impression that you were making inferences towards it - apologies), but my observation about how it works is still, imo, valid when it comes to explaining what you would expect to see.

I don't believe that the speed of rise is inconsistent with what you would expect under lower gravity. The point is that they continue to rise after the point at which, on Earth, they would have started to fall. The rate at which their rise away from the surface is attenuated by gravity is slower, compared with the more sudden and immediate pull to the ground at 1g. I would also have thought they might rise more quickly than they fall because of their initial impetus off the grounds - but I will happily concede that to anyone who knows more about physics than I do.

I also got interrupted in my final comment about Kubrick. If only I could remember what it was ;)

[graflok]

You believe that it was obviously done in filmatic slow motion, but in none of the videos are any of the astronauts moving particularly slowly in terms of their getting from point a to point b.

I think it's been demonstrated without doubt that the Apollo footage is
in slo-mo. At least much of it is. The rover video that david c posted above
which was sped up to reveal a very normal Earth appearing motion illustrates
that very well but there are many, many other examples. This is nothing new.


What they are doing is spending less time in contact with the ground, which means they are not able to give themselves the impetus to move forward as frequently as they would at 1g.

This does not explain the obvious slo-mo which affects all their movements
regardless of direction.


Look again at the way the astronauts move - if you think that this was all done in slomo, how would they have been able to accomplish the motion they have at 'normal' speed, ie so much time in the air with less time on the ground? If it's wires, what was supporting the 'slow motion' inanimate objects?

I don't get your meaning here and I said nothing about wires.


You didn't mention acceleration specifically (I'd somehow gained the impression that you were making inferences towards it - apologies), but my observation about how it works is still, imo, valid when it comes to explaining what you would expect to see.

I don't. Motion in a low gravity environment should not appear as people
moving in slow motion as the Apollo footage shows. There is no logical reason
for it.


I don't believe that the speed of rise is inconsistent with what you would expect under lower gravity. The point is that they continue to rise after the point at which, on Earth, they would have started to fall. The rate at which their rise away from the surface is attenuated by gravity is slower, compared with the more sudden and immediate pull to the ground at 1g. I would also have thought they might rise more quickly than they fall because of their initial impetus off the grounds - but I will happily concede that to anyone who knows more about physics than I do.

Again, the Apollo footage is obviously slow motion. You can see it and you
can speed it up to match Earth type motions. It is simply and obviously slow
motion and nothing more, except perhaps the wire work as you mentioned but
that is not the topic of this thread.

[graflok]

You think they should fall at a different speed they jump?

No, that is not what I said.

A simplification of my point is: Why should a lower gravity cause the
"astronauts" to rise more slowly (then on Earth) when they jump?

They may rise faster or they may rise at the same speed as on Earth
but slower? Why would reduced gravity cause an upward-pushed object
to move more slowly then on Earth?

[frenat]

No, that is not what I said.

A simplification of my point is: Why should a lower gravity cause the
"astronauts" to rise more slowly (then on Earth) when they jump?

They may rise faster or they may rise at the same speed as on Earth
but slower? Why would reduced gravity cause an upward-pushed object
to move more slowly then on Earth?
Thank you for clarifying. On multiple previous posts it did appear you were saying they should fall slower than they rise.

[ultima1]

Too many people were watching and tracking the manned moon landing.

If it was faked someone would have said something, unless you believe in a worldwide conspiracy.

[graflok]

If it was faked someone would have said something...

I am saying something. :)

[tabea_blumenschein]

Sorry but "poor footing" does not explain the slow motion
movements in the Apollo footage. We've all seen people
walking in poor and footing they don't move in slow motion.



There's plenty of video available of astronauts walking around
on Earth in their space suits. They do not do so in slow motion.
Perhaps you do not understand what "slow motion" means?

What I was trying to say is that when an astronaut began walking or hopping forward, he would deliberately maintain a slow pace (slower than you would on Earth) because a faster pace would put him in danger of falling, for the reasons given. Is that really such a hard idea to understand?


I'm not disputing "total time of the jump." The issue is that
the "astronauts" both rise and fall at the same slow motion
speed which has to be fake. They may rise faster or at the
same speed as on Earth but it doesn't make sense for them to
rise slower than on Earth due to lower gravity.

The speed with which the astronaut begins rising off the surface is dictated by how strongly they push off the ground. They weren't pushing off very hard because of the bulky suits which limited their freedom of movement somewhat. So they were rising slower than on Earth, and with good reason.

Once their feet leave the surface and gravity takes over, their jumps look exactly like they're supposed to look according to the laws of physics. The equations for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformly_accelerated_motion are among the first ones presented in a physics textbook, and if you'd familiarize yourself with them, you'd understand why "slow motion jumps" on the Moon are exactly what we'd expect to see.

No, that is not what I said.

A simplification of my point is: Why should a lower gravity cause the
"astronauts" to rise more slowly (then on Earth) when they jump?

They may rise faster or they may rise at the same speed as on Earth
but slower? Why would reduced gravity cause an upward-pushed object
to move more slowly then on Earth?

Again, how quickly you initially begin rising depends on how strongly you push off. Try jumping off the ground in a bulky, 150+ kg space suit and see how well you do.

[graflok]

What I was trying to say is that when an astronaut began walking or hopping forward, he would deliberately maintain a slow pace (slower than you would on Earth) because a faster pace would put him in danger of falling, for the reasons given. Is that really such a hard idea to understand?




The speed with which the astronaut begins rising off the surface is dictated by how strongly they push off the ground. They weren't pushing off very hard because of the bulky suits which limited their freedom of movement somewhat. So they were rising slower than on Earth, and with good reason.

Once their feet leave the surface and gravity takes over, their jumps look exactly like they're supposed to look according to the laws of physics. The equations for uniformly accelerated motion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniformly_accelerated_motion) are among the first ones presented in a physics textbook, and if you'd familiarize yourself with them, you'd understand why "slow motion jumps" on the Moon are exactly what we'd expect to see.



Again, how quickly you initially begin rising depends on how strongly you push off. Try jumping off the ground in a bulky, 150+ kg space suit and see how well you do.

The issue is that the Apollo footage is clearly in slow-motion throughout.
There is no reason a person jumping upward in reduced gravity would move
upward more slowly than in Earth (1g) gravity. Reducing gravity would
not slow down an object pushed upwards. They are not under water. They
are not balloons floating in air. They are supposedly in 1/6 gravity with no
atmosphere.

Suits, bulkiness, stiffness, footing, etc. are irrelevant to this issue. These
things might have an occasional effect but they would not cause a uniform
filmatic slow motion movement throughout the videos as exists in the Apollo
footage. Look at the example videos in the OP. They are obviously in slow
motion as they hop upwards. There is no reason for that.

You linked to a page full of equations yet many of those equations do not
include gravity as a variable. If you wish to argue about equations, present one
appropriate equation that you feel applies to this problem. Linking to a
page full of data without a specific reference is worthless.

their jumps look exactly like they're supposed to look according to the laws of physics.

Show me the equation you feel says that an object pushed upwards in
reduced gravity would rise more slowly than in 1g gravity.

[tabea_blumenschein]

The issue is that the Apollo footage is clearly in slow-motion throughout.
There is no reason a person jumping upward in reduced gravity would move
upward more slowly than in Earth (1g) gravity. Reducing gravity would
not slow down an object pushed upwards. They are not under water. They
are not balloons floating in air. They are supposedly in 1/6 gravity with no
atmosphere.

Suits, bulkiness, stiffness, footing, etc. are irrelevant to this issue. These
things might have an occasional effect but they would not cause a uniform
filmatic slow motion movement throughout the videos as exists in the Apollo
footage. Look at the example videos in the OP. They are obviously in slow
motion as they hop upwards. There is no reason for that.

You linked to a page full of equations yet many of those equations do not
include gravity as a variable. If you wish to argue about equations, present one
appropriate equation that you feel applies to this problem. Linking to a
page full of data without a specific reference is worthless.


Show me the equation you feel says that an object pushed upwards in
reduced gravity would rise more slowly than in 1g gravity.


Okay, let's try to reason this out carefully. Forget about the Moon for a minute; let's just talk about jumping off the ground.

When you jump off the ground, how high you might go actually varies quite a bit, doesn't it? The height of your jump might be anywhere from a few inches to as much as three feet or more if you're a great athlete. So the obvious next question is, what determines the height of your jump. That is determined by how fast your body is movng upward the instant your feet lose contact with the ground. And how fast your body is going upward at that instant is determined by how much force you applied to the ground during the time you "pushed off".

That all makes sense, doesn't it?

All I'm saying is that when you're wearing a massive, bulky space suit that restricts your freedom of movement, you're not going to be able to push off the ground with a lot of force, so your upward speed as your feet lose contact with the ground isn't going to be very fast.

Now about what happens once you're off the ground.

The thing about acceleration is that it tells you how fast velocity is changing. Or in this case, since we're dealing with one-dimensional physics, we can get away with saying acceleration is how fast speed is changing.

Suppose you throw something upward at 50 meters per second. Acceleration due to gravity on Earth is actually about 9.8 meters per second squared, but round that up to an approximate 10 meters per second squared to make the numbers simple. The direction of this acceleration is, of course, downwards.

Your ball starts out moving upwards at 50 meters per second. After 1 second passes, due to the time rate of change in speed being 10 meters per second, your ball is moving upwards at only 40 meters per second. After another second, we're down to 30 meters per second, then 20 meters per second, and so on, until the ball reaches the top of its trajectory. Similar logic dictates that the ball gains 10 meters per second of speed downward each second it falls.

On the Moon, however, the time rate of change of speed for the ball thrown upward is only 1.63 meters per second squared. For a ball initially thrown upward at 50 meters per second, after one second the upward speed is 48.37 meters per second, after two seconds the upward speed is 46.74 meters per second, after three seconds the upward speed is 45.11 meters per second, and so on. Do you see how I arrived at those numbers?

The thing I'd like you to get out of this is that in Earth gravity changes in upward or downward speed happen quickly; in Lunar gravity changes in upward or downward speed happen slowly.

Now put those two facts we reasoned out together. First, the initial speed of the astronaut as his feet leave the Lunar surface is not going to be very great, due to the fact that not a huge amount of force is being exerted against the ground during the time the astronaut pushes off. Second, after the astronaut is "airborne" if you will, that upward speed dwindles slowly due to the low Lunar gravity.

The astronaut leaves the surface with a low rate of speed, and that speed changes slowly due to low Lunar gravity. And that's why the jumps look like they're in slow motion.

~

p.s. The equations I linked to do allow gravity as a variable. Just plug acceleration due to gravity into the variable a - accelerations are what that variable is used for! ;)

Also, I have a physics experiment you can try that might help. You can compare changes in gravitational field strength to a ball rolling up and then back down a steeper or shallower incline. If you have a few marbles or something and can actually set up an incline to experiment with, it would be great.

What you want to do after setting up your incline is roll the marble towards the incline while looking straight at the face of the incline. You don't want to look at it "from the side" because the horizontal motion of your marble isn't important. What you're interested in is to observe how your marble moves vertically.

Shallow inclines are like low gravity. The rate at which your marble loses upward speed, or gains downward speed, is modest. Make your incline steeper, and this change in upward or downward speed happens at a much faster rate. You'll also notice that it requires a higher initial speed to get the marble up to the same height when your incline is steeper.

Again, I emphasize that you're only interested in the how fast your marble is moving upwards or downwards, and how fast that upward or downward speed is changing. So do the best you can to watch the marble from a perspective where you can only see it moving upwards or downwards, and not the movement of the marble along the length of the incline. The upward/downward movement of the marble is analogous to the way a vertically moving object would accelerate in a gravitational field.

If you do try this, you'll be following in the footsteps of Galileo, who learned much of what he knew about motion from experiments like this one. :)

[graflok]

All I'm saying is that when you're wearing a massive, bulky space suit that restricts your freedom of movement, you're not going to be able to push off the ground with a lot of force, so your upward speed as your feet lose contact with the ground isn't going to be very fast.


First, the initial speed of the astronaut as his feet leave the Lunar surface is not going to be very great, due to the fact that not a huge amount of force is being exerted against the ground during the time the astronaut pushes off. Second, after the astronaut is "airborne" if you will, that upward speed dwindles slowly due to the low Lunar gravity.


So, we're back to the bulky, stiff space suits again. :rolleyes:

The magical, bulky, stiff space suits which just happen to hamper our
boys' ability to jump just exactly the right amount such that each and
every movement they make just happens to cause them to appear to move just
exactly as if the whole thing was shot in slow motion on Earth. Never any
slightest deviation. It's all an incredible coincidence that this stiffness exactly
matches and counters their every move to that exact degree.

It's so precise in fact that snips of video (available on YT) which have been
sped up by approximately 2X show our boys moving exactly as they would on Earth.

AND, they did this throughout all the Apollo missions in all those hours of
video without variation.

In fact, their bulky, stiff space suits are so magical that they even influenced
inanimate objects that our boys are holding, throwing and moving about and
they even influence the motion of the lunar rover that they drive and even
the dust kicked up by its tires too ...

All of these motions of all those objects and persons are all due to stiff
space suits which just happen to cause the exact same movement that
one would see with filmatic slow-motion.

I'm sorry but I think Occam and his shaving instrument would opt for the
simpler explanation that the "astronauts" were simply shot in slow motion
on Earth as it appears they were.

[moving finger]

We are kind of are back on the bulky heavy spacesuits again, because they were kind of wearing them.

You really think those speeded up videos show them moving normally? To me, it looks like they're speeded up videos.

[deca]

hmmm in water we move slow, air normal , no atomosphere???

Zero G with Boeing B727-200 at USA - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkXrpbOEWC4&feature=related

[ultima1]

I am saying something. :)

Did you watch and track the moom landings? What equipment did you use?

[ultima1]

hmmm in water we move slow, air normal , no atomosphere???

Why do you think the astronuts trained in water?

[graflok]

We are kind of are back on the bulky heavy spacesuits again, because they were kind of wearing them ...


... on a movie set on Earth obviously, yes.

Wearing a space suit does not prove one is on the moon. The issue here
is their slow motion movement which I have so far seen only preposterous
explanations for.

[thesloth]

I think it is easy to get some insight into this kind of a thing. Get a person to wear reasonably constricting clothing and properly weighted backpack and ask him to jump while recording the whole damn thing. Then slow down the whole procedure as required... check results. We don't even have to wait for the film to be developed.

[graflok]

^ Video already exists of astronauts wearing their suits on Earth and moving
around. I haven't seen one of these with them jumping but they certainly don't
walk or do other movements in slow motion as is shown in the Apollo videos.

There are videos of people jumping in zero gravity (on the simulator plane) and
they don't rise in slow motion. In fact they dart around quite a bit. But, they're
not wearing the magic space suits that the NASA boys claim make people move
in slow motion. :rolleyes:

[thesloth]

^ Video already exists of astronauts wearing their suits on Earth and moving
around. I haven't seen one of these with them jumping but they certainly don't
walk or do other movements in slow motion as is shown in the Apollo videos.

The "concept" is to try to re-create the slo-mo effects. And look for any discrepancies... like the behaviour of the dust flying around etc. It would be even more fun to make the guy fall down and make him get-up (without wires or antennas...). I'd especially like to see him fall on his back.

With more resources, one could study the moon-buggy movements also.

.

[graflok]

^ That's a good idea.

We don't know what they used for "moon dust" though in the Apollo videos.
It doesn't look like ordinary dust and not sand either. That in itself would
be an interesting thing to explore as well.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Just looking at the little snippets of video on YouTube or wherever, it's easy to forget that the Lunar footage is comprised of long, sustained shots that go on for many minutes, with no cutting away from the action. Watch even one of those shots all the way through and it becomes staggeringly obvious that you're not looking at slowed-down video.

[graflok]

Just looking at the little snippets of video on YouTube or wherever, it's easy to forget that the Lunar footage is comprised of long, sustained shots that go on for many minutes, with no cutting away from the action. Watch even one of those shots all the way through and it becomes staggeringly obvious that you're not looking at slowed-down video.

Please stagger back to YouTube and post one of these "staggeringly obvious"
videos. Thanks.

[tabea_blumenschein]

The best place to see the EVA's in their entirety would be the DVD box sets by Spacecraft Films (http://www.spacecraftfilms.com/). See if your local library has copies of any of the available titles, or can obtain them for you via interlibrary loan.

[graflok]

The best place to see the EVA's in their entirety would be the DVD box sets by Spacecraft Films (http://www.spacecraftfilms.com/). See if your local library has copies of any of the available titles, or can obtain them for you via interlibrary loan.

How about linking some of the YouTube vids that you mentioned for starters?
I don't feel like investing in something whose existence is so questionable.
There is a huge amount of Apollo footage on YouTube. Surely you can find
some of these "staggeringly obvious" videos you mentioned there. Thanks.

[moving finger]

How about linking some of the YouTube vids that you mentioned for starters?
I don't feel like investing in something whose existence is so questionable.
There is a huge amount of Apollo footage on YouTube. Surely you can find
some of these "staggeringly obvious" videos you mentioned there. Thanks.

No really, those boxsets definitely exist.

[graflok]

No really, those boxsets definitely exist.

Of course they exist. But, tb's track record of supplying valid evidence to support his/her
claims does not.

tb also said these "staggeringly obvious" videos exist on YouTube. So, why not share
them with us? Are they a secret? Do I need special glasses to view them?

[moving finger]

Of course they exist. But, tb's track record of supplying valid evidence to support his/her
claims does not.

tb also said these "staggeringly obvious" videos exist on YouTube. So, why not share
them with us?

Abandon all humour ye who enter here.

TB never said there were long sustained shots on youtube - read it back.

The nature of youtube & it's constributors mitigates against long videos, which is why you were pointed to other sources.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Of course they exist. But, tb's track record of supplying valid evidence to support his/her
claims does not.

tb also said these "staggeringly obvious" videos exist on YouTube. So, why not share
them with us? Are they a secret? Do I need special glasses to view them?

Reading comprehension, graflok. I described the footage available on YouTube as "snippets". (EDIT: had to get up and do a few things while typing this and moving finger had already posted before I hit submit).

Look, if you're going to make accusations about the Apollo footage, you have the moral obligation to at least have seen the highest quality copies available of what was actually filmed on the Lunar surface, not just low quality bits and pieces of footage on a computer. If you're not willing to pay a few dollars or take the time to visit a library in order to do that, I don't know why anyone should bother discussing it with you.

[moving finger]

Some longer clips in these:

Apollo 11 Enhanced EVA Footage on Vimeo

Apollo 17 - EVA 1 Core - YouTube

Apollo 17 Moon walk - Geological exploration of the moon - YouTube

I don't know how you could speed up the footage of their movements and describe it as normal.

If it's slomo, presumably the normal speed panning & tracking shots were done at double speed without somehow giving motion blur or loss of focus.

[thesloth]

The "concept" is to try to re-create the slo-mo effects.

Apparently, they do it in the NG documentary:
Moon Conspiracy Myth - YouTube
Moon Conspiracy Myth 2 (of 5) - YouTube
Moon Conspiracy Myth 3 (of 5) - YouTube
Moon Conspiracy Myth 4 (of 5) - YouTube
Moon Conspiracy Myth 5 ( of 5) - YouTube

[ecca]

Too many people were watching and tracking the manned moon landing.

If it was faked someone would have said something, unless you believe in a worldwide conspiracy.

people, many people(not just random posters on internet message boards,) HAVE said something, but like everyone else who tries to tell the truth about anything that is against the interests of the ruling aristocracy, they are simply ignored by the media.

and on the off chance anyone does get an interview on a major media outlet, they are immediately called crazy by the un-researched host and lumped in there with people who believe that 'aliens kidnapped elvis'

personally, I am of the opinion that we did go to the moon, but that the mission was far too sensitive, for whatever reason, to be broadcast to the idiot masses without censor, so they shot a faux-landing on a movie set here on earth and showed it to the people as if it were the real thing, while the real video of the landing would be shown only to the people with a certain level of security clearance and analysts in the employ of the government.

I found a very nicely done documentary that lays some of the more compelling evidence out for you, it's now available freely on google http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8455110982587487066&ei=PrAeSurPHYXmrgLJnPjCCg&q=funny+thing+happened+on+the+way+to+the+moon#

[thesloth]

Occurred to me, are there any photographs and videos from Russian missions?

[thesloth]

What about this (series of videos)? The big guys practically confess that the whole thing was faked.

Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 4 - YouTube
Moon Landing A Fake or Fact part 5 - YouTube

OOPS! these are fake!!!

.

[moving finger]

Occurred to me, are there any photographs and videos from Russian missions?

Quick google got me this Russian moon stuff

[david c]

people, many people(not just random posters on internet message boards,) HAVE said something, but like everyone else who tries to tell the truth about anything that is against the interests of the ruling aristocracy, they are simply ignored by the media.
This is so true. Here's some stuff about the media.
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
William Schaap - Part 1/8 - The Media, CIA, FBI & Disinfo. - YouTube
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Propaganda_System_One.html

personally, I am of the opinion that we did go to the moon, but that the mission was far too sensitive, for whatever reason, to be broadcast to the idiot masses without censor, so they shot a faux-landing on a movie set here on earth and showed it to the people as if it were the real thing, while the real video of the landing would be shown only to the people with a certain level of security clearance and analysts in the employ of the government.
What we were shown was definitely faked. Have you seen the stuff on the internet about the space radiation issue? Here's some of it.

http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.
Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]
Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://www.erichufschmid.net/MoreInfoForScienceChallenge.html
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=9659&hl=apollo

These two are important
---------------------------
http://www.buzzcreek.com/grade-a/MOON/articles1.htm
MoonFaker: Exhibit C. PART 5 - YouTube
---------------------------

Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem - YouTube
Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem II - YouTube
Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem 2.5 4 Dummies - YouTube
Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem III (Major Solar Flares) - YouTube
Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem 3.5 Addendum - YouTube
Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem IV (Radiation Everywhere) - YouTube
---------------------------
Lunarcy: NASA's Radiation Problem 4.5 - YouTube
MoonFaker: Cold War II. PART 2 - YouTube
---------------------------
MoonFaker: Radioactive Anomaly. PART 1. - YouTube
(23 parts)

There's also the plausible scenario that they couldn't send manned craft to the moon because of high radiation levels in space.

[thesloth]

Quick google got me this Russian moon stuff

Pardon my incompetence at using Google, but the search you suggested netted me this:
"russian moon stuff" - Google Search

I'd appreciate pointers to some official Russian Moon mission videos. They do things in slow motion too? Slightly faster? Or slower? Stars? Which camera did they use?

Eh... the Soviets never landed on the moon?

.

[graflok]

Reading comprehension, graflok. I described the footage available on YouTube as "snippets". (EDIT: had to get up and do a few things while typing this and moving finger had already posted before I hit submit).

Look, if you're going to make accusations about the Apollo footage, you have the moral obligation to at least have seen the highest quality copies available of what was actually filmed on the Lunar surface, not just low quality bits and pieces of footage on a computer. If you're not willing to pay a few dollars or take the time to visit a library in order to do that, I don't know why anyone should bother discussing it with you.

So, you're saying if I watch the hours and hours of Apollo fake footage I will
see some footage that doesn't look like slow motion? Yet you won't even
share with me the "snippets" you claim are part of it? You won't even tell me
which Apollo mission this footage exits within?

That's not much of a reference. In fact, it's no reference at all. You might
as well say "it's on the interweb."

The truth is you have no reference and you are simply trying to misdirect
and stall and pretend again, correct? You did that earlier with the the
"reference" to a page full of physics formulas with no specific formula
named and many that had nothing to do with the topic. When it came down
to specifics you could name nothing.

If you have a reference then give a reference. That means something
specific that can be looked up. But, obviously, you don't have any such
thing and you know it.

[graflok]

Some longer clips in these:

http://vimeo.com/10528014

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbxkcEW3UYM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDqB_G5PCo


I don't know how you could speed up the footage of their movements and describe it as normal.

By speeding up the footage by the same factor that it was slowed down to
produce the slo-mo effect. In other words, speeding it up to the same fps
rate it was shot at on the movie set on Earth.


If it's slomo, presumably the normal speed panning & tracking shots were done at double speed without somehow giving motion blur or loss of focus.

Motion blur relates more with shutter speed than panning speed. Slo-mo is
usually shot at a higher than normal shutter speed due ot the higher frame
rate thus reducing motion blur.

I don't see what your point is with any of these videos. They're all just
more slo-mo.

[moving finger]

Pardon my incompetence at using Google, but the search you suggested netted me this:
http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=%22russian+moon+stuff%22&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=

I'd appreciate pointers to some official Russian Moon mission videos. They do things in slow motion too? Slightly faster? Or slower? Stars? Which camera did they use?

Eh... the Soviets never landed on the moon?

.

Bad C&P skills early in the morning: Try again! (http://www.mentallandscape.com/C_CatalogMoon.htm)

[moving finger]

By speeding up the footage by the same factor that it was slowed down to
produce the slo-mo effect. In other words, speeding it up to the same fps
rate it was shot at on the movie set on Earth.



Motion blur relates more with shutter speed than panning speed. Slo-mo is
usually shot at a higher than normal shutter speed due ot the higher frame
rate thus reducing motion blur.

I don't see what your point is with any of these videos. They're all just
more slo-mo.

Yes dear.

You see what you want to see. In the end, I don't have to prove it - you do, and so far you haven't.

[graflok]

Yes dear.

You see what you want to see. In the end, I don't have to prove it - you do, and so far you haven't.

Neither of us have to prove anything. This isn't a court -- it's a discussion
forum.

Thank you for expressing your views on this issue. :)

[a fine naked fellow]

Hey graflok, great fuckin thread. I think you’re on to something, keep sleuthing homie. :D

[graflok]

Thanks. Will do. :)

[truegroup]

There is no reason a person jumping upward in reduced gravity would move upward more slowly than in Earth (1g) gravity.
This is a ludicrous suggestion showing you have no idea of how gravity works.

Reducing gravity would not slow down an object pushed upwards. They are not under water. They are not balloons floating in air. They are supposedly in 1/6 gravity with no atmosphere.
That is EXACTLY what it WOULD do!

Suits, bulkiness, stiffness, footing, etc. are irrelevant to this issue. These things might have an occasional effect but they would not cause a uniform filmatic slow motion movement throughout the videos as exists in the Apollo footage. Look at the example videos in the OP. They are obviously in slow motion as they hop upwards. There is no reason for that.
Gravity causes the slower motion effect.


Show me the equation you feel says that an object pushed upwards in
reduced gravity would rise more slowly than in 1g gravity.

First let's look at one basic constant:
Newton's third law of motion - to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The force being acted upon to jump up (or any other movement) is gravity!

The force attained to pull away from the surface would equal it (plus the initial force and acceleration to do the lift), so it would be pulling down at 1/6 g then, as the astronaut jumped up, moving away at 1/6th g.

Earth/Moon motion:
The difference in motion speed works out at 2.45 times. I know your comprehension of gravity is extremely limited, so you will say - How Come?
Surely is it is 6 times faster on Earth?

NO.

Here is the equation that proves it:

d = at^2 / 2
http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/~uglabs/lab_manual/atwood.pdf

Distance is equal to acceleration multiplied by time squared divided by 2.

Basically the difference between the square roots of both gravities is equal to the difference in their motions.

Earth is 9.8m per second per second.
Moon is 1.62m per second per second.
Distance = anything
Time = anything

Here is a video that shatters the contention this was a speeded up film, it is a pendulum experiment, performed on the moon, in a vacuum, that is IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce on Earth.
Apollo 14 SEQ Bay Pendulum Analysis - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=01A61jra37o

On many of the EVAs, astronauts are shown for many minutes at a time, moving far and near, with no sign whatsoever of wires (I saw the frickin' wires on Superman 1!!).

Watch these and show me the wires. Huge strides, very long panning sequence.
Running on the Moon - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyOt6RUs9mE
Bunny hopping (with 300lbs of mass!!) 6-10 feet
- go speed that one up!!!

Bunny hopping on the Moon - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKdwcLytloU

[ultima1]

Neither of us have to prove anything. This isn't a court -- it's a discussion forum.

But if you are going to state something is fact (such as moon landing is a hoax) then you must provide evidence to support this. Otherwise it is just your theory or fantasy.

I can support evidence to show we did go to the moon why can't you show evidence to debate it?

I mean evidence that would hold up in court.

[graflok]

This is a ludicrous suggestion showing ...


I can see you (or someone else) put a lot of work into this reply but it is all
beside the point.

Look at these videos of zero gravity simulations:

Zero Gravity Classroom - YouTube

NASA - Space Shuttle Atlantis STS-117 Crew Has Fun in Space - YouTube

Notice that some body movements are slow and some movements are
at normal (as on Earth) speeds. Some even appear faster than normal. It
is not an overall slow motion as the fake Apollo videos show us.

That is the point: people moving in a zero or reduced gravity environment
would not appear to move in a uniform slow motion -- some movements
would be slower, some would appear normal, and some may be faster.

Moving in a reduced gravity environment would not look like simply moving on
Earth in slow motion.

[graflok]

But if you are going to state something is fact (such as moon landing is a hoax) then you must provide evidence to support this. Otherwise it is just your theory or fantasy.

I can support evidence to show we did go to the moon why can't you show evidence to debate it?

I mean evidence that would hold up in court.

The People's Court of Common Sense has already rendered a verdict:
NASA was found guilty of fraud.

[truegroup]

I can see you (or someone else) put a lot of work into this reply but it is all beside the point.

Me. Just as you put in the work to come up with your theory.

Nothing I say or do will change your mind. I totally disagree with everything in this thread you proposed as fact.
Had it been as you say, the outcry from scientists and physicists alike would have been very loud. QED.

[graflok]

Had it been as you say, the outcry from scientists and physicists alike would have been very loud. QED.

The only outcry that has ever emerged from our pathetic "scientific" community
is, "Give us more funding!"

It is obvious from inspection of the Apollo records that the Apollo missions were
faked and never went anywhere near the moon.

[truegroup]

The only outcry that has ever emerged from our pathetic "scientific" community
is, "Give us more funding!"

It is obvious from inspection of the Apollo records that the Apollo missions were
faked and never went anywhere near the moon.

Only to people uneducated about physics, space travel, rocket science, radiation, thermal dynamics and anything that doesn't need access to yoochoob. I believe you fall into that category.

[graflok]

Only to people uneducated about physics, space travel, rocket science, radiation, thermal dynamics and anything that doesn't need access to yoochoob. I believe you fall into that category.

"Educated" in what NASA wants all the rubes to believe?

It's obvious the Apollo missions were faked and your rebuttals to the evidence
are desperate and invalid.

BTW, are you being paid to post here?

[truegroup]

The only outcry that has ever emerged from our pathetic "scientific" community
is, "Give us more funding!"

It is obvious from inspection of the Apollo records that the Apollo missions were
faked and never went anywhere near the moon.

It is obvious you haven't even inspected your last movement let alone the Apollo mission records.

That post earnt me 47p.

[graflok]

It is obvious you haven't even inspected your last movement let alone the Apollo mission records.

Typical "response" from an Apollo/NASA supporter. :rolleyes:

The slow motion issue is only one fact out of hundreds that demonstrate that
the Apollo missions were indeed faked.

Are you paid to post here on this forum, truegroup?

[truegroup]

Typical "response" from an Apollo/NASA supporter. :rolleyes:
Your ignorance of science, gravity, and now pressure waves preceeding a moving body, is just awesome.

The slow motion issue is only one fact out of hundreds that demonstrate that the Apollo missions were indeed faked.
The slow motion issue is raised due to your complete ignorance on how gravity works. Whenever these 'hundreds of facts' come under even the slightest scrutiny, they turn out to be hundreds of turd shaped klingons.

Are you paid to post here on this forum, truegroup?

Yes I am. It's my paid living. Yes. I get 47p per post.

Are you? Because I'm starting to think you're a paid poster for Bart Sibrel and his hoax films. Are you on commission for promoting the hoax theories?

[graflok]

Your ignorance of science, gravity, and now pressure waves preceeding a moving body, is just awesome.

Pressure waves? I've said nothing about pressure waves. Hallucinating
again? Try to keep up.


The slow motion issue is raised due to your complete ignorance on how gravity works.

Nope. It's quite valid as demonstrated by your inability to make any credible
arguments against it. All you can do is toss out pathetic insults (that
actually describe yourself, BTW).



Yes I am. It's my paid living. Yes. I get 47p per post.

I see. And, who pays you this princely sum for your "work"?

[tabea_blumenschein]

Graflok:

Read through this page:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/Numbers/Math/Mathematical_Thinking/grvtysp2.htm

As of the time I write this, there are a couple of typos in the differential equations, and one very incorrect result. Not only do I know that result is incorrect, I can show you the error in the work that led to that result.

Now, if little old me can spot incorrect science on NASA's own website, then surely some of the zillions of people who are far smarter than me when it comes to physics can spot errors on a NASA video. Most of those people don't work for NASA or a government and would have no reason not to come forward.

Words to live by: when zillions of people with the relevant expertise accept something as factual and you don't, that's almost always a sign that you're the one who's wrong.

p.s. The errors on that NASA page are, of course, inadvertant. The author obviously wasn't trying to mislead anyone.

[tabea_blumenschein]

Yes I am. It's my paid living. Yes. I get 47p per post.

Damn, and to think I've been shilling here for free ... :p

[deca]

Words to live by: when zillions of people with the relevant expertise accept something as factual and you don't, that's almost always a sign that you're the one who's wrong.

and who came up with these words of so called wisdom?

lets see if that is reflected in history

Galileo Galilei - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Heliocentric theory and ecclesiastical trial

In 1610 Galileo published an account of his telescopic observations of the moons of Jupiter, using this observation to argue in favour of the sun-centered, Copernican theory of the universe against the dominant earth-centered Ptolemaic and Aristotelian theories. The next year Galileo visited Rome in order to demonstrate his telescope to the influential philosophers and mathematicians of the Jesuit Collegio Romano, and to let them see with their own eyes the reality of the four moons of Jupiter.[19] While in Rome he was also made a member of the Accademia dei Lincei.[20]

In 1612, opposition arose to the Sun-centered theory of the universe which Galileo supported. In 1614, from the pulpit of the Basilica of Santa Maria Novella, Father Tommaso Caccini (1574–1648) denounced Galileo's opinions on the motion of the Earth, judging them dangerous and close to heresy. Galileo went to Rome to defend himself against these accusations, but, in 1616, Cardinal Roberto Bellarmino personally handed Galileo an admonition enjoining him neither to advocate nor teach Copernican astronomy.[21] During 1621 and 1622 Galileo wrote his first book, The Assayer (Il Saggiatore), which was approved and published in 1623. In 1630, he returned to Rome to apply for a licence to print the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in Florence in 1632. In October of that year, however, he was ordered to appear before the Holy Office in Rome.

Following a papal trial in which he was found vehemently suspect of heresy, Galileo was placed under house arrest and his movements restricted by the Pope. From 1634 onward he stayed at his country house at Arcetri, outside of Florence. Galileo was ordered to read the seven penitential psalms once a week for the next three years. However his daughter Maria Celeste relieved him of the burden after securing ecclesiastical permission to take it upon herself.[22] He went completely blind in 1638 and was suffering from a painful hernia and insomnia, so he was permitted to travel to Florence for medical advice. He continued to receive visitors until 1642, when, after suffering fever and heart palpitations, aged 77, he died.[23][24]


The Century Of The Self - The Engineering of Consent 1 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9RfanOEpA0

The Century Of The Self - The Engineering of Consent 2 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cAOwhb33tM&feature=related

The Century Of The Self - The Engineering of Consent 3 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCIg0I4AoPE&feature=related

The Century Of The Self - The Engineering of Consent 4 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI3CZcRpog8&feature=related

The Century Of The Self - The Engineering of Consent 5 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVjL-GMp8WY&feature=related

The Century Of The Self - The Engineering of Consent 6 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRUy0hNlVXY&feature=related

[graflok]

Words to live by: when zillions of people with the relevant expertise accept something as factual and you don't, that's almost always a sign that you're the one who's wrong.


More like words to die by.

But, have fun in your journey and thanks for the bump and for expressing your views.

PS - Oh, did I mention? The Apollo missions were faked. Thanks. :)

[deca]

The Century Of The Self - There is a Policeman Inside_1 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzE9ocIGVlQ&feature=related


The Century Of The Self - There is a Policeman Inside_2 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2VtKHIYKPM&feature=related

The Century Of The Self - There is a Policeman Inside_3 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdnyY2xNcA8&feature=related

The Century Of The Self - There is a Policeman Inside_4 of 6
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPFFSRoBqhc&feature=related

[truegroup]

Pressure waves? I've said nothing about pressure waves. Hallucinating
again? Try to keep up.
Oooh you lier:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058992348&postcount=1241

Try to keep up.

Nope. It's quite valid as demonstrated by your inability to make any credible
arguments against it. All you can do is toss out pathetic insults (that
actually describe yourself, BTW).

Amongst the insults being scientific facts and cited proof that show your synopsis as pants.


I see. And, who pays you this princely sum for your "work"?

You don't see. You have a veil of HB over your eyes.

[ultima1]

The People's Court of Common Sense has already rendered a verdict:
NASA was found guilty of fraud.

Actually the majority of peope that have common sense know that we did go to the moon.

Only a very small minority of people still think we did not go to the moon.

[ultima1]

"
It's obvious the Apollo missions were faked and your rebuttals to the evidence
are desperate and invalid.

If you are stating the missions were faked as fact then please be mature enough to show real evidence to support this, otherwise its just your fantasy.
[/QUOTE]

[ultima1]

We have the US, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian probes that have all photograped the manned landing sites.

Can anyone post evidence to debate this?

[truegroup]

and who came up with these words of so called wisdom?
lets see if that is reflected in history


Nope, let's not. Completely irelevant.

When extremely large numbers of people who know what they are talking about, say something is correct, it is. To cite opposition to Galileo (100s of years ago when science was in its infancy), as proof that Graflok's gravity theory is correct and the whole scientific world is wrong, is ridiculous. RIDICULOUS.

He's wrong, he knows he's wrong, but his ego won't admit it.

Ka-ching 47p.

[deca]

truegroup why is it such an issuse that we conform to your believe?....believe what the "mass" as you claim believe ,and therefore must be true????

we get lied to on big scale ? Weopons of mast destruction IRAQ, 9/11 ect....were people died ???


if every one went with what was culturally accepted as the "norm" then the earth would be thought as being Flat, and being the centre of the universe , I doubt if we ever make rockets ....

[truegroup]

truegroup why is it such an issuse that we conform to your believe?....believe what the "mass" as you claim believe ,and therefore must be true????

Do you know what a non-sequitur argument is?

Conforming to my belief? What about all the HBs trying to get people to conform to THEIR belief? Double standards.

It is nothing to do with the 'mass' belief. I know my DI. You cannot use that argument, since in this case, the 'mass' are the cleverest people on the planet in their respective fields! It's nothing to do with conformity, it's everything to do with scientific fact! In this case, I am quoting their collective knowledge and weighing it against Graflok's preposterous (born out of ignorance) theory.

we get lied to on big scale ? Weopons of mast destruction IRAQ, 9/11 ect....were people died ???

And? The Apollo Missions were a group effort of thousands of people, are you suggesting they are all in on the cover up and lying?
I don't see anybody on this forum thinking that maybe the lie about Apollo was foisted by the people who created the books and films suggesting it was hoaxed!

[deca]

Do you know what a non-sequitur argument is?

Conforming to my belief? What about all the HBs trying to get people to conform to THEIR belief? Double standards.

It is nothing to do with the 'mass' belief. I know my DI. You cannot use that argument, since in this case, the 'mass' are the cleverest people on the planet in their respective fields! It's nothing to do with conformity, it's everything to do with scientific fact! In this case, I am quoting their collective knowledge and weighing it against Graflok's preposterous (born out of ignorance) theory.



And? The Apollo Missions were a group effort of thousands of people, are you suggesting they are all in on the cover up and lying?
I don't see anybody on this forum thinking that maybe the lie about Apollo was foisted by the people who created the books and films suggesting it was hoaxed!

do nasa make PR movies photo`s? or not?
what is nasa main goal?

is it basicaly used by the military ?

what are the military objectives of sticking a flag by man on the moon in 1969....non there was only a PR reasons.....

just because you are persistence does not me you are right.

sounds like you are doing damage control, why are you personaly bothered that people read/watch the moon was faked video`s....if you claim are easily debunked why such an effort on here?

I am not bothered what others believe, just wounder why people insist nasa did land a man on the moon on the appllo missions as fact, what difference does in make if they did or did not?
why is it an issuse with you?

same type of tactics used in 9/11....when people start to question the goverment version
, people try to "hammer" in goverment version into you as fact, and dissmis anything else , Then when people see past that others try to make people believe absurd claims....no plains ect....

in case on the moon landings "they faked it because of UFO and aliens ect..."

you may have a point about the faking the size of the earth video, Again I not fully researched this or have hours to watch the raw video , just don`t have the time or the interest in doing so , witch be the looks of it others have as they have something to gain by doing so, I don`t.

again my personal view are they are propagada video/photos and not shot on the moon, think it was technicaly not possible at the time or it was going to cost to much , they could not afford to spend billions at this PR stunt and realised they could fake it at the fraction of the cost and gain the same result.
I don`t think they start out to fake it but as time went on it became a money pit and a political issuse rather than a militray strategical one, there were other more import projects at the time.

I sure you will use my post of the video as a "poission pill" to discredit anything else I post on the appllo missions.

[truegroup]

do nasa make PR movies photo`s? or not?
what is nasa main goal?
Irelevant to Apollo


is it basicaly used by the military ?
Irelevant to Apollo


what are the military objectives of sticking a flag by man on the moon in 1969....non there was only a PR reasons.....
Dick waving and Irelevant to Apollo


just because you are persistence does not me you are right.
Me? Not just me. But I am right though.


damage control, why are you personaly bothered that people read the moon was faked video`s....if you claim are easily debunked why such an effort on here?
Why are YOU debating it? Just because I have a passion for defending Apollo, and trying it with some of the most ignorant people on Space travel and sciences related to it, doesn't make it wrong(that's why it'sa such an effort to get even one point acknowledged! + a plethora of fixed belief systems)
I'm having fun.

[david c]

We have the US, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian probes that have all photograped the manned landing sites.

Can anyone post evidence to debate this?
All those pictures are fakable so they aren't proof of anything and they don't make the mountain of hoax evidence go away.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144487

What you seem to be doing is trying to bury the hoax evidence deep in the thread to reduce the number of people who see it. All we can do to thwart that tactic is keep posting it.

[deca]

Me? Not just me. But I am right though.

ego boosting and point scoring by copy and pasting form Clavius site

[graflok]

Oooh you lier:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058992348&postcount=1241

:confused: Another hallucination, truegroup?



Amongst the insults being scientific facts and cited proof that show your synopsis as pants.

Hilarious! :D




You have a veil of HB over your eyes.

:confused: A veil of HB? Is this yet another hallucination?

[graflok]

If you are stating the missions were faked as fact then please be mature enough to show real evidence to support this, otherwise its just your fantasy.


I'm glad you brought up fantasies because that is exactly what the Apollo
missions were and anyone with a modicum of intelligence can see that simply
by looking at the Apollo record, especially the hokey, slow-motion videos.

[graflok]

When extremely large numbers of people who know what they are talking about, say something is correct, it is.


Large numbers of people say the Apollo missions were faked and they certainly
know what they are talking about because the Apollo missions were faked, a
fact that is obvious to any reasonably intelligent person who studies the Apollo
records.

[truegroup]

I sure you will use my post of the video as a "poission pill" to discredit anything else I post on the appllo missions.

Nope. I respectfully disagree with your opinions.

[ultima1]

I'm glad you brought up fantasies because that is exactly what the Apollo missions were.

Too bad you have zero real evidence to support this, its only the fantasy of a very small amount of people.

[ultima1]

Large numbers of people say the Apollo missions were faked.

You are so full of it. Only a very small amount of people think the Apollo missons were faked.

You have zero evidence to support this fantasy.

[graflok]

Too bad you have zero real evidence to support this

There is a mountain of evidence that the Apollo missions were faked. Much of
it has been posted in threads on this forum and there is a great deal more.
Your and your friends' invalid refutations change nothing.

The Apollo missions were faked and never went anywhere near the moon.

[graflok]

You are so full of it. Only a very small amount of people think the Apollo missons were faked.


The number of people who think a certain way has no bearing on whether
something is true or not.

The truth is the Apollo missions were faked and never went anywhere near
the moon.

[ultima1]

There is a mountain of evidence that the Apollo missions were faked. .

The only thing you have posted is stuff that has been debunked for years. You have posted no real evidence, ZERO.

You have posted no real evidence to debate anything i have posted.

[ultima1]

The number of people who think a certain way has no bearing on whether something is true or not.

Then why did you bring it up trying to state that the numbers are on your side?

The truth is the Apollo missions were faked and never went anywhere near the moon.

You have zero evidence to support this and i have posted tons of evidence that would hold up in court that we did land on the moon

[camreeno]

I don't think it reveals much in terms of the argument that they wouldn't look "slow-motion-ish" if they were really on the moon. They have done tests where they simulated the weight of the suit and astronauts and suspended men in the suits by support lines to simulate the 1/6 weight found on the moon, and they really did move that way. So I don't think the slow movements are a peculiar aspect of the footage, because I think if they hypothetically were on the moon they would look similar to that... But yes overall I agree the Apollo missions were faked.

I think what is more revealing than the slow-motion footage is the fact that the footage is such poor quality to begin with. If they hypothetically went to the moon then they would bring up much higher quality filming technology to shoot the landings... But instead they were using 30+ year-old camera technology to supposedly shoot the footage. Why? Answer: because they didn't want people to see enough detail to realize they were in a fake movie set.

The big anomoly is how we have very clear photographs of the moon, that happened to be released weaks after the landings, combined with the fact that we have such blurry black and white footage. Why would the pictures be so clear compared the shitty footage? Sure some people might say footage is harder to make than pictures, but that doesn't explain such an enormous contrast in quality. And why did it take them weeks to reveal the pictures? Why wouldn't they show them immediately after landing? (Answer: to doctor the pictures)

[camreeno]

You are so full of it. Only a very small amount of people think the Apollo missons were faked.

You have zero evidence to support this fantasy.Yeah, but how many people who believe in the landings actually did any research? How about that? I suppose virtually none. How can someone judge a movie without having watched it? Likewise, how can someone judge the hoax thoery without having looked at it?

[eyeballkid88]

Oh no we've spilt over into this new thread........

Boooooooooo!!!

[truegroup]

Yeah, but how many people who believe in the landings actually did any research? How about that? I suppose virtually none. How can someone judge a movie without having watched it? Likewise, how can someone judge the hoax thoery without having looked at it?

I have done a ton of research on this. All HBs base their opinion on the hoax films, hoax books, hearsay or the death of free-speech/and self opinions - aka yooooooochoooooob!!

Why couldn't NASA complete the mission to the Moon? If you knew the ins and outs of design, the science behind every aspect of it, the bullshit regarding the Van Allen belt argument, the unbelievable ignorance surrounding solar radiation and heat - nobody who had a rationale or scientific brain would dispute the landings.

Why fake it?

[camreeno]

I have done a ton of research on this. All HBs base their opinion on the hoax films, hoax books, hearsay or the death of free-speech/and self opinions - aka yooooooochoooooob!!

Why couldn't NASA complete the mission to the Moon? If you knew the ins and outs of design, the science behind every aspect of it, the bullshit regarding the Van Allen belt argument, the unbelievable ignorance surrounding solar radiation and heat - nobody who had a rationale or scientific brain would dispute the landings.

Why fake it?The science behind every aspect of it? Wow you don't have to exsaggerate that much. The lunar landers were tested to be utter junk and could not land properly in tests, and we also have the fact that modern day space technology (at least official technology) struggles to just get a space shuttle about 400 miles into orbit... So how do you suppose they were able to launch a Saturn 5 rocket, which combined with the weight of the craft was more than today's rockets and shuttles, into space to successfuly send a capsule hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon, and make the trip back?

If it was easy enough to do that in the late 60's and early 70's to have 6 successful missions, then why are we so hesitant today to do the same thing? Why have the moon objectives of today been constantly delayed if all it takes is the knowhow of several decades ago to do it again?

[truegroup]

The lunar landers were tested to be utter junk and could not land properly in tests

Utter bullshit. Completely untrue. Cite your references. Not the 'flying bedstead' crash surely!

and we also have the fact that modern day space technology (at least official technology) struggles to just get a space shuttle about 400 miles into orbit... So how do you suppose they were able to launch a Saturn 5 rocket, which combined with the weight of the craft was more than today's rockets and shuttles, into space to successfuly send a capsule hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon, and make the trip back?
Getting into space is the hardest bit. The rest is just firing a small rocket engine and pointing it in the right direction.

Those Saturn V rockets, you saying they were faked? I mean, did you see them taking off? Huge bloody great things seen by the world.

Your argument shows you have never studied space travel, it's hardly a point of strength to start postulating that things can't be done!

If it was easy enough to do that in the late 60's and early 70's to have 6 successful missions, then why are we so hesitant today to do the same thing? Why have the moon objectives of today been constantly delayed if all it takes is the knowhow of several decades ago to do it again?

It wasn't easy then - it was damn hard, took them the best part of a decade.
The moon is a useless chunk of rock with no value at all to go back - AND NO FUNDING to do it.

[apollo_gnomon]

The lunar landers were tested to be utter junk and could not land properly in tests,
Uh, no. A training platform failed a few times during use. It was a pretty sketchy contraption, but the test pilots had some idea of what to expect on the lunar lander itself. Do your homework and present another line of argument.

and we also have the fact that modern day space technology (at least official technology) struggles to just get a space shuttle about 400 miles into orbit...
The only struggle is paying for the ongoing maintenance of a rather high part-count brick shithouse. The missions have been pretty successful, overall. The 2 accidents were dramatic and disastrous, but there have been 130 shuttle missions that DIDN'T go wrong.

As far as altitude goes, the first 250 miles of spaceflight is the most expensive. The shuttle was designed around the low-earth-orbit missions, where space stations and telescopes would be anyway. The shuttle is really just a big dumb pickup truck, designed to haul a load and dump it off in LEO.

Meanwhile, since the Apollo program NASA has sent hundreds of unmanned missions to every planet in the solar system, impacted a comet, launch scientific satellites, launch communications and military satellites, et cetera.

So how do you suppose they were able to launch a Saturn 5 rocket, which combined with the weight of the craft was more than today's rockets and shuttles, into space to successfuly send a capsule hundreds of thousands of miles to the moon, and make the trip back?
The moon is our front porch. It's a three day trip to get there. We've done much more complicated things since then. The mars rovers, for instance, were a spectacular success. They landed where they were intended, and lasted WAY beyond the 90-day original mission specifications.

Every rocket is designed around the payload and mission requirements. The Saturn V was purpose-built for the Apollo missions alone. If we wanted to send manned missions to the moon again, we would build rockets that big (more or less) to do the job. It's freakishly expensive, so instead of one manned moon mission they send out dozens of unmanned missions.

If it was easy enough to do that in the late 60's and early 70's to have 6 successful missions, then why are we so hesitant today to do the same thing? Why have the moon objectives of today been constantly delayed if all it takes is the knowhow of several decades ago to do it again?
Money. Bush handed out $300 cookies to every citizen, destroying the surplus built up during the Clinton era, then put the US into 2 wars, and the current economic downturn is putting a crimp on Federal budgets.

Congress holds the purse strings of the government, and you have to convince hundreds of politicians to agree to something in order to get it done. They see no purpose to send fresh meat to a dumb rock - and there really isn't any.

[ultima1]

[QUOTE=camreeno;1059002196]Yeah, but how many people who believe in the landings actually did any research? [/QUYOTE]

Well i bet money that a lot more people then who believe the fantasy of no moon landing.

If they did any research at all the hoaxers would come acoss several facts like the probes from other countries that have taken photos of the landing sites.

[headlikearock]

The biggest smoking gun, in my opinion, the one that pervades nearly all the Apollo
motion picture footage showing "astronauts" moving about on "the moon" is something
so visible and so obvious that it has literally been hiding in plain sight. It is
the slow motion character of all the movement which exists in nearly all the Apollo
footage.

Hi graflok

Many studies have been done which investigate the human gait, and optimum and maximum walking speeds, in reduced gravity conditions such as on Mars, or the moon. They all show that the transition from walking to running in reduced gravity occurs at lower speeds than it does on Earth. Conversely, if you were on a planet with higher gravity than Earth, the opposite would happen.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is actually impossible to walk on a body that has negligible gravity, as there is no exchange of gravitational potential energy (vertical) to kinetic energy (horizontal motion).

The astronaut motion from the moon looks like slow-motion because it should look that way in a reduced gravity environment.

Sources

Biomechanics and Biology of Movement (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1BG78utt6VUC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=walking+speed+gravity+planet+moon&source=bl&ots=zRxA1cZVZF&sig=EjMbWJLDa1PtB2Ktpq-aNt1Vxow&hl=en&ei=5igrTPnIOs2VOKav6LID&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Benno Maurus Nigg, Brian R. MacIntosh, Joachim Mester. See page 77, section titled "Different Gravity Conditions"

"It is difficult to maintain a normal walking pattern when the acceleration of gravity is reduced because of the imbalance of kinetic and potential energy."

"Margaria and Cavagna (1964) predicted a decrease of the optimal speed of walking to about 1.8 km/h on the moon".

An abstract from "Effect of reduced gravity on the preferred walk-run transition speed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9076966)" by Kram R, Domingo A, Ferris DP.

"We investigated the effect of reduced gravity on the human walk-run gait transition speed and interpreted the results using an inverted-pendulum mechanical model. We simulated reduced gravity using an apparatus that applied a nearly constant upward force at the center of mass, and the subjects walked and ran on a motorized treadmill. In the inverted pendulum model for walking, gravity provides the centripetal force needed to keep the pendulum in contact with the ground. The ratio of the centripetal and gravitational forces (mv2/L)/(mg) reduces to the dimensionless Froude number (v2/gL). Applying this model to a walking human, m is body mass, v is forward velocity, L is leg length and g is gravity. In normal gravity, humans and other bipeds with different leg lengths all choose to switch from a walk to a run at different absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number (0.5). We found that, at lower levels of gravity, the walk-run transition occurred at progressively slower absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number. This supports the hypothesis that the walk-run transition is triggered by the dynamics of an inverted-pendulum system."

An abstract from "Small step or giant leap? Human locomotion on Mars" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15856558) by A Hawky

"Human locomotion on Mars will be considerably different from on Earth. Optimum walking speeds will be approximately 30% lower and transitioning from a walk to a run will occur at a speed 25% slower. Peak vertical forces will be reduced by as much as 50%, and although ground contact time will remain constant with locomotion in 1 g, stride length and stride time will increase. During running on Mars airborne time will increase by approximately 80% in comparison to running on the Earth. On Mars, half as much energy will be required to travel the equivalent distance on Earth and it will be 65% more economical to run rather than to walk. Crews will, therefore, find themselves using a loping gait--a running-like action, with a slight upper body lean and an extended aerial phase, an unfamiliar gait in terrestrial locomotion."



Further reading

Walking in simulated reduced gravity: mechanical energy fluctuations and exchange (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/86/1/383)

The role of gravity in human walking: pendular energy exchange, external work and optimal speed (http://jp.physoc.org/content/528/3/657.full)

[eyeballkid88]

[QUOTE=camreeno;1059002196]Yeah, but how many people who believe in the landings actually did any research? [/QUYOTE]

Well i bet money that a lot more people then who believe the fantasy of no moon landing.

If they did any research at all the hoaxers would come acoss several facts like the probes from other countries that have taken photos of the landing sites.dude you have got to stop spamming.......

we know your a computer, but mate you will get booted...

[ultima1]

[QUOTE=ultima1;1059004451]dude you have got to stop spamming.........

Prove i am spamming, prove anything i have posted is wrong.

But we all know you will not and cannot.

Also i will notify mods if you call me anything like a computer again, please be mature enough to have an adult discussion.

[eyeballkid88]

spamming is repeating yourself dave....

you are constantly making the same points, which arent cutting any ice ....

and I cant help it if the repetition makes you come over as a bit robotic mate, its not just me that has come to that same conclusions...

[ultima1]

spamming is repeating yourself dave....
...

As stated either prove me wrong or admit you are a troll and spamming.

I will be waiting for your deabte of my evidence.

[eyeballkid88]

I think I may have misunderstood spamming...

Is spamming when you say the same thing again and again and hence it stops the thread flowing?

[ultima1]

I think I may have misunderstood spamming...

Is spamming when you say the same thing again and again and hence it stops the thread flowing?

Well then almost everyone on here including you is spamming for repeating the same thing over and over..

Let the record show that you cannot post facts or evidence to have an adult discussion you are a troll just spamming this thread.

[eyeballkid88]

Im trying to take the wheels off the thread Ultima, everyone including you is bored of this useless nonsense of a conversation...

Once again I will confirm my position for clarity, particulalrly as it is now no longer against the rules...

I dont trust the organisations involved, at all, so the information coming from these people for me is suspect and unverifiable, there are anomalies all over the footage these monkeys provided us anyway which again makes me unsure, so in conclusion I havnt got a scooby(clue) what went on, nothing that has provided satisfies me in anyway....

[ultima1]

I dont trust the organisations involved, at all, so the information coming from these people for me is suspect and unverifiable, ....

Well if you do not trust the organzations you do something i like to call research to verify the infomration.

You will also find things like other countries probes that have taken photos of the landing sites.

[eyeballkid88]

I know about the probes you keep rattling on about.. and again I dont trust the information... hence my position...

[ultima1]

I know about the probes you keep rattling on about.. and again I dont trust the information... hence my position...

Well what do you not trust about the information?

Do you have anything to debate the information?

[eyeballkid88]

I dont trust the information... thats it mate, thats all...

[truegroup]

Hi graflok

Many studies have been done which investigate the human gait, and optimum and maximum walking speeds, in reduced gravity conditions such as on Mars, or the moon. They all show that the transition from walking to running in reduced gravity occurs at lower speeds than it does on Earth. Conversely, if you were on a planet with higher gravity than Earth, the opposite would happen.

This may seem counter-intuitive, but it is actually impossible to walk on a body that has negligible gravity, as there is no exchange of gravitational potential energy (vertical) to kinetic energy (horizontal motion).

The astronaut motion from the moon looks like slow-motion because it should look that way in a reduced gravity environment.

Sources

Biomechanics and Biology of Movement (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1BG78utt6VUC&pg=PA77&lpg=PA77&dq=walking+speed+gravity+planet+moon&source=bl&ots=zRxA1cZVZF&sig=EjMbWJLDa1PtB2Ktpq-aNt1Vxow&hl=en&ei=5igrTPnIOs2VOKav6LID&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false) by Benno Maurus Nigg, Brian R. MacIntosh, Joachim Mester. See page 77, section titled "Different Gravity Conditions"

"It is difficult to maintain a normal walking pattern when the acceleration of gravity is reduced because of the imbalance of kinetic and potential energy."

"Margaria and Cavagna (1964) predicted a decrease of the optimal speed of walking to about 1.8 km/h on the moon".

An abstract from "Effect of reduced gravity on the preferred walk-run transition speed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9076966)" by Kram R, Domingo A, Ferris DP.

"We investigated the effect of reduced gravity on the human walk-run gait transition speed and interpreted the results using an inverted-pendulum mechanical model. We simulated reduced gravity using an apparatus that applied a nearly constant upward force at the center of mass, and the subjects walked and ran on a motorized treadmill. In the inverted pendulum model for walking, gravity provides the centripetal force needed to keep the pendulum in contact with the ground. The ratio of the centripetal and gravitational forces (mv2/L)/(mg) reduces to the dimensionless Froude number (v2/gL). Applying this model to a walking human, m is body mass, v is forward velocity, L is leg length and g is gravity. In normal gravity, humans and other bipeds with different leg lengths all choose to switch from a walk to a run at different absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number (0.5). We found that, at lower levels of gravity, the walk-run transition occurred at progressively slower absolute speeds but at approximately the same Froude number. This supports the hypothesis that the walk-run transition is triggered by the dynamics of an inverted-pendulum system."

An abstract from "Small step or giant leap? Human locomotion on Mars" (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15856558) by A Hawky

"Human locomotion on Mars will be considerably different from on Earth. Optimum walking speeds will be approximately 30% lower and transitioning from a walk to a run will occur at a speed 25% slower. Peak vertical forces will be reduced by as much as 50%, and although ground contact time will remain constant with locomotion in 1 g, stride length and stride time will increase. During running on Mars airborne time will increase by approximately 80% in comparison to running on the Earth. On Mars, half as much energy will be required to travel the equivalent distance on Earth and it will be 65% more economical to run rather than to walk. Crews will, therefore, find themselves using a loping gait--a running-like action, with a slight upper body lean and an extended aerial phase, an unfamiliar gait in terrestrial locomotion."



Further reading

Walking in simulated reduced gravity: mechanical energy fluctuations and exchange (http://jap.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/86/1/383)

The role of gravity in human walking: pendular energy exchange, external work and optimal speed (http://jp.physoc.org/content/528/3/657.full)

That's about the 5th gravity explanation, and probably the best one.

[david c]

Don't take HeakLikeARock too seriously; he also thinks the Chinese spacewalk was real.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/22/

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

[david c]

I was looking around for stuff on slow-motion and I came across this.

http://www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.html
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------
14) Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.
-----------------------------------------------------

edit-

I just found this-
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2009/07/how_to_fake_your_own_moon_land.php

[truegroup]

Even though slow motion photography was able to give a fairly convincing appearance of very low gravity, it could not disguise the fact that the astronauts travelled no further between steps than they would have on Earth.

More crap from David C - there's no disguising the HUGE bloody steps on this short excerpt!
No wires, long panning sequence, and dust being kicked up and dropping straight to the surface:

Bunny hopping on the Moon - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKdwcLytloU

[truegroup]

Don't take HeakLikeARock too seriously; he also thinks the Chinese spacewalk was real.

He's dead right. That is the ultimate strawman argument, since not only have you not got a SINGLE thing to disprove the Lunar landings, you have these shitty little vids and say they are proof. I'm not going to argue the toss about Chinese spacewalks. They're real enough, no reason to fake them, even if they could get away with it.

[david c]

dust being kicked up and dropping straight to the surface
It's possible to treat sand to make it dust-free by sifting it and washing it.
MoonFaker - Project Sandbox - YouTube

there's no disguising the HUGE bloody steps on this short excerpt!
That can be explained by wire supports.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058967358&postcount=3

[truegroup]

It's possible to treat sand to make it dust-free by sifting it and washing it.
The dust gets kicked up and looks like dust being kicked up, and we have footprints. Sand doesn't EVER do that.
Look at this MASSIVE pan - no way is this an 'indoor set'!! And you reckon they wash ALL that soil for dust!! Where's the 'flag wind' blowing dust up - EVER. This is outdoors. Never any 'wind'.

Apollo 15 EVAs 4 (Hadley Rille Pan View) - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrVOsPbDOys




That can be explained by wire supports.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058967358&postcount=3

Bullshit - show me the wires. Saying it was wires, with your opinion, doesn't make it so.

Another very long pan - astronaut is a long way off, then zoomed closer. Backdrop of rocks and space, NO WIRES - NONE at all.
Long non-Earth like movements.

Apollo 17 - EVA 1 Core - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbxkcEW3UYM

Astrobrant2's Channel - YouTube

From 2.45 - David C - that is the question for you personally!

[ultima1]

I dont trust the information... thats it mate, thats all...

So you do not do anything to find out one way or another.

Please take a position, stop the spamming stop being a troll.

[truegroup]

So you do not do anything to find out one way or another.

Please take a position, stop the spamming stop being a troll.

Butt out unless you have something to add to this thread.

[ultima1]

Butt out unless you have something to add to this thread.

I have been adding things to the thread, its just that does not get admitted to.

[david c]

Look at this MASSIVE pan - no way is this an 'indoor set'!!
Do you know about the join-line issue?
http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm

This picture and the video you provided are consistent with the backdrop theory.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS15/10075728.jpg

There are more pictures with joinlines here.
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm

And you reckon they wash ALL that soil for dust!!
As has already been pointed out to you by graflok, they could have used a combination of both dust-free sand and dusty sand where appropriate.

Bullshit - show me the wires. Saying it was wires, with your opinion, doesn't make it so.
You're playing dumb about all the evidence of wires that's been presented. Of course they aren't going to show any footage with obvious wires.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wire+supports&aq=f


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc7FLQR92eg

From 2.45 - David C - that is the question for you personally!
I didn't have time to watch it to the end but the part I watched didn't deal with the upper glint which can be seen at the 1:15 time mark in this video.
Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - YouTube

The upper glint is too high to have been caused by the antenna. When they were airbrushing out all the wire glints, they must have missed that one because it was so close the the antenna glint.

[moving finger]

The upper glint is too high to have been caused by the antenna. When they were airbrushing out all the wire glints, they must have missed that one because it was so close the the antenna glint.

Lens flaring. Simple, unless you want call them orbs instead. Airbrushing live transmission? How did they do that?

[eyeballkid88]

So you do not do anything to find out one way or another.

Please take a position, stop the spamming stop being a troll.

I have done plenty of research to conclude that its cant be answered conclusively either way....

if you wish to know why I dont trust any of the "official" sources please read David Ickes guide to the global conspiracy and how to end it, that will give an outline ...

Thanks

[headlikearock]

[QUOTE=david c;1059013585]Don't take HeakLikeARock too seriously; he also thinks the Chinese spacewalk was real.
http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/51606/22/

What I think about the Chinese spacewalk is utterly irrelevant to how fast it's possible to walk on the Moon, Mars or other heavenly body.

On top of that, I wasn't posting my opinions, I posted direct evidence from qualified people, published in respected journals, over a period of several decades, covering both theoretical physics and practical experimentation.

Either address those issues, admit that the OP was wrong, or admit you are out of your depth.

(More likely, just claim that scientists can be bought, so we can't believe what they say. Which means that you believe that scientists the world over, dating back to 1964, have been lying about how fast you can walk on the moon. :rolleyes: )

[truegroup]

This picture and the video you provided are consistent with the backdrop theory.


Saying it is consistent, and it being so are two different things. The most consistent thing about you is that every contention you make is scientific nonsense and an unprovable opinion.
THE VIDEO has zooming in it, showing quite clearly the astronaut is some distance away. Dust is being kicked up wherever he walks, always falling straight to the surface. The zooming shot of Hadley Rille is MILES away. Nothing stirring from the surface.

As has already been pointed out to you by graflok, they could have used a combination of both dust-free sand and dusty sand where appropriate.
Where appropriate? Everywhere you mean? Otherwise:

1/ No visible dust EVER blown from the surface by the mysterious 'flag-wind'.
2/ The huge pans and zooms, show quite clearly this is outdoors, so where is the unwashed bit?

The idea of washing the whole set OUTDOORS clearly miles and miles of it, is the most ludicrous of Jarrah's contentions (that you borrowed).

You're playing dumb about all the evidence of wires that's been presented.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058940564&postcount=27
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058940642&postcount=30
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058940648&postcount=31
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058941150&postcount=41
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059004724&postcount=1351
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059007584&postcount=1374

No David C, I'm not playing dumb. The HBs who keep repeating themselves are being dumb, and that, would be you for instance.

Of course they aren't going to show any footage with obvious wires.
Of course not!! You mean you can't frickin' find any, because they didn't use wires. Such staggering stubborness.
There are HOURS AND HOURS of video released years ago, and the best stupid David Percy can find, is that dumb lens flare!!

I didn't have time to watch it to the end but the part I watched didn't deal with the upper glint which can be seen at the 1:15 time mark in this video.

The upper glint is too high to have been caused by the antenna. When they were airbrushing out all the wire glints, they must have missed that one because it was so close the the antenna glint.

When were you born btw? I ask because only a young person is STUPID enough to think moving TV footage and video tape, can be AIRBRUSHED! This wasn't the digital age, and there were copies of all the EVAs released many years before the digital age of computers even began.

The glint? That they 'missed'? You for real? It's a Lens Flare, and that video I posted answers it.

LENS FLARE (anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial), as always, you will ignore that reply and post this video on another thread, either on this forum or somewhere else.

The mythbusters crappy picture issue (ie. the only other so called 'proof' of wires:
Moon hoax - Wire Supports (Mythbusters) REPLY - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9mYWWHREag

Let's summarise:


There are hours and hours of videos of EVAs on the Moon.
They were released many years before computers were common place.
The footage of these EVAs show extremely long panning sequences, sometimes 360 degrees.
The EVAs are shot with no edits, sometimes hours long, movie makers cannot do even a few takes without glaring errors - none exist on Apollo.
The EVAs show long and close shots of astronauts making long steps and jumping movements.
The EVAs show long and close shots of astronauts kicking up dust, that falls straight to the ground.
There is NEVER any surface movement of dust from supposed 'wind'.
The size of the area in the video is undeniable proof that this cannot be indoors.
There is zero evidence of wires.

[ultima1]

I have done plenty of research to conclude that its cant be answered conclusively either way....

So you have a problem with the evidence from other countires or independent observers?

[eyeballkid88]

both

[david c]

LENS FLARE (anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial), as always, you will ignore that reply and post this video on another thread, either on this forum or somewhere else.
According to all the stuff I can find on lens flare...
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm
Lens flare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...it's caused when light from the source is able to enter the lens of a camera.

In this footage the light source is too far to the left to be able to enter the lens. The glints that can be seen at the 1:20 time mark of this video...
Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - YouTube

...are caused by light that comes from the far left and is reflected off of objects into the lens.

The lower reflection is consistent with the antenna.
Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - Percy Debunk - YouTube

The upper reflection is too high to be from the antenna. It's in the exact place in which a wire would be so it must be a wire. It's obviously not lens flare because it's impossible for light from the source to enter the lens as the source is too far to the left.

I guess the viewers can look at everything and decide for themselves.

Anyway, you said the Chinese spacewalk was real so you're unfit to do video analysis.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059013667&postcount=121

Nobody is going to take you seriously now.

[david c]

Airbrushing live transmission? How did they do that?
It wasn't live.

What I think about the Chinese spacewalk is utterly irrelevant to how fast it's possible to walk on the Moon, Mars or other heavenly body.
It shows that you're unfit to do photo analysis.

I posted direct evidence from qualified people, published in respected journals, over a period of several decades, covering both theoretical physics and practical experimentation.
Qualified people can be bought. The government can find lots of scientists who are willing to lie. Scientists who try to blow the whistle will find that they can't make their voices heard as science journals are under control. They will suffer harassment and have their careers ruined.

At the 16 second mark of this video a scientist tells how science journals are controlled.
Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2 - YouTube

At around the 30 minute time mark in this video a scientist talks about having been harassed and having her career ruined for having blown the whistle.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3626298989248030643#

Blowing the whistle may even get you killed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
Sacrifice On Pad 34. - YouTube

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some scientists at the Rand corporation say that depleted uranium is safe.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/b04151999_bt170-99.htm

There are other experts in these videos who have the opposite view.
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-dangers-of-genetically-modified-food-confirmed/

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If two groups of scientists are saying totally opposite things, it seems plausible that one group has sold out to the government. There are other cases like these; when a group of scientists agree with the pro-government version of a controversy, I see no reason to take what they say as fact as they may be sellouts.

We are lied to about history.
http://www.fas.org/man/smedley.htm
http://mtwsfh.blogspot.com/
John Perkins - America's Secret Empire - YouTube

I think everybody knows that the press lies to us.

http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/MediaControl_Chomsky.html
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=trWcqxrQgcc
http://www.youtube.com//watch?v=bbnxsPgcsH0
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=ES&hl=es&v=Wi5h3vZl6uo
http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/Propaganda_System_One.html

In this environment in which Americans are bombarded by lies we can't simply take the official version of the nature of space radiation as fact.

(Sorry to keep posting the same thing but, if it never sinks in, what else can I do?)


THE VIDEO has zooming in it, showing quite clearly the astronaut is some distance away.
You're seeing what you want to see. The footage is entirely consistent with a large studio with backdrop mountain scenes.

Dust is being kicked up wherever he walks, always falling straight to the surface.
As I said before, sand can be made dust-free by sifting and washing. They can use dust-free sand where they film the scenes with soil getting kicked up and dusty sand to make footprints. As Jarrah says, we don't see the footprints being made so how do we know if there were dust clouds or not?
MoonFaker - Project Sandbox - YouTube

[truegroup]

According to all the stuff I can find on lens flare

That's the thing isn't it David C - you have to go and FIND stuff on lens flares. You don't have a clue what they are, how they occur or where they would occur. What you find, is just little snippets of unrelated information that you don't understand.

Anyway, you said the Chinese spacewalk was real so you're unfit to do video analysis.
Nobody is going to take you seriously now.

Yes David, nice try at trying to discredit me, because I am pulverising your pathetic hoax 'evidence'!

What a very unsmart person you are. You show those stupid Chinese youtube videos that have no merit at all, and you argue they shot it in a fucking swimming pool!! A nation that has rockets to take them into LEO, decides to fake a space walk??? errrrrr........why? Why would they?

btw. 'Viewers' - David C thinks the Chinese spacewalks were faked, because some yoooochoooba thinks that a piece of space debris looks like a bubble!
You just could not make it up.

[david c]

The mythbusters crappy picture issue (ie. the only other so called 'proof' of wires:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9mYWWHREag
We have no way of knowing whether he airbrushed the wires out.

There are hours and hours of videos of EVAs on the Moon.
This is hardly worth a response. It may or may not be a studio. The fact that there are hour of footage proves nothing. Is this the special olympics debating division?

They were released many years before computers were common place.
I feel like I'm crashing a special olympics debate. There are other ways to doctor pictures.
Airbrush - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The footage of these EVAs show extremely long panning sequences, sometimes 360 degrees.
This can also be done in a very large studio.

The EVAs are shot with no edits, sometimes hours long, movie makers cannot do even a few takes without glaring errors - none exist on Apollo.
Are you kidding?
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm

The EVAs show long and close shots of astronauts making long steps and jumping movements.
...and it's all explainable by a combination of wire supports and slow-motion.

The EVAs show long and close shots of astronauts kicking up dust, that falls straight to the ground.
...all explainable by the use of dust-free sand.

There is NEVER any surface movement of dust from supposed 'wind'.
In a studio there's no wind.

The size of the area in the video is undeniable proof that this cannot be indoors.
It might just as well have been a very big studio with backdrops.

There is zero evidence of wires.
Wrong!

I don't have time to separate the evidence videos from the damage-control ofuscation videos in this link.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=wire+supports&aq=f

Sorry.

[headlikearock]

It shows that you're unfit to do photo analysis.

I disagree. But since I offered NO photo analysis in that post, mainly quotes and links from a selection of scientific papers that show the OP to be wrong in his subjective assessment of how fast you should be able to walk on the moon, your comment is, yet again, utterly irrelevant to what was being discussed.

Qualified people can be bought. The government can find lots of scientists who are willing to lie. Scientists who try to blow the whistle will find that they can't make their voices heard as science journals are under control. They will suffer harassment and have their careers ruined.

Predictable! And intellectually lazy. Are you really claiming that scientists from across the globe have been deliberately lying since 1964 about how fast you can walk on the moon? And that anyone who has researched the issue since has been paid to agree with them? Why not just admit that the most likely scenario is that those scientists are indeed correct, and that optimum walking speeds on the moon ARE actually less than they are on Earth. Or do you believe that using a normal walking pace on the moon means you would walk faster than on Earth? Do you understand any of the concepts mentioned in the several links I provided? Face it, you're out your depth because you have zero knowledge of the subject matter. Being ignorant of something is perfectly acceptable. Being ignorant of something, then saying that anyone who is knowledgeable about it may have been bought or is lying, just to squeeze it into your worldview, isn't going to impress anyone.

I'll simplify things for you. Please answer the following question. All other factors being equal, when walking in a reduced gravity environment (such as the moon), how fast would you tend to walk compared to Earth gravity? Acceptable answers are faster, slower, the same speed, or I don't know.

You're seeing what you want to see. The footage is entirely consistent with a large studio with backdrop mountain scenes.

So you're seeing what YOU want to see. It is entirely consistent with being filmed on the moon. There is very good evidence that it would have been exceedingly difficult to fake in the manner you've prescribed.

Why don't you provide direct photographic evidence that demonstrates that it could not have been taken on the moon, and I'll provide some that shows how extremely difficult it would have been to fake using large sets and backdrops?

[truegroup]

It wasn't live.

You still can't airbrush VIDEO tape!!


Qualified people can be bought. The government can find lots of scientists who are willing to lie. Scientists who try to blow the whistle will find that they can't make their voices heard as science journals are under control. They will suffer harassment and have their careers ruined.

Irelevant twaddle, and probably the exact kind of people who complain like you do when they get banned on other forums for spamming!!

Blowing the whistle may even get you killed.

Bullshit. Bill Kaysing was allowed to make his book, David Percy was allowed to write his book and do his film. Ralph Renee, Bart Sibrel, Jarrah White. To the best of my knowledge none of them have been bumped off!

Some scientists at the Rand corporation say that depleted uranium is safe.
There are other experts in these videos who have the opposite view.
If two groups of scientists are saying totally opposite things, it seems plausible that one group has sold out to the government. There are other cases like these; when a group of scientists agree with the pro-government version of a controversy, I see no reason to take what they say as fact as they may be sellouts.

Irelevant to Apollo, just diversion to try and create some kind of possibility that anything that offers a difference of opinion to HBs is corrupt. Speculative shit.

We are lied to about history.
Not about Apollo, since all of the stupid items you repetitively ad nauseum bring up here and over countless forums has been proven as crap.

I think everybody knows that the press lies to us.
Yes, some of them have printed moon hoax articles (in ignorance). Lies, all lies.


In this environment in which Americans are bombarded by lies we can't simply take the official version of the nature of space radiation as fact.
Van Allen was the man who postulated and gave his name to the belts, he collected more data over the years of early space travel and found that travelling in the outer regions of the belts was quite safe for Apollo.
Suggesting he has been 'got at' is pathetic, and completely untrue.

(Sorry to keep posting the same thing but, if it never sinks in, what else can I do?)
my emphasis. How about stopping the forum spamming? The replies you get are what NEVER sinks in!


You're seeing what you want to see. The footage is entirely consistent with a large studio with backdrop mountain scenes.
Not with 1000 yard zoom shots, that still show relief many miles further away.
What a hypocrite, sitting there ignoring PROPER physical data and saying you DON'T see what YOU want to see.

As I said before, sand can be made dust-free by sifting and washing. They can use dust-free sand where they film the scenes with soil getting kicked up and dusty sand to make footprints. As Jarrah says, we don't see the footprints being made so how do we know if there were dust clouds or not?
That is about the fourth time you have asked that and ignored all the videos, CLEARLY showing prints and tracks being made, dust being kicked up. Sand does not make footprints and still be able to fly off the floor like dust.
You have also ignored videos showing astronauts HUNDREDS of yards away kicking up dust, stepping 5 to 6 feet nonchalantly, hopping 8 feet and all with consumate ease.

You ignore the issue of NOT one piece of EVA footage showing wires, you ignore the zoom shots that show no equipment possible MANY feet above the astronauts that could possibly do this. There is no conceivable way any of those HUGE zooming shots could be performed indoors, so this leaves millions of tons of soil to be washed on 'sets'. 'Sets' that exactly match SELENE photographs taken 40 years later!

You are completely in denial. If you post this spamming message again, I will just cut and paste this reply.

[truegroup]

We have no way of knowing whether he airbrushed the wires out.
Yes we do, it's amazingly simple. There were no wires, so they didn't need to do anything.
The original EVA was released well before the Mythbusters (crappy TV, copied tape to tape on playback - looking extremely BLUE!)
The scratches aren't complete lines, one of them doesn't even come down to as far as the left hand astronaut. Why would they ever use shiny wires? They occur over the space of 1 or 2 frames, with a fixed TV and light source (aka The Sun), if there were shiny wires you'd get more than that.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here. YOU KNOW they are scratches. You know it. The fact that you continue to argue about this is on a par with your ignorance over the c-rock!


This is hardly worth a response. It may or may not be a studio. The fact that there are hour of footage proves nothing. Is this the special olympics debating division? Be VERY careful with your choice of insults.

I feel like I'm crashing a special olympics debate. There are other ways to doctor pictures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbrush

Idiotic assessment. Your link doesn't mention 'doctoring' moving Video pictures! Typical David C, ignores the videos and diverts to some useless URL.


This can also be done in a very large studio.
MILES wide? The Hadley Rille shot was 10km or more. The zoom was easily a mile. Another Inspector Clouseau moment!


Are you kidding?
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm
Are YOU kidding. You have NO answer for the question , so put in another URL with nothing to enlighten anybody!


...and it's all explainable by a combination of wire supports and slow-motion.
Variable motion changes, with very strange movements all over the place, no explanation for the pendulum experiment, and ZERO evidence of wire supports in shots from many hundreds of yards away.


...all explainable by the use of dust-free sand.
Apart from the footprints and tracks, and the vast expanse of area traversed by the astronauts, and the enormous volume of soil that would need to be washed, plus the fact that it then doesn't behave the way it actually appears to in the videos. Dust being kicked up immediately settling PLUS footprints.
Inspector Clouseau strikes again.


In a studio there's no wind.
So how did the flag move then? Ahhhh the contradictions of the HB, the brain power just doesn't compute.

Wrong!
Well apart from the single lens flare and radio antenna, and the two tape scratches that aren't on the original footage, please explain how I am wrong.
Show me the WIRES.

Edit:

Look at this film of Tommy Cooper doing a magic trick. Look at the 'wires', how fleeting, how non-solid, how white and how EXACTLY like scratches!
28 of 50 Greatest Magic Tricks - Multiplying Bottles Trick - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHO3TQfXz5A

[frenat]

Do you know about the join-line issue?
http://www.aulis.com/nasa6.htm

This picture and the video you provided are consistent with the backdrop theory.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/mirrors/images/images/pao/AS15/10075728.jpg

There are more pictures with joinlines here.
http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm

Or the more likely, consistent with perspective, something that Jack White, who wrote that Aulis page, has shown multiple times he knows nothing about.

[frenat]

It wasn't live.

Nice cop out. What about the responses to live questions? Or the camera reacting to LIVE control from Earth?

[headlikearock]

Are you kidding?

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm

Sorry.

That site hardly stands up to scrutiny does it? Have you actually investigated any of the claims he makes, or whether any of them actually imply hoax, or just a lack of understanding on his part?

One of the movie clips selected at random.

apo17j.mov (http://www.solarviews.com/raw/apo/apo17j.mov) As the ascending LM slows down, no flame or exhaust is visible from the quadruple thrusters.

He clearly hasn't studied the film in detail. There are at least 3 separate and distinct occasions when you can see instantaneous flashed of light from the inside of both the forward pointing thrusters.

The Apollo thrusters were configured to allow "coupled" RCS firings (where thrusters on opposite sides of the spacecraft fired together), which allowed adjusting the vehicle attitude without affecting the critical accuracy of their orbital, trans-lunar and trans-earth trajectories.

Reaction control system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the set below, the images on the right show the three occasions where the forward pointing RCS thrusters fire in unison. The RHS images show the frame immediately following the one where the flash is seen for comparison.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/Apollo%2017/LMThrusterflash.jpg

I might do some more studies showing why his claims don't withstand scrutiny.

[headlikearock]

This one (http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo3.htm) is a little more complicated, but follow it carefully and you should understand why his claim fails.

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal Still Images

Apollo 15

The background hills in the following three images are inconsistent with background hills in 360-degree pans showing the LM.

The following two images (the second has higher resolution) show the LM as seen from Station 6, with the "Pluton Crater" in the background.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-84-11324.jpg
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-84-11324HR.jpg

This post-EVA-3 pan, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15.pluton_pan.jpg, is taken looking out through an LM window and shows the same surface features on the background hills as in the previous two images (the frames are AS15-82-11204 to 11217).
Compare the background hills in the three previous images with the following 360-degree pans.

This 360-degree pan, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15.1472712pan8.jpg , is taken right next to the LM at the end of EVA-2 (the frames are AS15-87-11822 to 11840). A VR version of this pan is available.

This station 8 pan, http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/a15pan1480225.jpg, also shows a 360-degree view in the LM vicinity (the frames are AS15-92-12420 to 12438).

The background hills in the first three images showing the "Pluton Crater" do not match the background hills in the 360-degree pans.


The author (David Wozney) compares images taken from four separate locations, at different heights, using lenses of differing focal length, and makes the claim that the hills in the background aren't the same.

Firstly, lets get our bearings. The Apollo 15 landing site is shown below, with the relevant locations highlighted.

Station 8 is about 200 metres north-west of the LM. Pluton crater is about 3 km north of the LM (and station 8). Station 6 is about 5 km south of the LM.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/Apollo%2015/A15-pluton-map.jpg

The station 6 image is therefore approx. 8 km away from Pluton crater. The image from this location was taken using a 500mm lens, which on the wide-format Hasselblad camera is highly telescopic. Station 6 was elevated above the plain slightly, as it is on the slopes of the Apennine Front. Hence, the camera is able to see more features beying Pluton crater than if they had been on the plain floor at the same distance.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-84-11324.jpg

Compare that with the images taken from inside the LM that formed the panorama. This was also taken using the 500mm lens. I've used AS15-82-11216 below:-

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-82-11216.jpg

Clearly, the apparent difference in the hills behind Pluton crater is consistent with the first image (Station 6) being taken from a higher vantage opint some way behind the LM. No inconsistency there.

Now look at the images that form the pan taken from near the LM at the end of EVA 2. In particular, AS15-87-11838 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-87-11838HR.jpg) which shows Pluton crater. These are taken using the regular 60mm lens that produced a normal image (non-telescopic).

Here is a crop showing where Pluton crater is in the background.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/Apollo%2015/PlutonfromnearLM60mm.jpg

Let's compare that to the pan taken from inside the LM, using the 500mm lens (which explains why the reseau marks are closer together). With it being taken from a feet feet higher, slightly more detail is visible on the far crater wall.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/Apollo%2015/PlutonfrominsideLM500mm.jpg

No inconsistencies there either.

How about station 8. I've selected AS15-92-12422 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a15/AS15-92-12422HR.jpg) which shows the rim of Pluton crater on the horizon, its LHS level with the centre fiducial, its RHS in between the two fiducials on the right.


Again, I've cropped the part that shows Pluton crater for clarity.

http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/Apollo%2015/PlutonfromStation860mm.jpg

No differences between this and my previous crop that aren't adequately explained by the small translation of about 200m in dtsnace between the 2 photos.


The only thing the owner of that site (David Wozney) has succeeded in doing, is showing how easy it is to fool credulous people who are too lazy or ill-equipped to check his claims.

[ultima1]

both

Do you believe in a worldwide conspiracy involving thousands of people?

[ultima1]

hundreds of thousands..... if not millions...

the mass majority of which have no idea the part they are playing.....

Any proof of this worldwide conspiracy, or just another theory?

[truegroup]

deleted

[david c]

Hey HeadLikeARock-

Do you agree with truegroup that the glints at the 1:20 time mark in this video are cause by lens flare?
Moon Landing Hoax - Wires Footage - YouTube

Lens flare - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm

[truegroup]

Do you agree with truegroup that the glints at the 1:20 time mark in this video are cause by lens flare?


my emphasis added.

http://forum.concen.org/showthread.php?tid=11121&pid=124535#pid124535

[headlikearock]

Hey HeadLikeARock-

Do you agree with truegroup that the glints at the 1:20 time mark in this video are cause by lens flare?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_flare
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/lens-flare.htm

The very bright glint is the sun reflecting off the PLSS antenna. The smaller one above it is lens flare, caused by that very bright reflection. If you say otherwise, prove that it isn't.

Now, care to address either of the studies I posted? And can you answer the question I asked you on the previous page:

All other factors being equal, when walking in a reduced gravity environment (such as the moon), how fast would you tend to walk compared to Earth gravity? Acceptable answers are faster, slower, the same speed, or I don't know.

[david c]

The very bright glint is the sun reflecting off the PLSS antenna. The smaller one above it is lens flare, caused by that very bright reflection. If you say otherwise, prove that it isn't.
The flashes occur at slightly different times. If the one above were lens flare, it would happen simultaneously with the one below. The lower glint is light from the fake sun reflected off of the antenna and the upper glint is light from the fake sun reflected off of the support wire.

All other factors being equal, when walking in a reduced gravity environment (such as the moon), how fast would you tend to walk compared to Earth gravity? Acceptable answers are faster, slower, the same speed, or I don't know.
I'm no expert but according to these forumulas...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

...if gravity is six times lower than it is on earth, objects will travel six times higher and six times farther. Speed is not increased. If stepping on the ground while walking creates drag, I suppose the fact that the walker is taking fewer steps reduces drag but that might be negligible. I see no force that makes a walker go faster. I also see no force that makes him seem like he's walking in slow-motion.

What I think about the Chinese spacewalk is utterly irrelevant to how fast it's possible to walk on the Moon, Mars or other heavenly body.

On top of that, I wasn't posting my opinions, I posted direct evidence from qualified people, published in respected journals, over a period of several decades, covering both theoretical physics and practical experimentation.
Please show us these articles. Also, listen to what this scientist says about science journals again....
Origins of Man Bonus Evidence II Part 2 - YouTube
(16 second mark)

...and tell us whether we should simply believe what science journals say.

It's so clear that the Chinese spacewalk was faked that it makes a good litmus test to separate the sophists from the truth-seekers.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbBFwdmldA
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4Z_r38ZDE
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/5809/
http://en.epochtimes.com/n2/content/view/8332/

You and truegroup both argue that it was real so the viewers can decide for themselves whether to take you two seriously.

There's lots of footage that was obviously not part of a real moon mission such as the way Collins' jacket corner moves in this video when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A028ADB54169962B6961582AEC2F/apollo-xi-the-little-gem-par.aspx
(4:10 time mark)

It moves the way it would move in strong gravity as do the dogtags around his neck.

You destroyed your credibility on two different forums when you "Explained" that the movement of the jacket corner and dogtags was consistent with zero-G. Go ahead and explain it again. Everybody is watching.

There is some evidence that the missions were faked that's so clear that this slow-motion issue isn't about whether they faked the moon missions; it's about how they faked the moon missions. No apollo-believers have ever been able to explain the way the flag moves without being touched in this clip. The only explanation that holds water is the atmophere explanation; slow-motion explains the speed at which it moves and the length of time which it moves.
Apollo 15 flag waving - YouTube
MoonFaker: The Flags Are Alive. PART 1. - YouTube
MoonFaker: Flagging The Dead Horses. PART 1 - YouTube
Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement - YouTube

[wanaknow]

Faked without doubt, there are none so blind as those who will not see

[guuna]

Too many people were watching and tracking the manned moon landing.

If it was faked someone would have said something, unless you believe in a worldwide conspiracy.

lots of people have 'said something.'

[ultima1]

lots of people have 'said something.'

So any proof of this worldwide conspiracy involving thousands?

Anyone with evidence that can be believed or just theories?

[truegroup]

The flashes occur at slightly different times. If the one above were lens flare, it would happen simultaneously with the one below. The lower glint is light from the fake sun reflected off of the antenna and the upper glint is light from the fake sun reflected off of the support wire.
It's a lens flare and you know nothing.

I'm no expert

Nope, you most certainly aren't. But you ARE expert at spamming forums though. Same vids, same links.
Maybe a dozen times now.


...if gravity is six times lower than it is on earth, objects will travel six times higher and six times farther. Speed is not increased. If stepping on the ground while walking creates drag, I suppose the fact that the walker is taking fewer steps reduces drag but that might be negligible. I see no force that makes a walker go faster. I also see no force that makes him seem like he's walking in slow-motion.
Gobbledygook from the non expert. The world of science is of course completely wrong as David C thinks he knows better! The force that you can't see is called GRAVITY.

WIRES?
Moon hoax -- Wires again? Still? - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc7FLQR92eg&feature=related


YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAfJkYTkQZk

Moon hoax for faster Dummies - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VZIwtrDsRQ

Moon hoax: more strange photo analysis - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq-2dId1BBY

[truegroup]

Faked without doubt, there are none so blind as those who will not see

First post backing up David C? Do you do puppetry with socks? Care to offer some proof? Some that hasn't been ignored 100 times by our resident spammer?

[truegroup]

No apollo-believers have ever been able to explain the way the flag moves without being touched in this clip. The only explanation that holds water is the atmophere explanation; slow-motion explains the speed at which it moves and the length of time which it moves.

You can't even explain how it moves when it is supposedly done indoors without wind?

The only explanation that has ever held water is what happened. They were walking by the flag, his arm brushed it. Simple really.

There are none so blind as those who will not see! HB stupidity is the blindness of all blindness.

[headlikearock]

The flashes occur at slightly different times. If the one above were lens flare, it would happen simultaneously with the one below. The lower glint is light from the fake sun reflected off of the antenna and the upper glint is light from the fake sun reflected off of the support wire.


This isn't very difficult to understand. The upper lens flare can only occur if the light source is sufficiently bright. Once the flash of light off the PLSS antenna gets to a certain level, it causes the lens flare, which varies with intensity with the PLSS flash. The upper flare never shows up when there is no flash of light from the PLSS antenna, and it is never as bright as the PLSS flash.

If you want people to believe you, you're going to have to try harder than this.

I'm no expert but according to these forumulas...
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

Why do you believe those formulas, but choose not to believe the papers I linked to that prove the OP was wrong about his "slow motion" theories? None of those formulae relate directly to the science of walking in different levels of gravity, so it's difficult to see how you can use them to back up your argument.

...if gravity is six times lower than it is on earth, objects will travel six times higher and six times farther. Speed is not increased. If stepping on the ground while walking creates drag, I suppose the fact that the walker is taking fewer steps reduces drag but that might be negligible. I see no force that makes a walker go faster. I also see no force that makes him seem like he's walking in slow-motion.

I'm assuming from your last two sentences that you think someone should walk at the same speed on the moon as they do on Earth?

If you really want to argue this point, you need to argue from a position of knowledge.

Please show us these articles.

I already did that in post 105 (http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1059010858&postcount=105). Why are you arguing that they are wrong if you haven't even read them?

Also, listen to what this scientist says about science journals again....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(16 second mark)

...and tell us whether we should simply believe what science journals say.

He's a scientist. You propose that we can't accept as fact anything that scientists say. Why should I accept what he says as fact?

Now, stop going off topic and address the actual evidence being discussed. If you don't have the knowledge to do so, it is acceptable to say "I don't know". It is not acceptable to say "I don't know, but I'm going to argue that I'm right anyway, and any qualified person who disagrees is being paid or threatened by the government".

It's so clear that the Chinese spacewalk was faked that it makes a good litmus test to separate the sophists from the truth-seekers.

In your opinion. In my opinion, it wasn't faked.

You and truegroup both argue that it was real so the viewers can decide for themselves whether to take you two seriously.

You were arguing on another forum that ISS spacewalks may have been faked in giant pools. Why should anyone take you seriously?

There's lots of footage that was obviously not part of a real moon mission such as the way Collins' jacket corner moves in this video when they were supposed to be halfway to the moon.
http://www.livevideo.com/video/7720A028ADB54169962B6961582AEC2F/apollo-xi-the-little-gem-par.aspx
(4:10 time mark)

You have yet to prove that it is not consistent with being filmed in gravity. You've been labouring this point for 2 years and only have your entrenched belief rather than actual evidence.

It moves the way it would move in strong gravity as do the dogtags around his neck.

You need to prove that it can't possibly move that way in zero gravity. This has been explained to you many times on different forums. I'm not surprised that you've been unable to do that so far.

You destroyed your credibility on two different forums when you "Explained" that the movement of the jacket corner and dogtags was consistent with zero-G. Go ahead and explain it again. Everybody is watching.

It's consistent with zero g. Your inability to understand why does not a conspiracy make. I'm still waiting for your irrefutable evidence that it could not possibly have been filmed in zero g. Actually, I've stopped waiting, because we both know it ain't gonna happen.

There is some evidence that the missions were faked that's so clear that this slow-motion issue isn't about whether they faked the moon missions; it's about how they faked the moon missions. No apollo-believers have ever been able to explain the way the flag moves without being touched in this clip. The only explanation that holds water is the atmophere explanation; slow-motion explains the speed at which it moves and the length of time which it moves.

The atmosphere explanation has been shown to be false due to the subsequent motion of the flag. You simply try to hand-wave it away by saying "slow-motion". That won't wash I'm afraid. You've been asked many times to provide actual direct evidence that supports your claim. Can you provide data from experiments you've done? Do you have video of someone hopping past a similarly-sized nylon flag, showing similar movement (i.e. pendulum-like swing, same time period, regular oscillations, lack of atmospheric damping, lack of billowin or rippling)? A nylon flag the same size will cost you 5 Euros. The World Cup is on, you can easily find one. If you don't have your own video camera, most mobile phones have one, or you could borrow a friends. I'm sure you're capable of rigging a bar a right angles to the pole. Set up the scene similar to the one in question from Apollo 15. Get a friend to bounce past. Download a freebie piece of software and slow the speed down to whatever speed you claim it was slowed down to. Let's see both your clip and the Apollo 15 clip side-by-side, and we can all make our minds up based on direct evidence.

The viewers are waiting David.

While you're getting your equipment together, please address the two studies I did on the site you claimed showed inconsistencies in the photo and video footage.

Come on Paraguay! :)

[headlikearock]

Since the title of this thread is "The slow motion issue of the Apollo hoax", why doesn't anyone who has doubts about the issue raised by the OP prove it for themselves.

http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/astronomy/moonwalkpd250.jpeg

http://www.exo.net/~pauld/activities/astronomy/marswalk.html

[eyeballkid88]

So any proof of this worldwide conspiracy involving thousands?

Anyone with evidence that can be believed or just theories?

David ICkes guide the global conspiracy and how to end it......

This is what your looking for mate, will connect the dots and give you proof your looking for ....

but obviously youll have to make the effort of reading it...

[ultima1]

but obviously youll have to make the effort of reading it...

But isn't the book just theories and not real evidence as already pointed out?

[eyeballkid88]

no mate...

Its spot on....

[ultima1]

no mate...

Its spot on....

Isn't his book fictional???

So show the facts that it would hold up as actual evidence in court.

Because my facts can hold up as evidence in court.

[eyeballkid88]

yeah mate they can hold up in court ... no worries...

[ultima1]

yeah mate they can hold up in court ... no worries...

Isn't his book fictional???

How would a fictional book hold up as evidence in court???

[eyeballkid88]

no its not fictional, its factual...

Hold up in court no problem...

[ultima1]

no its not fictional, its factual...

Hold up in court no problem...

It not factual from what i have seen written about it, its moslty called sci-fi.

Sci-fi is not real and would not hold up in court.

[eyeballkid88]

I dont know what reviews your reading....

Its factual... you can cross refernece everything he puts forward...

[ultima1]

I dont know what reviews your reading....

Its factual... you can cross refernece everything he puts forward...

But its a fictional book.

[eyeballkid88]

no mate its factual.....

based in fact...

verifiable fact...

[wanaknow]

But its a fictional book.

Its a factual book and contains the most thought provoking information you'll ever read, all researched, verifiable, and well connected, Open your mind, read it, and then even you may just accept that nothing is what it seems, even perhaps the Apollo missions!

[truegroup]

Its contains the most thought provoking information you'll ever read, all researched, verifiable, and well connected.

Open your mind, read it, and then even you may just accept that nothing is what it seems, even perhaps the Apollo missions!

There is NO evidence at all provided by DI to show the Apollo missions faked.

[eyeballkid88]

hey true ....

dont make me skip to the moon chapter ;)

Hey thanks for thos links I will check them out....

thanks mate..

[wanaknow]

There is NO evidence at all provided by DI to show the Apollo missions faked.

Truegroup - You really need to take those blinkers off and see the bigger picture and then you'll realise, that just because the PTB say something happened doesn't mean it happened the way the PTB say.

[headlikearock]

dont make me skip to the moon chapter ;)


I haven't read any of Icke's books, but according to (both positive and negative) reviews, and other discussions on the forums, he believes that the moon is a hollowed out artificial construct, inhabitd by 12 foot high shape-shifting aliens, who are broadcasting a fake version of reality, that is picked up by human RNA/DNA strands and converted into a warped view of reality.

Can you verify is this is correct? If so, could you precis the evidence he provides in support of this claim? Surely to make a claim so specific and (on the face of it) sci-fi inspired, he must have some extremely robust evidence to enable him to come to this conclusion?

Thanks

[eyeballkid88]

why dont you read one of his books and see for yourself...

I know its a bit of a novel idea for you and several others it seems...

[eyeballkid88]

I haven't read any of Icke's books, but according to (both positive and negative) reviews, and other discussions on the forums, he believes that the moon is a hollowed out artificial construct, inhabitd by 12 foot high shape-shifting aliens, who are broadcasting a fake version of reality, that is picked up by human RNA/DNA strands and converted into a warped view of reality.

Can you verify is this is correct? If so, could you precis the evidence he provides in support of this claim? Surely to make a claim so specific and (on the face of it) sci-fi inspired, he must have some extremely robust evidence to enable him to come to this conclusion?

Thanks

So now you want me to skip to this chapter too.... cant catch a break with you lot ;)

[paulside]

I haven't read any of Icke's books, but according to (both positive and negative) reviews, and other discussions on the forums, he believes that the moon is a hollowed out artificial construct, inhabitd by 12 foot high shape-shifting aliens, who are broadcasting a fake version of reality, that is picked up by human RNA/DNA strands and converted into a warped view of reality.

Can you verify is this is correct? If so, could you precis the evidence he provides in support of this claim? Surely to make a claim so specific and (on the face of it) sci-fi inspired, he must have some extremely robust evidence to enable him to come to this conclusion?

Thanks

You haven't read any of his books, you expect others to verify everything, and you sneer condescendingly at the very thought, ( althought I can fully understand why this all seems to much to comprehend ) read 'The Biggest Secret' and move on from there.

[truegroup]

You haven't read any of his books, you expect others to verify everything, and you sneer condescendingly at the very thought, ( althought I can fully understand why this all seems to much to comprehend ) read 'The Biggest Secret' and move on from there.

I've seen ALL his videos and read all the books up to The Biggest Secret, and flicked through a few of the latter ones.

I know my DI. I excercise my right to argue that he is not right on everything he says. Reptiles and Hollow Moons will never do it for me.

I am not surprised that somebody would be aghast at the Moon Matrix contention, it has no factual evidence to support it. Same as Apollo.


Truegroup - You really need to take those blinkers off and see the bigger picture and then you'll realise, that just because the PTB say something happened doesn't mean it happened the way the PTB say.

Bullshit. I wear no blinkers, I have a comprehensive understanding of what DI says about the world, pyramids, PRS, NWO, reptiles et al.

The Apollo Moon landings were not hoaxed. They had no reason to do so, there were 400,000 people involved at various points.
Even now, 40 years ago, scientific evidence cannot dispute they landed.

Dipshit HBs pish about with their silly little debunked contentions, then conveniently forget to BUNK the 95% of video/telemetry/witness accounts/rocks/photos/audio - that DON'T have moving flags, lens flares, 'odd shadows' blah blah blah.

You get morons like JW on yooochoob, faking school projects with their teacher, passing themselves off as some sort of authority, then lackies like David C, posting the results all round the forumsphere(oh SO many times!). As though repeating garbage is proof.

They landed on the Moon, take off YOUR blinkers.

[eyeballkid88]

ok..... lets calm down abit everyone...

we have strong views here for sure....

Lets see if we can respect other peoples opinions...

Thanks.. :cool:

[headlikearock]

You haven't read any of his books, you expect others to verify everything, and you sneer condescendingly at the very thought, ( althought I can fully understand why this all seems to much to comprehend ) read 'The Biggest Secret' and move on from there.

I wasn't sneering or being condescending at all. I just asked for verification of DIs claims about the moon that I've read in book reviews and other forums. They are of mixed opinion, but in the main the book reviews are positive.

I'll ask again, politely, if anyone can verify that it is indeed DIs contention that 12 foot high shape-shifting aliens are broadcasting an alternative reality from an artificial moon that is decoded by human RNA/DNA strands, and if so, what evidence does he provide to support that claim?

Thanks again.

[eyeballkid88]

Why dont you read the book, or other books he has written he has been covering his reptillian 4th dimensional interactions for decades, and his moon work has only just been launched with this latest publication......

One thing it is importnat to understand is that for this to be explained wont take two paragraphs on a forum....

It is clear the approach your coming from, hence the skepticism from other posters so thinking about it , you may be right, it may well be a waste of time you doing any research at all...

Yes David Icke believes the moon is a hollowed out Plantoid dragged here by and alien race... his proof is people like you...

And to add..... evidence cant be presented in a couple of paragraphs..

Crikey, I do get annoyed by uninformed people like yourself wanting to be spoon fed like a baby, with closed minds... I never understand why your type are here...

So well done for annoying me, I hope I have made your day... :)

[eyeballkid88]

Damn it, maybe this guy is a government shill and Ive just given him the way to annoy people...

I bet their top guys are all over this thread ...

DAMN IT!!!!!!!!

;)

[ultima1]

Its a factual book and contains the most thought provoking information you'll ever read, all researched, verifiable, and well connected, Open your mind, read it, and then even you may just accept that nothing is what it seems, even perhaps the Apollo missions!

To bad there is actual real evdience that prove the moon landing.

Its not fictional its real.

[ultima1]

Truegroup - You really need to take those blinkers off and see the bigger picture and then you'll realise, that just because the PTB say something happened doesn't mean it happened the way the PTB say.

Yoy do not need to go by what the PTB says, all you have to do is something called research and you will find the actual facts and evidence.

Why do you and others go by what is in some fictional (NOT REAL) book tells you ???

[eyeballkid88]

And this is why there is forums as people have different opinions.. and different views, as i have said before I am really not sure about the moon issue..

On thing I would like to do is publicly thank Ultima for his strong strong (not fully informed due to disregarding information without investigation) views as they have produced some terrific rebutals that have put some new information in fornt of me and others...

So thanks mate, youve made a difference..:)

[eyeballkid88]

Yoy do not need to go by what the PTB says, all you have to do is something called research and you will find the actual facts and evidence.

Why do you and others go by what is in some fictional (NOT REAL) book tells you ???

Its factual mate....

however youd never know as you havnt read any...

lol...

height of ignorance is to disregard wihtout information... brilliant.. :)

[ultima1]

On thing I would like to do is publicly thank Ultima for his strong strong (not fully informed due to disregarding information without investigation) views as they have produced some terrific rebutals that have put some new information in fornt of me and others...

Well its just too bad i have done lots of research to find the real fascts and evidence instead of going by what some FICTIONAL book tells us.

[headlikearock]

Why dont you read the book, or other books he has written he has been covering his reptillian 4th dimensional interactions for decades, and his moon work has only just been launched with this latest publication......

Quite simply, I don't have the time. If someone were to give me a short precis of the actual evidence he presents regarding those specific claims, then I might be tempted to part with my hard-earned cash. If there is no evidence, only unsupported claims, then I'd rather save my money and my time.

One thing it is importnat to understand is that for this to be explained wont take two paragraphs on a forum....

I'm not asking for an explanation. I'm asking for a quick precis or summary of the evidence that he provides to support his very specific claims about the moon being an artificial construct which is used as a transmitter of a fake reality. Either the evidence exists, or it does not. If it does not, then he is asking people to believe what he says on faith, and I'm not interested. If the evidence does exist, and is presented in the book, then I may choose to investigate further.

It is clear the approach your coming from, hence the skepticism from other posters so thinking about it , you may be right, it may well be a waste of time you doing any research at all...

So humour me, and give a few bullet points that show why he is right about the moon.

Yes David Icke believes the moon is a hollowed out Plantoid dragged here by and alien race... his proof is people like you...

I'm sorry but that is just silly. People like me are proof that the moon is hollow and was dragged here by aliens? Is that the level of 'evidence' he presents in the book? You think I should pay money to read hogwash like that?

And to add..... evidence cant be presented in a couple of paragraphs..

I'm sure it can be summarised more than adequately in a couple of paragraphs. Unless it doesn't exist? I certainly hope it's better than "People like you are proof the moon is hollow".

Crikey, I do get annoyed by uninformed people like yourself wanting to be spoon fed like a baby, with closed minds... I never understand why your type are here...

I'm asking for a quick summary of evidence, so I can go from there and do some more research if the claims sound like they may be based in evidence rather than supposition. If you're unwilling or unable to do so, then don't reply. Maybe someone else who has read the book can be more helpful.

TIA.

[eyeballkid88]

@ ultima...

Theres no need to get so upset.....
and by all means feel free to call the book fictional if it makes you feel better , your free choice and perogative....

What I find incredible, is how you can assess something without actually investigating it....

unfortunately what this does is throw all the research that youve done into question... has all the research youve done so far been based on taking a position and then not actually looking at the info then?

Sounds like you wouldnt be able to find anything out that way??

[eyeballkid88]

Quite simply, I don't have the time. If someone were to give me a short precis of the actual evidence he presents regarding those specific claims, then I might be tempted to part with my hard-earned cash. If there is no evidence, only unsupported claims, then I'd rather save my money and my time.



I'm not asking for an explanation. I'm asking for a quick precis or summary of the evidence that he provides to support his very specific claims about the moon being an artificial construct which is used as a transmitter of a fake reality. Either the evidence exists, or it does not. If it does not, then he is asking people to believe what he says on faith, and I'm not interested. If the evidence does exist, and is presented in the book, then I may choose to investigate further.



So humour me, and give a few bullet points that show why he is right about the moon.



I'm sorry but that is just silly. People like me are proof that the moon is hollow and was dragged here by aliens? Is that the level of 'evidence' he presents in the book? You think I should pay money to read hogwash like that?



I'm sure it can be summarised more than adequately in a couple of paragraphs. Unless it doesn't exist? I certainly hope it's better than "People like you are proof the moon is hollow".



I'm asking for a quick summary of evidence, so I can go from there and do some more research if the claims sound like they may be based in evidence rather than supposition. If you're unwilling or unable to do so, then don't reply. Maybe someone else who has read the book can be more helpful.

TIA.

Havnt read the chapter however I feel I have a strong understading on where he is coming from...

from the sounds of things for a time poor individual, this prob isnt the place for you..

As all our beleifs here will fly in the face of everything youve been taught thus far...

Alot of his information requires you to see through your programming and once that occurs everything becomes more and more obvious...

But if you havnt got that way in, and it sounds like you arent there yet mate, particularly if "you havnt got time" youd be wasting your time reading his books in the first place...

For a lot of people 9/11 is a great way in, once people realise that the world is not as it seems it allows you to start connecting the dots ....

as for meat and potatoes conspiracy, its all verifiable and provable... they did us a all a favour by making 9.11 soooo obvious...

[ultima1]

@ ultima...
What I find incredible, is how you can assess something without actually investigating it....

I have investigated it and fouind it to be a fictional book.

Sounds like you wouldnt be able to find anything out that way??

Can you show me evidence of how a fictional book will hold up in court?

[eyeballkid88]

you havnt read it right?

[eyeballkid88]

I dont know what book you are talking about as a fictional book wouldnt hold up in court(the bible for example) hehe, I can smell your religious...

David Ickes Alice in Wonderland would hold up in court however....

[eyeballkid88]

I have investigated it and fouind it to be a fictional book.





oh cool......

what is your investigation process??

[ultima1]

oh cool......

what is your investigation process??

Researching what all the major publication outlets call it and say about it.

Now can you post the actual facts the book has supposed to have researched?

[eyeballkid88]

so not looking at the data itself...

very interesting view...

so basing you view on what other people say....I think i can see a patern here...

So is this the way you reseach normally?

[ultima1]

So is this the way you reseach normally?

Now can you post the actual facts the book has supposed to have researched?

[eyeballkid88]

Mate, its huge it covers a massive amount of data....

Im not here to spoon feed you, i cant cut and paste pages..

Form Norad, to the pentagon... its all in there...

Have a read, you never know, as he does cover other areas too, it might just change your life..

When you stare facts in the face it can do miraculous things...


I reckon we stick to the fuel tanks, planes 9/11 thread and seve doing this across two threads... I know theres loads of people that are toally sick of us....

And rightly so in my view...

[headlikearock]

Havnt read the chapter however I feel I have a strong understading on where he is coming from...

from the sounds of things for a time poor individual, this prob isnt the place for you..

It's a discussion forum about whether the moon landings were faked using slow-motion.

As all our beleifs here will fly in the face of everything youve been taught thus far...

I have absolutely no problem with people believing whatever they choose to.

Alot of his information requires you to see through your programming and once that occurs everything becomes more and more obvious...

But if you havnt got that way in, and it sounds like you arent there yet mate, particularly if "you havnt got time" youd be wasting your time reading his books in the first place...

For a lot of people 9/11 is a great way in, once people realise that the world is not as it seems it allows you to start connecting the dots ....

as for meat and potatoes conspiracy, its all verifiable and provable... they did us a all a favour by making 9.11 soooo obvious...

I get the message. You either can't, or won't, present a short summary of the actual evidence DI presents in his book to support the notion that the moon is a hollowed out artificial construct, beaming alternate reality to human DNA receptors.

To anyone else other than eyeballkid who has read the book, can you please summarise any of the evidence that DI presents to support this notion?

Thanks again.

[ultima1]

I reckon we stick to the fuel tanks, planes 9/11 thread and seve doing this across two threads...

Well just read the facts i have posted from Boeing about how the fuel tanks work and you will know the truth.

[eyeballkid88]

I havnt read the specific chapter mate, as I have mentioned previously...

there is several links in this section of the forum so you can have the man himself give you a breakdown...

Ill go and find one for you... arent I nice...

[eyeballkid88]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116403

here you go mate...

[eyeballkid88]

open your mind, leave pre concpetions at the door before you view that thread...

IMHO best way to look at new information...

[eyeballkid88]

Well just read the facts i have posted from Boeing about how the fuel tanks work and you will know the truth.

Your a stange boy Ultima, I was talking about us making sure we dont repeat the same information across two different threads...

Its these comments ones like this that dont link, misunderstanding of simple concepts, that make others think your a computer...

[headlikearock]

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116403

here you go mate...

Is this a reply to me? Is the evidence about the moon presented in one of those videos? Do you know which one?

Cheers

[david c]

(from post #157)
They were walking by the flag, his arm brushed it. Simple really.
Hey HeakLikeARock-

Do you agree with truegroup here?
Apollo 15 flag waving - YouTube
Initial Apollo 15 Flag Movement - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MoonFaker%3A+Flagging+The+Dea d+Horses&aq=f

[truegroup]

Hey HeakLikeARock-

Do you agree with truegroup here?

It doesn't actually matter whether he believes the movement was caused by static electricity or by gentle brushing. The difference of any opinion doesn't point to your insanity as being the truth.

Your logic is that of the spamming strawman, who ignores all replies, in favour of the most UNLIKELY option as being the cause.

Mythbusters talk about the HB contentions icluding wires and flag shit:
Re: Prepare to be Busted - Mythbusters Debunked addendum - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAqF3MOKDTg

Various flag and wires debunking - all ignored by cosmored/rocky/david c/Fat Freddie (the same person):

Lunar Jump Height Calculation - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5s7yEQ3C5E

More Moon Stupidity - Apollo 15 Flag - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbJvgqoeFSU

A15 flag follow-up - perspective and lenses - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymgxYZhENsA

White Noise, Moon Hoax Pt. 8A -- Willywill84's "Investigation" - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL4Qe-DrIUc

White Noise, Moon Hoax Pt. 8B -- Willywill84's "Investigation" part 2 - YouTube
www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZVizLzh2bM

YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPBpx6LQ4eY


People who see your sycophantic reposting of Jarrah White, should also note that Jarrah is a known liar. He fabricated a video with his teacher and passed it off as a discussion with an experienced photographer!
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058984679&postcount=1159

[ultima1]

Its these comments ones like this that dont link, misunderstanding of simple concepts, that make others think your a computer...

Sorry if my facts and evidence get in the way of your theories.

[iwant_tobreak_free]

^ Very good post -- thank you david c.

I would only modify one little point.

When you say ...

"...they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity" ...

I would modify that slightly by saying ...

"... they used a simple fifty percent slow-motion to simulate what
the public has been duped into thinking lunar gravity looks like."

Because there is no reason to believe that movement in actual low gravity
environments would appear to be in slow motion (with the singular exception
of free falling objects).

But, I do fully agree with your post. I believe there is also a sped-up video
of the "astronauts" driving their moon rover around. When it is shown at
faster speed it looks exactly like someone driving it on Earth would look
(which is, of course, what it really was).

as is shown in every single modern sci fi production, you throw something in low gravity and it will travel for a very long distance. yet if u look at the movement of apollo astronauts, its very short distances, earth sized differences.

[headlikearock]

as is shown in every single modern sci fi production, you throw something in low gravity and it will travel for a very long distance. yet if u look at the movement of apollo astronauts, its very short distances, earth sized differences.

I'm sorry but that's just wrong. Even hardcore Apollo HBs don't subscribe to that, they subscribe to the video being slowed down.

In addition, there is video of at least one object being thrown a LONG way, with photographic evidence backing up where it landed. I think it was Apollo 17, possibly Eugene Cernan. I might be wrong on that detail.

[ultima1]

as is shown in every single modern sci fi production, you throw something in low gravity and it will travel for a very long distance. yet if u look at the movement of apollo astronauts, its very short distances, earth sized differences.

Still beating a dead horse. How many times are you keep posting old debunked BS ???

Stuff thats been debunked for decades.

[eyeballkid88]

Is this a reply to me? Is the evidence about the moon presented in one of those videos? Do you know which one?

Cheers

Lazy, lazy boy.. I wont bother next time...

[eyeballkid88]

Sorry if my facts and evidence get in the way of your theories.

Well unfortunately your "facts" no longer hold any water, as you investigation techniques are solely based or what other people say about a subject....

You dont investigate the actual information... no wonder your confused...

[tabea_blumenschein]

Regarding the "walking speed" question headlikearock raised some pages back.


According to my copy of University Physics, the natural walking pace of a human or animal can be approximated as the period the leg would have if it were allowed to swing back and forth in simple harmonic motion.

If we crudely model the leg as a rod of uniform density, the moment of intertia with the axis of rotation at one end is:

I = 1/3 * ML^2

And the period of the rod/leg swinging back and forth can be determined by:

T = 2 * pi * sqrt(I / MgL/2)

Or:

T = 2 * pi * sqrt(2L / 3g)

The Moon's gravity is 1/6th as strong as the Earth's, so if the g in the denominator stands for Earth gravity, it becomes g/6 for the Moon, which puts a 6 in the numerator of the fraction.

Therefore, since everything else in the equation stays the same, I'd say the natural walking speed of a human on the Moon is slower than the natural walking speed on Earth by a factor of sqrt(6), or 2.45. In other words, if you complete a stride in one second on Earth at a natural walking pace, you'd complete a stride in roughly 2.45 seconds on the Moon at a natural walking pace.

All this is a very rough, first order approximation, of course. I looked at the "locomotion on Mars" page headlikearock linked to, but it had nothing to say about the Moon. It'd be interesting to know how good (or not so good! :D) that approximation is.


Headlikearock: you raised some excellent questions, questions that don't seem to have occured to our Moon hoaxers. Nicely done.

[ultima1]

Well unfortunately your "facts" no longer hold any water, as you investigation techniques are solely based or what other people say about a subject....

What about you believing what is stated in a fictional book. Talk about facts not holding water.

Also why can't you post what is asked of you ???

NO MORE POST FROM ME UNTILL YOU CAN BE MATURE ENOUGH TO POST WHAT IS ASKED FOR.

[tenzingnorgay]

[QUOTE=camreeno;1059002196]Yeah, but how many people who believe in the landings actually did any research? [/QUYOTE]

Well i bet money that a lot more people then who believe the fantasy of no moon landing.

If they did any research at all the hoaxers would come acoss several facts like the probes from other countries that have taken photos of the landing sites.

No such photos exist.

[eyeballkid88]

What about you believing what is stated in a fictional book. Talk about facts not holding water.

Also why can't you post what is asked of you ???

NO MORE POST FROM ME UNTILL YOU CAN BE MATURE ENOUGH TO POST WHAT IS ASKED FOR.

Mate, you are stating something is fictional without looking at one page of the information...

That for me means you are in no position to judge....

Its like me thinking Arnold Schwarzenegger is Black because someone told me so, and then refusing to look at a picture of him...

I think stopping posting is probably the best idea for you mate...

You seem tense...

[ultima1]

Mate, you are stating something is fictional without looking at one page of the information...

Your credibility is a joke, you believe what you have been told from a FICTIONAL book.

Also you cannot post information asked for to prove the book is not FICTIONAL.

Does not get much worse then that for credibility.

GOOD BYE.

[eyeballkid88]

How do you know its fiction?

did you ask someone else or read it yourself??

:cool:

[ultima1]

How do you know its fiction?

Why can't you prove me wrong, prove it is not fictional or move on.

[eyeballkid88]

Firstly calm down mate...

its ok for everyone to have different views...

Ok... now the book is factual...

You will have to read it, to find its factual... I cant post an entire book onto a forum Mate....

[david c]

Why did some of the links I posted in post #3 disappear?
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058967358&postcount=3

There were links to seven videos in post #3 when I originally posted it. Five of them disappeared and the essence of the post was lost. Here's the original post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

[i_am]

Why did some of the links I posted in post #3 disappear?
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058967358&postcount=3

There were links to seven videos in post #3 when I originally posted it. Five of them disappeared and the essence of the post was lost. Here's the original post.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

Because it is a glitch :)

From editing your post it would appear there were only the five that have been restored, the same ones that you reposted.

Instead of reposting, please report the post where vids have disappeared and a moderator will fix it for you :)

[ultima1]

Firstly calm down mate...

its ok for everyone to have different views...

Ok... now the book is factual...

You will have to read it, to find its factual... I cant post an entire book onto a forum Mate....

Good bye, not going to respond to a joke and a troll.

[truegroup]

Regarding the "walking speed" question headlikearock raised some pages back.

According to my copy of University Physics, the natural walking pace of a human or animal can be approximated as the period the leg would have if it were allowed to swing back and forth in simple harmonic motion.

If we crudely model the leg as a rod of uniform density, the moment of intertia with the axis of rotation at one end is:

I = 1/3 * ML^2

And the period of the rod/leg swinging back and forth can be determined by:

T = 2 * pi * sqrt(I / MgL/2)

Or:

T = 2 * pi * sqrt(2L / 3g)

The Moon's gravity is 1/6th as strong as the Earth's, so if the g in the denominator stands for Earth gravity, it becomes g/6 for the Moon, which puts a 6 in the numerator of the fraction.

Therefore, since everything else in the equation stays the same, I'd say the natural walking speed of a human on the Moon is slower than the natural walking speed on Earth by a factor of sqrt(6), or 2.45. In other words, if you complete a stride in one second on Earth at a natural walking pace, you'd complete a stride in roughly 2.45 seconds on the Moon at a natural walking pace.

All this is a very rough, first order approximation, of course. I looked at the "locomotion on Mars" page headlikearock linked to, but it had nothing to say about the Moon. It'd be interesting to know how good (or not so good! :D) that approximation is.

Headlikearock: you raised some excellent questions, questions that don't seem to have occured to our Moon hoaxers. Nicely done.

I missed this first time round with all the crap from ultima1 and eyeballkid88 spewing out over multiple threads (STILL!!).

Nice to see our figures agree:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1058994323&postcount=59

[eyeballkid88]

Good bye, not going to respond to a joke and a troll.

no worries ....

Thanks for your input...

[ultima1]

I missed this first time round with all the crap from ultima1 and eyeballkid88 spewing out over multiple threads

Sorry if my posting facts and evidence are getting in the way.

[headlikearock]

Lazy, lazy boy.. I wont bother next time...

I didn't know if the videos were posted in response to me, or someone else. I've watched the first one and got the info I needed, thanks. No need for the constant attitude though is there?

[eyeballkid88]

Mate, I thought you would have had a little bit more experience using internet forums...

Attitude, ever heard of Psychological projection?

[headlikearock]

All this is a very rough, first order approximation, of course. I looked at the "locomotion on Mars" page headlikearock linked to, but it had nothing to say about the Moon. It'd be interesting to know how good (or not so good! :D) that approximation is.


Headlikearock: you raised some excellent questions, questions that don't seem to have occured to our Moon hoaxers. Nicely done.

Thanks. It would make a refreshing change if the OP would either try and counter the rebuttals, or withdraw the original claim of this thread.

Graflok? Over to you!

[ultima1]

Thanks. It would make a refreshing change if the OP would either try and counter the rebuttals, or withdraw the original claim of this thread.

Graflok? Over to you!

People like Graflok and eyeballkid88 do not do rebuttals or withdraw claims. That would mean having to admit they are wrong and they cannot do that.

[graflok]

Thanks. It would make a refreshing change if the OP would either try and counter the rebuttals, or withdraw the original claim of this thread.

Graflok? Over to you!


Contrary to common belief, this forum is not a court or a "scientific debate" or
anything but a place to express opinions or discuss topics related to the
David Icke's works.

I have already written repeatedly what I believe to be the truth and those
who disagree have a right to express their views.

It makes no difference to me what the detractors say they believe. Why
should it? They have a right to believe anything they wish and they have
not changed my views in the slightest. If anything they have demonstrated
that this topic is worrisome enough for them to expend considerable energy
in their attempts to invalidate it -- and that is more than enough confirmation
for me. In fact I am now more certain than ever that there is something to
this. Whenever the "debunk bugs" come out of the woodwork you know
you're onto something. :)

Anyone can read what I've already posted and the subsequent "rebuttals"
and comments and come to their own conclusions (which also make no
difference to me).

If in reading over what has already been written on this thread someone
decides my original assertions are invalid then so be it. I'm not on a crusade
and I have more interesting subjects to explore. I am just glad I started a
thread that is of interest.

So, have fun guys. :D

[truegroup]

Contrary to common belief, this forum is not a court or a "scientific debate" or anything but a place to express opinions or discuss topics related to the David Icke's works.
Cobblers.

If anything they have demonstrated that this topic is worrisome enough for them to expend considerable energy
in their attempts to invalidate it -- and that is more than enough confirmation
for me. In fact I am now more certain than ever that there is something to
this. Whenever the "debunk bugs" come out of the woodwork you know
you're onto something. :)
Hmmm, and if nobody had bothered, you'd have offered the reverse argument.
It's not debunking to prove that something is actually scientifically wrong. It is just true, whether it relates to Apollo or not. The facts quoted to show you how gravity works are real, your refusal to believe it is up to you, but please don't offer the 'they're worried' that's why they debunk arguement. You just don't understand it. Period.

There's no reason why you can't still offer your contention that it was all slow motion, but to say gravity wouldn't do that - nope - you're wrong - no doubt -100% proved.

[paulside]

Contrary to common belief, this forum is not a court or a "scientific debate" or
anything but a place to express opinions or discuss topics related to the
David Icke's works.

I have already written repeatedly what I believe to be the truth and those
who disagree have a right to express their views.

It makes no difference to me what the detractors say they believe. Why
should it? They have a right to believe anything they wish and they have
not changed my views in the slightest. If anything they have demonstrated
that this topic is worrisome enough for them to expend considerable energy
in their attempts to invalidate it -- and that is more than enough confirmation
for me. In fact I am now more certain than ever that there is something to
this. Whenever the "debunk bugs" come out of the woodwork you know
you're onto something. :)

Anyone can read what I've already posted and the subsequent "rebuttals"
and comments and come to their own conclusions (which also make no
difference to me).

If in reading over what has already been written on this thread someone
decides my original assertions are invalid then so be it. I'm not on a crusade
and I have more interesting subjects to explore. I am just glad I started a
thread that is of interest.

So, have fun guys. :D


graflok - well said, my thoughts exactly,

[headlikearock]

Contrary to common belief, this forum is not a court or a "scientific debate" or
anything but a place to express opinions or discuss topics related to the
David Icke's works.

I have already written repeatedly what I believe to be the truth and those
who disagree have a right to express their views.

It makes no difference to me what the detractors say they believe. Why
should it? They have a right to believe anything they wish and they have
not changed my views in the slightest. If anything they have demonstrated
that this topic is worrisome enough for them to expend considerable energy
in their attempts to invalidate it -- and that is more than enough confirmation
for me. In fact I am now more certain than ever that there is something to
this. Whenever the "debunk bugs" come out of the woodwork you know
you're onto something. :)

Graflok, I respect your right to believe what you wish. Better to believe in something than believe in nothing!

I find it mildly odd that you think me posting refutations of your claims proves the original claim though! It seems like a self-perpetuating logic:

1. No-one can gainsay me, ergo I'm correct.
2. Someone takes time to show me where he thinks I'm wrong, ergo I'm correct.

;)

Anyone can read what I've already posted and the subsequent "rebuttals"
and comments and come to their own conclusions (which also make no
difference to me).

They can indeed.

If in reading over what has already been written on this thread someone
decides my original assertions are invalid then so be it. I'm not on a crusade
and I have more interesting subjects to explore. I am just glad I started a
thread that is of interest.

So, have fun guys. :D

Moon threads are always of interest to people who believe Apollo happened, and believe it was faked. That's why you shouldn't believe you're onto something just because some other internet-dude takes time to address any issues you might raise!

[headlikearock]

Mate, I thought you would have had a little bit more experience using internet forums...

Attitude, ever heard of Psychological projection?

I do. That experience has shown me that the best way to treat people you've not come across with is how you would in person, in other words pleasantly and politely.

Experience has also taught me that it's not always reciprocated. However, I'm willing to put my hands and apologise, you did after all track down those videos for me. So, sorry chief, no offence intended.

I'll look at that first video a bit more in depth tonight. Ta again :)

[eyeballkid88]

No worries mate...

;)

[apollo_gnomon]

In fact I am now more certain than ever that there is something to
this. Whenever the "debunk bugs" come out of the woodwork you know
you're onto something.

Uh, really? You think that people telling you when you're full of it is proof that you're not??

:eek:

[ultima1]

Contrary to common belief, this forum is not a court or a "scientific debate" oranything but a place to express opinions or discuss topics related to the David Icke's works.

If that is the case then do not express your opinions as fact.

I post facts and post the evidence to support the facts.

I have already written repeatedly what I believe to be the truth and those
who disagree have a right to express their views.

If you are going to post what you believe to be the truth you must provide real evidence to support it.

[headlikearock]

No worries mate...

;)

I've listened to part one. Not remotely convinced by Zulu legends, or the idiomatic expression "rang like a bell". DI does, however, refer to claims made by a couple of Russian scientists in the 70, and another book that claims to use verifiable data, which sounds more promising.

I had a quick look at the book preview on Google books last night (I forget the name). Wasn't overly impressed by the claim that the Sun is exactly 400 times further away from Earth than the moon, that's just an approximation. The value changes as the Earth-moon distance and Earth-Sun distance aren't constant. Not normally an issue, but the authors are making the claim that this 400 figure is one of many integer values surrounding the moon, when examination of the detail shows that it is only an approximation (could be as high as 438 in some conditions).

I'll see if my local library has a copy of the book, I'd be interested in seeing the more technical aspects of the claim which aren't available in Google book's free preview. I'll see if I can dig out more about the Russian scientists as well.

[eyeballkid88]

no wuckers...

Just information... do whateveryou like with it...

To get a full understanding of David Ickes work watch this...

its 8 hrs, but will allow you get a proper feel, as a lot of his information in isolation comes over as lunacy, yet when you connect the dots there can only be one conclusion...

David Icke: Melbourne 2009 part 1 of 46 - YouTube

Good luck

[ultima1]

To get a full understanding of David Ickes work watch this...Good luck

Nice theories and opinions but as usual no facts. FICTION AGAIN.

[eyeballkid88]

Ultima doing his usual level of research...

not actually looking at the information....:D

[ultima1]

Ultima doing his usual level of research...

not actually looking at the information....:D

Your normal level of honesty and maturity. Too bad you cannot post the evidence asked for to support your theory/fantasy.

[paulside]

Nice theories and opinions but as usual no facts. FICTION AGAIN.

The facts are littered throughout ancient history and current world events, just open your eyes,

[ultima1]

The facts are littered throughout ancient history and current world events, just open your eyes,

I see a lot of theories and opinions but no actual facts posted yet again.

Funny how i can post evidence but you guys cannot.

[eyeballkid88]

mate..

you havnt looked at the information... therefore you cannot assess anything...

Its like you saying that Barrack Obama is white and then refusing to look at a photo of him....

we might as well be speaking french, you have no understanding of what we are talking about, not becasue the information is unavailable, but becasue you refuse to look at it, becasue you have heard/been told by other sources that it is fiction, when actually it is based in fact...

and the best thing is that you attitude and the way you have approached this is the Proof that it is fact... you, Ultima, are the proof...

a few to control the many... easy, just get them to have a false concept of who they are and they will defend it to the point of not even looking at information that conflicts false beleifs systems....

Mate, I feel desperately sorry for you, for soemoen to be so brainwashed they cant even bring themselves to open a book, or look at some information that conflicts with their beleif system, for fear it will bring it down and you will finally see for the first time in your life that you have been given fools gold...

However I would like again to thank you for being the example of how deeply conditioned a large proportion of the world is...

Once you have looked at this information then we can have a conversation about fact and fiction, at this stage you have a massive gap in your knowledge, hence why you have zero respect on here..

[ultima1]

mate..

you havnt looked at the information... therefore you cannot assess anything...

I have looked at the information enough to know that its mostly all fiction.

And since no one can post evidence to prove otherwise then i have to stick by it.

[eyeballkid88]

Its good news mate....

your not ready and are unlikely to ever be ready for any of the information presented by david icke... his facts only work on an open mind, something yours is not....

but as opposed to turning this into another nonsense round and round the houses we go, I will simple which you a good day, As Ive got to get up and get in the shower....

Your ignorance is once again exposed, you judge from heresay not fact, you cant assess if something is fact as you dont investigate first hand..

Call yourself a researcher, you simply listen to wha the "majority" say... and hence you cant develop past the norm...