NASA's achievement ... [Archive] - David Icke's Official Forums

thematrix

19-06-2008, 09:18 PM

Wow, they looked so depressed (like honest men being forced to sit there and lie)

They look more like men who have been brainwashed (military trained) to me.

I agree that something stinks about NASA. See the recent "Hacker extradition" case currently on appeal in the House of Lords over Gary McKinnon.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7456216.stm]

A 2006 interview by project Camelot with Gary details what exactly has got US officials described in the BBC report as wanting him to "fry" - info which is curiously omitted from that BBC story.

Gary downloaded 3/4 of an image held on a computer network housed in NASA's "Building 8" which clearly showed a UFO when he got caught. His interest was peaked in NASA building 8 by testimony from one witness from Steven Greers Disclosure project who claimed that building 8 is where photos released by NASA to the public are airbrushed to remove incriminating details.

According to Gary himself it's not what he saw it's what he might have seen and what he might yet still reveal that is driving the US to bring the full force of "the law" down on his head.

[transcript of 2006 interview is here. (http://projectcamelot.org/gary_mckinnon_interview_transcript.html) ]

I subscribe to Richard Hoaglands view as stated on the enterprise mission website of NASA coverup and deceit - rather than the ludicrous idea that man did not go to the moon on apollo.

cruise4

19-06-2008, 09:26 PM

Is that AJ in the middle? Basil Fawlty on the end? What's going on?

hagbard_celine

20-06-2008, 12:39 AM

Yes, they seem very subdued and awkward.

Patrick Moore looks more animated than they do and he;'s never left the Earth!:eek:

pandamania

20-06-2008, 12:45 AM

I subscribe to Richard Hoaglands view as stated on the enterprise mission website of NASA coverup and deceit - rather than the ludicrous idea that man did not go to the moon on apollo.

They are both "ludicrous" ideas - it's just that to me the moon landing hoax one seems more credible than Hogland seeing alien cities on every planetary photo put in front of him.

h2pogo

20-06-2008, 12:58 AM

Interesting his first statement .
" An adventure that took place not in the month of July but took place in the last decade"
then silence and they look awkwardly at each other.

david c

21-06-2008, 08:17 PM

The behavior of the astronauts is mere circumstantial evidence but it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Several years after NASA claimed its first Moon landing, Buzz Aldrin "the second man on the Moon" was asked at a banquet what it felt like to step on to the lunar surface. Aldrin staggered to his feet and left the room crying uncontrollably. It would not be the last time he did this. "It strikes me he's suffering from trying to live out a very big lie," says Rene. Aldrin may also fear for his life.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

There's other circumstantial evidence. The fact that there are so many people on the internet telling obvious lies is circumstantial evidence that the government is engaging in damage-control. If Apollo really happened, why do they have to lie?

Here's an example of a lie.

We all know who Jay Windley is.
http://www.clavius.org/about.html

He and some of the other pro-Apollo posters at Clavius got caught in a big lie on the Clavius forum.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

Jay said he knew what he knew from experience.

He also ducks questions when he's on the spot. Look at repy #3 in this thread.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1584

The guy who started this thread at Clavius did a good job of describing the site.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=997&page=1

The real evidence for the hoax is in the video and still pictures which are in the other moon threads in this section but circumstantial evidence is pretty significant if it all goes in the same direction.

seanz beanz

23-06-2008, 08:58 AM

This is the clip i posted on the moan hoax thread, took me a couple of seconds to find on youtube. There used to be a 10 minute version, i've looked all over youtube for it and cn't find it anywhere. If anyone can seem to find it, it might be worth posting here.

markstephenson

23-06-2008, 09:17 AM

http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/8589/a11xo2.jpg

Especially Armstrong on the left -- "the first man to walk on the
moon."

Armstrong is the one in the middle. Plus this video proves absolutely nothing.

graflok

23-06-2008, 11:51 AM

this video proves absolutely nothing.

No one said it did. :)

eternal_spirit

23-06-2008, 12:05 PM

Is that AJ in the middle? Basil Fawlty on the end? What's going on?

:D

Yes, what a joke the moon hoaxing.

graflok

23-06-2008, 12:07 PM

Oh, but what a joke the NASA huggers!

thematrix

23-06-2008, 05:30 PM

The behavior of the astronauts is mere circumstantial evidence but it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

circumstantial evidence that suggests they are lying (either deliberately or otherwise) - that is all. It doesn't suggest that the lie they are telling is the one that you want to believe it is.

There's other circumstantial evidence. The fact that there are so many people on the internet telling obvious lies is circumstantial evidence that the government is engaging in damage-control. If Apollo really happened, why do they have to lie?

If apollo had discovered irrefutable evidence of ET life and the powers that be wanted to suppress that info - that is an alternative plausible reason for the coverup, there are many others.

The real evidence for the hoax is in the video and still pictures which are in the other moon threads in this section but circumstantial evidence is pretty significant if it all goes in the same direction.

I spent a lot of time last year reading clavius and other debunk sites - and a lot of hoax advocating sites and I can't fnd a sinlge piece of photo/video evidence from Apollo that wasn't explained in a credible scientific straightforward manner - not one.

You are free to believe obviously whatever you like. I would say though that the NASA moon landing hoax could well be the most thoroughly and comprehensively debunked and least credible "conspiracy theory" that has ever been.

graflok

23-06-2008, 06:06 PM

You are free to believe obviously whatever you like.

Thanks. So are you.

thematrix

23-06-2008, 06:34 PM

Thanks. So are you.

thats that settled then :)

while you are around what do you make of Richard Hoaglands theories in general regarding moon/NASA et al - and his evidence re: prism effects in moon photos in particular?

He outlines this prism stuff in this transcript (http://projectcamelot.org/richard_hoagland_interview_transcript_2.html) of a recent project camelot interview (almost at the end of the page)

He says of these "if I had to bet the farm on one piece of data, that we're right, it's these prisms"

(quote from the same interview as the one linked above)

graflok

23-06-2008, 06:49 PM

thats that settled then :)

while you are around what do you make of Richard Hoaglands theories in general regarding moon/NASA et al - and his evidence re: prism effects in moon photos in particular?

He outlines this prism stuff in this transcript (http://projectcamelot.org/richard_hoagland_interview_transcript_2.html) of a recent project camelot interview (almost at the end of the page)

He says of these "if I had to bet the farm on one piece of data, that we're
right, it's these prisms"

(quote from the same interview as the one linked above)

I am currently reading Hoagland's latest book (slowly -- it's not a quick read)
so the jury is still out on him as far as I'm concerned.

In general, I have felt that Hoagland has made some valid discoveries and
contributions but I also feel that he has jumped to some conclusions.

nessa felagund

23-06-2008, 07:08 PM

wow synchro--I have that book too, but I haven't gotten very far (having to share it with my husband :D) Dark Mission: The Secret History of Nasa

I think he has jumped to some conclusions here, too--are those crystal structures? I can't tell from the photos in the book. The shard is an interesting picture--but what it is exactly, I can't tell.

If NASA did find evidence of structures on the moon, they probably would keep that secret.

It is a slow read due to all of the technical information--some of which I don't understand completely.

I am learning a great deal by reading on this topic--that's always fun and exciting ;):)

graflok

23-06-2008, 07:17 PM

Yes, the shard is weird -- for sure. :)

seanz beanz

23-06-2008, 07:22 PM

It doesn't proove anything no. But it does seem highly suspicious when you look at their mannerisms. I watched this video before i'd made a 100% decision as to whether i thought the landings were fake. So i didn't start watching it in a biased way. Watching this was yet another thing that made me think that the landings were faked.

And bear with me, i'm still not 100% sure they were faked. So i'm not saying this is the video that proves the landings were faked, i'm just saying it's thought provoking.

graflok

23-06-2008, 08:06 PM

Yes, lots of body language in that video. :)

pri01

23-06-2008, 08:33 PM

I think that I may have commented on this video before, that these men do not portray the body language that you would see from high achievers. What an achievement not only getting to the moon, but actually walking on it. They should be bubbling with pride, excitement and absolute sparkle. Instead we see withdrawn, miserable and very uncomfortable men with worry written over all of their faces.

seanz beanz

23-06-2008, 11:39 PM

Exactly, think of someone who breaks a world record. They are always full of excitement, even when they're interviewed days or weeks later, they are still full of pride.

david c

28-06-2008, 02:21 PM

I spent a lot of time last year reading clavius and other debunk sites - and a lot of hoax advocating sites and I can't fnd a sinlge piece of photo/video evidence from Apollo that wasn't explained in a credible scientific straightforward manner - not one.
What do you think of this?

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=I_CMgqitv98

At around the 50 second mark Collins starts to jog in place. The corner of his jacket bounces around the way things do in gravity. When he makes an upward movement the corner starts to go up but it doesn't keep going up the way it should according to Newton's first law of motion. The fabric of the jacket is not stiff enough for the corner to be affected by the point on his back where it's attached. It's also not stiff enough to be pushed down by the material above it. I can't see any force making it go back down except for gravity.

Look at the corners of the jacket of this woman astronaut in the space station.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TejsnPThmd4

They behave quite differently.

I know there is other footage that was most likely filmed in low earth orbit but evidently this piece of footage wasn't. It might have been filmed in a diving plane in which they were trying to simulate zero-gravity and the plane wasn't going fast enough at that particular part of the clip.

There's also this clip of the flag moving when the astronaut walks past it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
(2 minute 35 second mark)

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

The astronaut is too far away to have touched the flag.

If it was static electricity, why didn't it move when he was much closer to it at the beginning of the clip? There are lots of other scenes where an astronaut is close to the flag on other missions and the flag is never attracted to the astronaut.

It it had been ground vibration, why didn't the pole or the rod move too?

Slow-motion would explain the length of time the flag continues to move after the astronaut goes past it.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021

There's also the evidence of the spotlight.

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=rhoWabHSm_g
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1gD2P-Po_Gk
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EaV7QB_ReTw

There's a lot more.

http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3622009579385499503
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-3186616594425246748

http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=4135126565081757736
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=-7335269088210976286

thematrix

29-06-2008, 04:52 AM

What do you think of this?

At around the 50 second mark Collins starts to jog in place. The corner of his jacket bounces around the way things do in gravity. ... I can't see any force making it go back down except for gravity.

Whiplash. Take hold of a teatowel hold it so it dangles down vertically and your hand is at the top - move your hand from side to side fairly quickly - you'll see a ripple effect. It looks to me that this is what the jacket is doing as the astronaut jogs on the spot.

Look at the corners of the jacket of this woman astronaut in the space station.

They behave quite differently

you are comparing two jackets seperated by 40 odd years of technology (presumably they are made of different fabric) in the first case the astronaut jogs on the spot - in the second case the astronaut moves around very slowly , and horizontally. Of course their jackets behave differently in these different conditions.

There's also this clip of the flag moving when the astronaut walks past it
The astronaut is too far away to have touched the flag.

If it was static electricity, why didn't it move when he was much closer to it at the beginning of the clip?
It it had been ground vibration, why didn't the pole or the rod move too?

The flag appears to oscillate slightly in close up - it's first slight movement being inwards. I would put that down to ground vibration as the astronaut walks past. It seems that the pole is vibrated enough to make the very lightweight flag material vibrate a little, but not enough to make the pole appear to move on the video.

Show me video footage of the flag moving significantly when no astronauts are near it and you start to have a case. I have not seen any, as far as I am aware there is no such footage. You even state ...

There are lots of other scenes where an astronaut is close to the flag on other missions and the flag is never attracted to the astronaut.

This is more evidence that there is NO atmosphere wherever these scenes were filmed, which adds more weight to the argument that they did go to the moon and thats is where this happened.

Also look at the flag near the start of the clip and you'll see the whiplash effect I think is responsible for the astronauts jacket movement. It sems that in less gravity this effect is more pronounced.

There's also the evidence of the spotlight.

This is interesting - tho I note that there is lots of speculation and not a great deal of evidence. This would be easy to reconstruct on earth. On a bright summers day with no clouds take a guy with a helmet similar to the astronauts and film him walking around for a while using a video camera of similar tech as they used on the moon - while you are at it take a bunch of still frames with a hasselbad camera.

Has anyone done this?? - not that I can see. That simple exercise would add agreat deal of weight to these arguments or would destroy them totally. All I see is "why is this reflection pentagonal" and similar arguments - well that could possibly be due to light artifacts in the camera lens (lensflare effects) or similar.

I find all of that interesting and possibly worthy of testing as I outline above - but no more than that.

Also you'd think a lot more photographic experts would have spotted this rather than the guys who have come forward who have questionable credentials at best.

There's a lot more.

yes there is.

Howabout I ask you a few questions.

There is video footage of dust thrown up by the lunar rover following a parabolic arc - a ballistic trajectory - as it falls back to the surface. How do you explain that being filmed on an earth based soundstage?

If the space race was so closely fought - and the Russians clearly had technology to track objects in space - why did they not immediately cry FOUL!!!! - if the Americans didn't go to the moon. They were the best placed out of anyone to tell whether it was as claimed or not. Despite all the rivallry of the cold war they haven't come out and pointed to moon fakery. Why do you suppose that is? What possible reason could they have for keeping quiet? Exposing this as fake would have been a HUGE propaganda coup for them.

Out of all the possible media outlets that the moon hoax could have broken on, it happened on Fox News. Don't you find that odd? Fox News that bastion of unbiased american reporting. puhhlease... (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44949)

I still do not see credible evidence that the moon landings were faked. I totally agree that NASA is covering things up and mostly lying about all things space. That much is very obvious. To say tho that this points to fake moon landings is stretching things a bit. I think it is much more credible to suggest that NASA found stuff on the moon that they are keeping very quiet about.

While I agree witrh a couple of the posters above the Hoagland does jump to some conclusions, and I do not believe everything he says. I find that his evidence for prisms that point to there being ruins of structures made from glass on the surface of the moon a much more likely story.

right at the end of this page (http://projectcamelot.org/richard_hoagland_interview_transcript_2.html) which is a transcript of a recent interview with him he outlines this prism evidence. I find that to be very compelling evidence of glass artifacts present on the moon.

graflok

29-06-2008, 01:41 PM

Are these men really hurting each other?

Can you prove that they are or are not faking it?

What evidence do you have?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jo802YPyAY&feature=related

david c

29-06-2008, 04:38 PM

There is video footage of dust thrown up by the lunar rover following a parabolic arc - a ballistic trajectory - as it falls back to the surface. How do you explain that being filmed on an earth based soundstage?

Here's a video that shows the arc.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npARfNtO7u8

It's discussed in this video.
http://www.thule.org/brains/moon.rm

I once mistakenly thought that the flow of the soil went like the arrows show in this picture.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/grandprix01.jpg

It was explained to me that the soil moves according to the arrows in this picture.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/gp_frames_2.jpg

I don't see how you can say it follows a parabolic arc. We'd have to follow the trajectory of some soil thrown at a low angle and for that we'd need to freeze the clip frame by frame. I tried double clicking on the mouse fast but I still can't grab enough frames that are close enough together to follow the trajectory of some soil thrown up at a low angle.

Do you know of any other footage that shows an arc of dust? This is the only one I know about and it doesn't look parabolic to me.

and the Russians clearly had technology to track objects in space - why did they not immediately cry FOUL!!!!
You're just assuming that what we were reading reflected reality. Have you read Chomsky's analysis of the cold war?

http://www.salon.com/audio/2000/10/05/chomsky_propaganda/

(Do a search on "Cold war" in these articles)
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/1989----02.htm
http://www.chomsky.info/interviews/200105--.htm

Whiplash. Take hold of a teatowel hold it so it dangles down vertically and your hand is at the top - move your hand from side to side fairly quickly - you'll see a ripple effect. It looks to me that this is what the jacket is doing as the astronaut jogs on the spot.

I don't see your point here. How does this prove that Collins was in zero-gravity?

The flag appears to oscillate slightly in close up - it's first slight movement being inwards. I would put that down to ground vibration as the astronaut walks past. It seems that the pole is vibrated enough to make the very lightweight flag material vibrate a little, but not enough to make the pole appear to move on the video.
The slight movement away from the astronaut is consistent with the wave of the approaching astronaut and the movement toward the astronaut is consistent with the draft caused by his passing.
There would have been noticeable movement in the flag pole and the rod if vibration had caused the movement of the flag.

Show me video footage of the flag moving significantly when no astronauts are near it and you start to have a case. I have not seen any, as far as I am aware there is no such footage. You even state ...

I fail to see how footage of a flag moving when no astronauts are near it makes it clear that the flag moved because of atmosphere when the astronaut walked by the flag.

Show me video footage of the flag moving significantly when no astronauts are near it and you start to have a case. I have not seen any, as far as I am aware there is no such footage. You even state ...

You're being simplistic. I've never seen any other footage where the astronaut walks by the flag at the same speed that he does in this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4
(2 min 35 sec mark)

Post some other footage of astronauts near the flag that makes your point and we can discuss it.

Also look at the flag near the start of the clip and you'll see the whiplash effect I think is responsible for the astronauts jacket movement. It sems that in less gravity this effect is more pronounced.

Please be more specific. I can't see what you're referring to here.

There's also the evidence of the spotlight.
This is interesting - tho I note that there is lots of speculation and not a great deal of evidence.
I've seen the reflections of lights on convex surfaces all my life and I know what size the reflections of objects should be. Those reflections in the visors are of objects much bigger than the sun. They also do comparisons of real reflections of the sun in the visors of astronauts in low earth orbit.

thematrix

29-06-2008, 06:32 PM

Here's a video that shows the arc.

I once mistakenly thought that the flow of the soil went like the arrows show in this picture.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/grandprix01.jpg

It was explained to me that the soil moves according to the arrows in this picture.
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r81/headlikearock/gp_frames_2.jpg

I don't see how you can say it follows a parabolic arc.

Do you know of any other footage that shows an arc of dust? This is the only one I know about and it doesn't look parabolic to me.

I got the "parabolic arc" from Phil Plaits "Bad Astronomy" site. Whether the arc is actually parabolic isn't the point. The point is that in an atmosphere dust will billow out and form dust clouds - in this video it doesn't it falls quickly back to the surface of the moon. You can even time how long it takes for the dust to fall and compare this with the rate of fall in a vacuum under the moons gravity.

I don't see your point here. How does this prove that Collins was in zero-gravity?

it doesn't - it just points out that you can't compare how the jackets move cos the footage you are using to comapre is significantly different.

There would have been noticeable movement in the flag pole and the rod if vibration had caused the movement of the flag.

not necessarily. The pole and rod are both heavier than the flag - it's possible the rod moves very slightly so that the video camera doesn't capture it - but the flag does move slightly as it weighs less and the camera does capture that movement. This isn't exactly a high definition close up shot of the flag.

You're being simplistic. I've never seen any other footage where the astronaut walks by the flag at the same speed that he does in this clip.

I've never seen any footage where a flag moves while no astronaut is near it. If there is an atmosphere there are winds. If there are winds there ought to be footage of the flag moving independantly - when no astronauts were near it that cannot plausibly be explained by vibration in the flag pole.

Also look at the flag near the start of the clip and you'll see the whiplash effect I think is responsible for the astronauts jacket movement. It sems that in less gravity this effect is more pronounced.
Please be more specific. I can't see what you're referring to here.

In the video clip where the astronaut exclaims "it does look like it waves when you do that" (or similar) right near the start of the clip watch the bottom right corner of the flag - it "whiplashes" the same way that the astronauts jacket does in the first clip you posted.

I've seen the reflections of lights on convex surfaces all my life and I know what size the reflections of objects should be. Those reflections in the visors are of objects much bigger than the sun.

Well I haven't - and I would point out that you are watching a reflected object that is then captured on film through a camera lens which could possibly distort such reflections. You also have to take into account the possible effects of zooming - dust on the camera lens distorting the picture - possible overexposure of the film causing the white of the reflection to increase in size....

read through this thread (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=951&page=1) it explains it better than I can.

david c

29-06-2008, 10:04 PM

I got the "parabolic arc" from Phil Plaits "Bad Astronomy" site.
Please post it.

The point is that in an atmosphere dust will billow out and form dust clouds - in this video it doesn't it falls quickly back to the surface of the moon. You can even time how long it takes for the dust to fall and compare this with the rate of fall in a vacuum under the moons gravity.
It's possible to sift and wash sand to make it dust-free to simulate a vacuum.

I don't see your point here. How does this prove that Collins was in zero-gravity?
it doesn't - it just points out that you can't compare how the jackets move cos the footage you are using to comapre is significantly different.
This is too general. What we have to do is look at every piece of footage where the astronauts are near the flag. We have to analyze whether they are walking in a way that would cause a draft that would make the flag move.

not necessarily. The pole and rod are both heavier than the flag - it's possible the rod moves very slightly so that the video camera doesn't capture it - but the flag does move slightly as it weighs less and the camera does capture that movement. This isn't exactly a high definition close up shot of the flag.
I doubt it. That was a pretty significant movement of the flag. I see no movement whatsoever of the pole and the rod. There would be some noticeable movement. Also, the way it moves is consistant with a gust of wind. Wouldn't it have moved from the top down if it had been caused by vibration?

You're being simplistic. I've never seen any other footage where the astronaut walks by the flag at the same speed that he does in this clip.
I've never seen any footage where a flag moves while no astronaut is near it. If there is an atmosphere there are winds. If there are winds there ought to be footage of the flag moving independantly - when no astronauts were near it that cannot plausibly be explained by vibration in the flag pole.

As I said before, we have to analyze each piece of footage. These general statements don't prove anything.

In the video clip where the astronaut exclaims "it does look like it waves when you do that" (or similar) right near the start of the clip watch the bottom right corner of the flag - it "whiplashes" the same way that the astronauts jacket does in the first clip you posted.
I just looked at it and it doesn't look like that at all to me. I just see the flag moving the way it would naturally move because it had been handled. I see the corner of Collins' jacket swinging back and forth the way it would in gravity. I can't identify what you're pointing out.

and I would point out that you are watching a reflected object that is then captured on film through a camera lens which could possibly distort such reflections.
Nothing else is distorted. Why would only the reflections be distorted?

There's an interesting discussion of that here
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11139

I'm the one who started that thread that you linked to from Clavius.

If you look at these pictures, you'll see that the glare is what makes them look big. If we can see the actual reflection of the sun, it will look a lot smaller.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=951&page=2#26483

Clavius is the worst place to get information.
When the pro-Apollo posters there can't handle a topic, the moderator rides to their rescue and controls the situation.

I wanted to see how objective they were by asking them to analyze a picture.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=951&page=3#26491

Look at the posts that followed. They avoided it because they couldn't deal with the subject.

I had to open a new account because I wasn't able to stay logged in due to "Technical problems".
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=support&action=display&thread=1786

I got banned for thirty days for using non-Apollo info to further my argument.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=971&page=1
(reply 33)

I continued the discussion in the "Other conspiracy theories" section so that I could use non-Apollo info to further my argument.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=othertheories&action=display&thread=1575

The pro-Apollo people couldn't discredit what I was saying so the moderator closed the thread with a lame excuse.

I had a discussion with them about their banning policy.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=announce&action=display&thread=1401&page=12#37483

The discussion goes on for several pages.

Then there's the issue I mentioned in this post from this thread.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=394909&postcount=8

I've got more evidence that Clavius is a government damage-control site that I can post.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

I can show you some stuff about "Bad Astronomy" too.

Those people from Clavius are not truth-seekers. The fact that the Clavius site is there at all is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax because liars and lying are not needed to prove something if it's really true as the truth always prevails in the end.

thematrix

30-06-2008, 12:26 AM

Please post it.

Google it.

It's possible to sift and wash sand to make it dust-free to simulate a vacuum.

however it is NOT possible to simulate the gravitational effects of the moon on a soundstage based on the earth.

Time how long the dust takes to fall to the surface - compare that figure with how long dust would take to fall to earth in our gravity - and how long it would take in the moons gravity.

This is too general. What we have to do is look at every piece of footage where the astronauts are near the flag. We have to analyze whether they are walking in a way that would cause a draft that would make the flag move.

While you are analyzing also work out the approximate wind force that would be exerted on the flag - work out how much such a draught would move the flag in this eventuality - compare the answer to your calculations to how far the flag moves in observed video.

A much simpler way would be to say that if there is an atmosphere - by definition there is wind.

Find a single piece of footage that shows the flag moving with no other likely cause for that movement other than wind and then you have a case.

That was a pretty significant movement of the flag. I see no movement whatsoever of the pole and the rod. There would be some noticeable movement.

Our definitions of the word "significant" seem to vary wildly.

why would there be observed pole/rod movement?? - we see a lightweight flag oscillate maybe as much as a centimetre back and forth. The rod/pole would have to move a tiny fraction of that amount to cause the flag to move that much - we can't even see the rod it's encased in fabric.

Also, the way it moves is consistant with a gust of wind. Wouldn't it have moved from the top down if it had been caused by vibration?

not necessarily - and if this is the only evidence you have for a flag moving when none is touching it I think thats a very poor case.

Nothing else is distorted. Why would only the reflections be distorted?

can you prove that nothing else is distorted? Why would overexposure of the bright reflection on the visor cause other elements of the picture to be noticably overexposed. What credentials for photography do you have - and if you have none whos expert opinion have you based your own opinion on?

Clavius is the worst place to get information.
When the pro-Apollo posters there can't handle a topic, the moderator rides to their rescue and controls the situation.

all I see is a poster called "Rocky" trolling incessently and then eventually getting banned for it (and not without fair warning)

I've got more evidence that Clavius is a government damage-control site that I can post.

Go for it - I could use a laugh.

I have read all of Clavius - I find it to be very credible. In my opinion it pretty much single handedly destroys Hoax advocates claims that the moon landings were faked.

Those people from Clavius are not truth-seekers.

why would they be - they sound like scientists, astronomers and people with specific scientific knowledge to refute such claims.

The fact that the Clavius site is there at all is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax because liars and lying are not needed to prove something if it's really true

The fact that clavius is there is NOT circumstantial evidence of a hoax. It is evdence that some people that have the appropriate background wanted to set the story straight and put right the many claims of Apollo hoax advocates.

truth always prevails in the end.

Well at least you got that right. I will be the first to hold my hands up and say I was wrong if it turns out that Apollo was faked. Hell I'll even publically apologise to you in this event.

I have an open mind here - I am that objective poster you were whining about finding on the apollohoax threads I read. I still do not see credible evidence that apollo was faked.

What is the single biggest thing you can point to that convinces you apollo was fake? and why is this evidence so damning??

I see evidence of NASA lying - and evidence of coverup - but by itself that doesn't prove anything other than NASA is lying.

david c

30-06-2008, 08:27 PM

I have read all of Clavius - I find it to be very credible. In my opinion it pretty much single handedly destroys Hoax advocates claims that the moon landings were faked.

I guess I have to ask you specific quesions.

What do you think of this?

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1094

Jay Windley said that he knew from experience that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Any high school science student knows that's not true.

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

http://www.clavius.org/about.html

Tell us what you think about what Jay Windley and the rest of those posters said. The issue of billowing dust was being discussed.

thematrix

30-06-2008, 09:20 PM

I guess I have to ask you specific quesions.

What do you think of this? ... Any high school science student knows that's not true.

how many high school science students did you ask?

what percentage of them gave you the answer that you considered correct?

How representative a sample of high school science students was the sample you questioned?

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

I am quoting one of the responses you got in that thread below. I have added my own emphasis in bold

As has been said, washed and clean sand will not erode just by moving it. Sand has a high surface area to volume ratio (at least if it's sub-rounded or better), which makes it stronger against breaking. But also, it is nearly impossible to fully clean sand. You can wash it and wash it and there will likely still be some dust left, hidden in small pits on the sand surface that stuck to the sand when wet but when dry may fly away. Also, the water you use to wash with likely has dust particles in it as well (unless you use distilled water or something), which will be on the sand grain once the water evaporates off, not to mention any dissolved elements that solidify once the water is gone.

Tell us what you think about what Jay Windley and the rest of those posters said. The issue of billowing dust was being discussed.

I think it somewhat DESTROYS your claim that "any high school science student would know" seeing as these posters in the threads you highlight on apollohoax.net do have a more advanced scientific education than a high school student.

You acknowledge this in the about link you just posted where it details his experience.

Your own post on a Geology forum gets a response that says "it is nearly impossible to fully clean sand" and you still insist that that thread completely supports your point of view on sifted sand.

Here is a question for you.

Do you accept that as gravity on the moon is different to gravity on the earth that objects falling to the surface as a result of gravity will demonstrate different times to do that?

i.e. it ought to take longer on the moon for a golf ball to fall to the surface when dropped from a certain height than it would if we dropped the same ball from the same height in a vacuum on the surface of the earth.

david c

01-07-2008, 10:15 PM

You're missing (or ignoring) the point. Jay Windley said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. That is not true and Jay said he knew it was true from experience. Jay Windley lied about science. That is the issue. Please address that issue.

thematrix

01-07-2008, 10:47 PM

You're missing (or ignoring) the point. Jay Windley said that just transporting and placing dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Well there are a number of variables here you aren't taking into account.

How far is the washed sand transported? How is the washed sand transported and what forces is it subjected to during this transportation?

Say the sand is on the back of a truck, loose and is driven a very long distance over a bumpy road compared to the sand being individually packed one grain at a time in bubble wrap and carried by hand for a short distance before placing - we could describe both of those scenarios as "the sand is transported"

That is not true

You can't say that without being very specific about how the sand is transported and packed.

Also what evidence do you have - I mean actual solid evidence that this is even possible??? Who have you asked about this??? How can you prove that a) it is possible to wash sand to remove dust completely? and b) it is possible to transport that sand without creating dust?

and Jay said he knew it was true from experience.

I suspect in his work as an engineer Jay has in fact transported particulates (sand is a particulate) and during such transportation dust was observed to be produced as a result of that. I don't know for sure but if I was going to ask someone about this I would ask an engineer that uses particulates in the course of their work and not a geologist.

Jay Windley lied about science.

How can you possibly prove that statement when you asked him a very badly phrased question about something scientific.

You *have* to be very very specific with the questions you ask about scientific things - otherwise you get ambiguous answers.

Until you can prove a) and b) AND you can prove that Jay either has had no such experience in transporting washed particulates - or has had experience of this where no dust was produced then saying:

Jay Windley lied about science.

is just wild speculation. It's probably libellous.

I'd be careful making such statements without evidence to back them up as they could well land you in court if the person you are making them about happens to be litigious.

saab1981

02-07-2008, 12:53 PM

Maybe they were subdued because they could'nt say a word about the extra-terrestrial life they witnessed - but wanted to.

david c

02-07-2008, 01:04 PM

To thematrix

You ignored this but all the viewers saw it.

http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/forum/q_and_a/a_strange_scenario_re_sifted_sand

(excerpt from post #3)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moving and sifting sand is unlikely to produce any finer grains (unless you really go at it and whack it with hammers or something!).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(excerpts from post #6)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
transportation and dumping the sand will not be enough to cause dust creation unless you had a very dirty an dusty transport container.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
driving a vehicle thru it will not creat dust either (unless you repeat the process insanely often to grind down the sand grains
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(excerpt from post #12)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As has been said, washed and clean sand will not erode just by moving it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If anyone has any doubts about this, he or she can go to the nearest university and ask a physics professor. I've asked a few people with backgrounds in geology about this and they thought it was such a basic point that they laughed.

Now let's see how objective you are about the "Bad Astronomy" website.

Look at the reason the moderator gave for closing this thread.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-39.html#post893592

Read posts #1094 and #1123 and you will see that the reason he gave was bogus. Those people were getting very desperate in that thread and were saying some pretty lame things. Those are the same people who argue that Apollo was real at both the Bad Astronomy and Clavius forums.

They were saying that the object on the right in this picture was smoke...
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

...and that the plane was in front of it but was moving so fast that the camera didn't pick it up even though they had a clear picture of what smoke really looked like.
http://marinecorpsmars.com/Misc/MISC_Images/TW_pent1.jpg

The moderator knew that they all looked silly so he desperately closed the thread.

Here's something else.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html

Look how the moderator lamely closed this thread before a debate could even take off. He knew his people couldn't handle the topic so he desperately closed the thread before too many people could see it.

Tell us what you think of the Bad Astronomy website. Should we take what those people on its forum say seriously?

thematrix

02-07-2008, 03:30 PM

To thematrix

You ignored this but all the viewers saw it.

*sigh*

You see elements in that thread that support your conclusions - I see elements in that thread that do not.

I still do not understand why this one single thread as you claim catches Jay in some "big lie". You are talking about one single thread on a geology forum - you have absolutely zero idea about what credentials the people that responded to that thread have - they could all have phd's in sand transportation - they may all be high school students who like playing with rocks.

If anyone has any doubts about this, he or she can go to the nearest university and ask a physics professor.

now we need to ask physics professors ?? before it was geology professors.

I've asked a few people with backgrounds in geology about this and they thought it was such a basic point that they laughed.

who have you asked??

what other evidence can you point to that helps to prove your case?

Do you have any statements from qualified people other than 1 small thread on a geology forum with a mixture of positive and negative statements from people who may or may not be qualified to give an expert opinion to support your point of view?

Have you actually tried conducting an experiment - if not why not?

Now let's see how objective you are about the "Bad Astronomy" website.

lets not.

This is a web based forum - it is for discussion - this particular thread was posted to discuss the video posted in the OP of the Apollo astronauts. It's title suggests that things relating to "NASA's achievement(s)"... would be pertinant topics to discuss here.

You are turning this thread into pages of verbiage about sifted sand and what my personal opinion is of people who seem to have banned you from posting on their forums. My opinion on Jay or anyone else is waaaaaaaaay off topic.

Please start a new thread in an appropriate area of the forum for that discussion if you wish.

They were saying that the object on the right in this picture was smoke...

What do photographs of the Pentagon immediately before it got hit by something have to do with NASA or Apollo??

I refuse to discuss things about Apollo with you any further unless and until you answer some of the questions I have asked you about Apollo in this thread. Discussion is suposed to go both ways.

Here is my main question for you again.

you posted:

It's possible to sift and wash sand to make it dust-free to simulate a vacuum.

Lets assume for the sake of argument that you are correct.

Would you agree that:
It is NOT possible to simulate the gravitational effects of the moon on a soundstage based on the earth.

We can time how long the dust takes to fall to the surface - we can work out very precisely how far that dust fell. (we don't need to use dust there are other objects observed falling in various apollo video footage - the feather and the hammer spring to mind.)

We can work out using mathematics how quickly those items ought to fall in both earth gravity and in lunar gravity and compare those calculated speeds to observed speeds.

Do you agree that this would be a good scientific experiment to conduct to try and work out using proper real science where the footage might have been filmed?

You have ignored this question several times, (the one I have written in bold red above) it is something I would like to discuss in this thread which I think is relevant to the topic.

david c

02-07-2008, 07:29 PM

You see elements in that thread that support your conclusions - I see elements in that thread that do not.

I still do not understand why this one single thread as you claim catches Jay in some "big lie". You are talking about one single thread on a geology forum - you have absolutely zero idea about what credentials the people that responded to that thread have - they could all have phd's in sand transportation - they may all be high school students who like playing with rocks.

Quote:
If anyone has any doubts about this, he or she can go to the nearest university and ask a physics professor.

now we need to ask physics professors ?? before it was geology professors.
This is a pretty basic fact in science and I doubt you are going to convince any viewers that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over as Jay Windley and those other posters said it would.
who have you asked??
No, I'm not going to post the identieties of any people I've consulted. They wouldn't want me to post their identities and it doesn't matter anyway. Anyone who has a doubt can ask a physics or geology professor.

Now let's see how objective you are about the "Bad Astronomy" website.
lets not.

This is about what I expected from you. Most pro-Apollo people whom I've asked the same question always manage to avoid answering it because it's so clear that those pro-Apollo posters at Bad Astronomy are not sincere truth-seekers that if they try to say they are, they'll just look silly.

You are turning this thread into pages of verbiage about sifted sand and what my personal opinion is of people who seem to have banned you from posting on their forums. My opinion on Jay or anyone else is waaaaaaaaay off topic.
I would say that this is within the the topic because we are discussing circumstantial evidence that Apollo was faked. The fact that there are dishonest people insisting that Apollo was real is circumstantial evidence that it was faked. Those same people who commented in the Pentagon thread that's in question insist that Apollo was real. That puts the credibility of the whole "Bad Astronomy" site into question. This is an Apollo-related topic.

Please answer these questions.

What do you think of the way the moderator closed this thread with a bogus reason?
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-39.html#post893592
(Read posts #1094 and #1123 and you will see that the reason he gave was bogus.)

What do you think of the way the moderator closed this thread before a serious discussion could even start?
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html

Considering what I posted about the "Bad Astronomy" forum, do you think that what those posters say about Apollo deserves serious consideration? Do you think that "Bad Astronomy" is a credible site that should be taken seriously?

Lets assume for the sake of argument that you are correct.

Would you agree that:
It is NOT possible to simulate the gravitational effects of the moon on a soundstage based on the earth.
They used slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity. There's a lot of evidence for this.

http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1021

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

thematrix

02-07-2008, 08:47 PM

This is a pretty basic fact in science and I doubt you are going to convince any viewers that just transporting and placing dust-free sand will cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over as Jay Windley and those other posters said it would.

again you are ignoring how the sand is transported and how it is put in place - if the sand is placed by whacking it down onto the surface with a hammer I'd say it is a pretty basic scientific fact that dust will be produced.

This is all irrelevant tho.

No, I'm not going to post the identieties of any people I've consulted.

quelle surprise.

I would suggest that you have in fact consulted precisely nobody at all. I see no evidence (outside of of your infamous geology thread) that you have done so.

how about answering this.

HAVE YOU DONE AN EXPERIMENT TO TEST YOUR HYPOTHESIS?

...assorted verbiage about my opinion of people posting on other forums snipped...

completely irrelevant - please stick to the topic.

Start a new topic about peoples opinions of these people you mention in an appropriate place if you must. I will not answer those questions in this thread.

They used slow-motion to simulate lunar gravity. There's a lot of evidence for this.

that didn't answer my one simple question.

The one I even highlighted for you in bold red in my previous post.

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

look pretty similar to me - care to outline why you think there is a difference and what that difference is?

david c

03-07-2008, 03:12 PM

completely irrelevant - please stick to the topic.
In post #28 you cited something from "Bad Astronomy" to further your argument so whether Bad Astronomy is a credible source of information is withing the topic. Please answer my question.

What do you think of the way the moderator closed this thread with a bogus reason?
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-39.html#post893592
(Read posts #1094 and #1123 and you will see that the reason he gave was bogus.)

What do you think of the way the moderator closed this thread before a serious discussion could even start?
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html

Considering what I posted about the "Bad Astronomy" forum, do you think that what those posters say about Apollo deserves serious consideration? Do you think that "Bad Astronomy" is a credible site that should be taken seriously?

david c

03-07-2008, 03:16 PM

My account seems to be having technical problems. I had a lot of trouble staying logged in when I was doing that last post. If I stop posting it's not because I abandoned the thread.

thematrix

03-07-2008, 05:22 PM

In post #28 you cited something from "Bad Astronomy" to further your argument so whether Bad Astronomy is a credible source of information is withing the topic. Please answer my question.

It seems that discussion is imposible with you. You keep askng me the same questions repeatedly - and make no effort to engage in useful discussion or answer any questions I ask of you.

I cited "Bad Astronomy" as a source of a line of a quote I mentioned briefly.

You are aksing my opinion on the Bad Astronomy forum

In any case what I think of Bad Astronomy's website, forum or of Phil Plait the guy behind Bad Astronomy is of little relevance.

What is relevant is whether NASA faked Apollo - and whether there exists enough evidence available to prove conclusively one way or another if they did or if they did not.

I would like to discuss NASA's achievements, what they might be covering up, ways in which we might examine the available evidence objectively and scientifically to determine whether or not they are lying to us.

If you (or other posters) want to talk about that, then great lets have some discussion.

david c

03-07-2008, 09:35 PM

You refuse to answer this question.

What do you think of the way the moderator closed this thread with a bogus reason?
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/48507-911-pentagon-39.html#post893592
(Read posts #1094 and #1123 and you will see that the reason he gave was bogus.)

What do you think of the way the moderator closed this thread before a serious discussion could even start?
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/49821-cia-cocaine-smuggling.html

Considering what I posted about the "Bad Astronomy" forum, do you think that what those posters say about Apollo deserves serious consideration? Do you think that "Bad Astronomy" is a credible site that should be taken seriously?
You seem to be cornered. You can't discredit what I've presented because it's too obvious that the moderator and posters of the Bad Astronomy forum are not sincere truth-seekers.

If you play dumb when evidence is presented, you know what people are going to think.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
----------------------------------------------------------------
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry but this is a legitimate Apollo-related issue as Bad Astronomy is one of the biggest pro-Apollo sites there is. The issue of its credibility is very relevant to the Apollo debate. If you were to ignore this issue in a debating hall with an audience, the audience would laugh you out of the hall for your behaviour. You can pretend all you want but you're cornered.

If you want me to continue debating with you, you have to answer the question as I really don't want to waste time with someone who is not a sincere truth-seeker.