Moonwalkin'

[REASON]

Originally Posted by DougF

well I just looked though all of the videos and well let me start out buy saying that I grew up watching this on the TV stayed up all night when they went around the dark side of the Moon for the first time and I have heard all of the conspiracy theories before and even look at their evidents.

now, having said that the reflection of the sun on the visors the lack of m moon dust on the lander legs (and no blast hole under lander) the scenery shots with and without lander radiation ...................

well to tell you the Truth it makes me wounder now,
I'll have to see of i can do some more research.


I can see why you are questioning this, and I hope it is not true I would hate to think I spent my whole life living a lie.

Not so fast Doug.

One thing I noticed immediately about the reflections in the visors is that in each comparison, it was between a more current photo of an astronaut with current high-resolution photographic technology, and visor material that is more advanced in it's reflective quality, and old photos using cameras, film and visors of the Apollo era. It's like comparing apples to oranges. There is no uniform, consistant reflection of the Sun when using varying materials. Are we to believe that there have been no advancements in camera and visor technology in 30 years? Compare the way the reflection of the Sun differs between varying reflective materials such as a mirror compared to plain glass, compared to polished steel. Not to mention camera technology, lens technology, and film technology each of which have an impact on the capture and presentation of light. This type of evidence might be more compelling if it were made between photos of a similar period. And even then, not enough by itself to sway me.

Also, if you watch the clips on the big spotlight theory, in one instance, they suggest that it is one big spotlight, and some sort of thermal type imagery reveals the big light bulb inside. In another clip, the giant light is characterized as a conglomerate of numerous lights. Which is it?

There is also the presumption of multiple light sources given the divergence of shadows, and the illumination of objects in shadow. But this has been shown to simply be caused by perspective and variations in the terrain. Objects in shadow are simply illuminated by the other true light source, the Moon. Sunlight reflecting off of the lunar surface illuminates the objects in shadow. Simple experiments have been conducted to prove this. Also, if there were multiple light sources as in a studio, there would be multiple shadows, such as you see under a baseball player in the outfield during night games.

Believing that there should be a blast crater under the LEM is like believing that you should leave skid marks on the street every time you come to a stop in your car. Considering the low gravity of the Moon, enough thrust to form a blast crater would shoot the lander above the surface, not allowing it to land. There really isn't that much thrust required to land on the Moon. In the video of the Lunar landing, you can clearly see dust streaming away from underneath the lander. But there just isn't enough pressure to form a blast crater as is suggested by HBs.

The photos of Lunarscapes with and without the landing craft is simply an example of parallax. Distant objects don't appear to move while closer objects do. It's like my son asking me why it looks like the Moon is moving with us as we drive along. On the Moon, where there is no atmosphere, it is more difficult to distinguish the relative sizes and distance of objects in the landscape. Distant mountains may appear smaller and closer than they actually are. So as the astronaut moves from here to there taking photos, the distant scenery doesn't change relative to closer objects and can make it appear that the closer objects have disappeared. Doesn't this all seem so basic?

And cosmos' slow motion theory he keeps referring to doesn't seem to take into consideration the corresponding audio. We are than to believe that there was never any live footage from the Moon because all the audio had to be dubbed in after the production was slowed down, or else the actors had to learn how to speak like Alvin and the Chipmonks during the production so that their voices would seem normal once the video was slowed down. Of course this doesn't explain the interactive conversations between those in Houston and those in the movie studio, and the corresponding video footage at both locations.

I could go on-and-on with this stuff. It doesn't matter. Rationale is not at work with Moon hoax believer's. The thrill of believing you're in the know is more compelling than to believe we set foot on the Moon for these people.

Pick a topic cosmored. I'll play along. As you can see by my number of posts, I haven't put enough time in on these fruitless efforts.

[Turtle]

I heard a guy* on the radio last night who is the American representative of that Swiss UFO character Billy Meyer, and he said that Billy said, that the aliens said, that only the first mission was faked, Walt Disney was in on it, and the rest of the Moon landings were real. Shhhhh...mum's the word. :

*TheyFly.com

[CraigD]

I believe Apollo hoax conspiracy theories cast shame not on NASA, Buzz Aldrin, Bart Sibrel, or any of the other agencies connected with it, but rather on the SFX industry, who, despite decades of producing images able to convince reasonable viewers that a sword can be made of light and hosts of other unlikely to physically impossible things, no effects shop has yet, to the best of my knowledge, rendered a physically realistic image of vehicle or astronaut operations on the Moon, leaving 1968’s 2001:A Space Odyssey’s antique effects arguably the best yet.

I, for one, would be awed to see the scenes hoax conspiracy theorists believe were made in a movie studio be made now, either with actors and full size or miniature models in a studio, or virtually. In particular, this shot (2MB .mpg video) of a rover kicking up fine dust that falls like sand would be quite an accomplishment to do in any manner short of shooting it in an actual vacuum (or actually, even doing it that way).

[modest]

Originally Posted by CraigD

I, for one, would be awed to see the scenes hoax conspiracy theorists believe were made in a movie studio be made now, either with actors and full size or miniature models in a studio, or virtually.

I found particularly funny the weightless scenes in 'Space Cowboys'. Actors seem to think weightless means slow motion. I think 'Apollo 13' obviously had the best weightless effects - they were shot in NASA's Vomit Comet which is a plane (currently a McDonnell Douglas C-9B Skytrain II) that dives simulating weightlessness for 25 seconds at a time. Movies that can't afford the Vomit Comet are so painfully obvious in their efforts. Some even create ridiculous story lines to avoid the problem. In 'Armageddon' the crew stops at Mir to refuel. They induce some kind of spin to give the scene artificial gravity. How else are they going to have actors running around in a suspense-filled panic?

In any case, you are quite right. The videos of Apollo both on the way to the moon and on the moon are not reproducible to date. Attempts at such things are noticeable to date. It would seem to a moon-hoax-conspiracy-theorist all things are possible that lead to a conspiracy and nothing is possible that leads to a real landing.

-modest

[cosmored]

Pick a topic cosmored. I'll play along.

Do you think Jay Windley and his friends were right, or wrong in this thread.
ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

They said that after treating sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it that just transporting and placing the dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

This tells you who Jay Windley is.
Clavius: Conspiracy - about the author

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by cosmored

Do you think Jay Windley and his friends were right, or wrong in this thread.
ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

They said that after treating sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it that just transporting and placing the dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

Yes.

Here are some quotes from your link:

I'm further agreeing that the material in the Grand Prix video clearly cannot be sand, for it is visibly impressible. And since you are the one proposing that a dustless impressible particulate was created and used for this purpose, it is your burden of proof to show that it can be done and that it was in fact done.

But wait, if we are in fantasy land, why don't we just say that NASA engineered a new kind of sand that doesn't create dust at all! NASA can do anything so long as it doesn't involve technology that could actually take them to the moon.

It's really great that people can think the way you do rocky. It makes perfect sense in that weird little brain of yours that NASA could literally fake anything they wanted but at the same time couldn't use those talents towards actually going to the moon.

Then do it. Make some of this magical dust-free sand and show us footage of a vehicle driving on it in Earth's atmosphere without leaving a cloud of dust.

And then this humorous response to the anti-HB's:

I guess I should just post stuff for the viewers to see and forget about you people. I know you're going to deny everything hell-or-high-water. I never hoped to make you admit anything. All I ever hoped to do was find an anomaly that was so clear that when you tried to explain it away, you'd look silly--this rover footage is it. You all look very silly trying to explain this away.

Oh, that's rich!

So cosmo, why did you get banned from that site?

[REASON]

Originally Posted by cosmored

Do you think Jay Windley and his friends were right, or wrong in this thread.
ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

They said that after treating sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it that just transporting and placing the dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

This tells you who Jay Windley is.
Clavius: Conspiracy - about the author

Well cos, that's a pretty broad question. First of all, I'm not an engineer or any kind of soils specialist, so I have to defer to experts in the field on this one. When I don't have particular definitive evidence, I rely on reason and common sense in the formulation of my opinions.

So in regard to the transportation of soils, I would say yes, it is reasonable to conclude that friction among particles of soil could generate finer dust size particles. How much? Who knows? Depends on how far they had to carry it. Depends on how bumpy the road was. Depends on the type of soil used. Is it stictly sand? Sandy clay? Loamy sand? What size of soil particles are the HB's suggesting were used? What is the cleansing process that they are suggesting was used? Has this cleansing process been reproduced in controlled experiments to verify the ability to produce dust free sand that can be transported and driven over while still maintaining a dust free characteristic? Have the results of this study been published for peer review in order to demonstrate the validity of the theory? Have there been any efforts to reproduce the conditions where sand was cleaned, transported to a location, and placed so that a simulation could be produced using a mock rover driving over the pure sand, and producing video footage of the event that has been slowed to simulate a Moon appearance for comparison to the Apollo footage to show that it could have been faked?

If not, why should I or anyone else for that matter, believe that this explanation is more reasonable and plausible than to accept that what we are actually seeing is the behavior of Moon dust in a low gravity, vacuum environment?

Even if a simulation could be done on Earth, does this prove that the Apollo missions were therefore simulations? Is this potential really enough to warrant the utter suspention of belief in the legitimacy of NASA and the entire Apollo program? It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than this to convince me.

And by the way, I went to K-State so Jay's credentials look pretty good as far as I can tell.

[cosmored]

Well cos, that's a pretty broad question. First of all, I'm not an engineer or any kind of soils specialist, so I have to defer to experts in the field on this one. When I don't have particular definitive evidence, I rely on reason and common sense in the formulation of my opinions.

I think that if a group of scientist put their minds to it, they could manage to create some dust-free sand and manage to transport it and place it without creating enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Jay and his friends say that's impossible. What do you say?

And by the way, I went to K-State so Jay's crudentials look pretty good as far as I can tell.

Of course he has good credentials. The question is whether or not he's a con-artist.

Rules of Disinformation
(excerpt)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4) They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look what Jay Windley says here.

ApolloHoax.net - Rover Footage Filmed on Earth
(excerpt)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sand can be sifted and then rinsed as many times as necessary until there are no dust-sized particles.

Until you try to move it, whereupon more dust is created.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
He didn't realize that he was talking to people who actually are qualified in these fields and actually know what they're talking about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This was discussed on a geology forum.

A strange scenario re sifted sand | GeologyRocks

Jay and his friends seem to have been caught in a big lie. That in itself is is circumstantial evidence that Apollo was a hoax. The real proof is the video evidence.

One thing I noticed immediately about the reflections in the visors is that in each comparison, it was between a more current photo of an astronaut with current high-resolution photographic technology, and visor material that is more advanced in it's reflective quality, and old photos using cameras, film and visors of the Apollo era.

I've seen pictures of reflections of lights on convex surfaces all my life and the only factor I've ever seen to affect the size of the reflection is the curvature of the surface.

I've looked at a few of these sites and I didn't see anything like you describe.
reflections convex surfaces - Buscar con Google

[REASON]

Originally Posted by cosmored

I think that if a group of scientist put their minds to it, they could manage to create some dust-free sand and manage to transport it and place it without creating enough dust to raise a dust cloud when the sand is driven over. Jay and his friends say that's impossible. What do you say?

I say that like you, my opinion on the matter would amount to nothing more than a guess. It's beside the point anyway and you know it. This cleaned and transported sand idea is not intended to be evidence of a hoax. It is intended as a means to try and explain away actual video evidence that displays the behavior of dust on the Moon. It's a way out, nothing more. But a way out proves nothing. It could easily be said that it is possible for aliens from another world to exist. But that wouldn't qualify as evidence in support of someone's claim that they had been abducted by aliens.

Of course he has good credentials. The question is whether or not he's a con-artist.

I would say having good credentials lends credence to the prospect that someone is not a con-artist. But you will project what is necessary to support and protect your beliefs.

I've seen pictures of reflections of lights on convex surfaces all my life and the only factor I've ever seen to affect the size of the reflection is the curvature of the surface.

That is correct, if you're referring to light sources of relatively equal size. So do you have any information as to the relative curvature of Apollo era visors and Shuttle era visors, or do you believe that they are still wearing the same space suits? If the curvature between the differing visors is the same, than it may imply that the hoax perpetrators, with everything that they would have had to account for with no previous experience on the Moon, neglected one of the most obvious.....how large should the Sun appear in the sky.

I've looked at a few of these sites and I didn't see anything like you describe.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by cosmored

Do you think Jay Windley and his friends were right, or wrong in this thread.
ApolloHoax.net - The Dust-Free Sand Issue

They said that after treating sand to make it dust-free by sifting and washing it that just transporting and placing the dust-free sand would cause enough erosion to create enough dust to cause a dust cloud when the sand is driven over.

The only scientifically sound comment I can offer on this issues is: “try it and see”.

A person hypothesizing that one can remove the dust-size particles of sand so that a vehicle can kick up plumes of it that fall to earth at nearly the same rate, allowing a movie sequence like the Apollo 16 “grand prix” to be made on earth should follow the procedure - “get some sand and sift it and wash it so there wouldn't be any particles small enough to float in the air.”, then driving over it in a spinning-wheeled vehicle, or otherwise kicking it up, and see if the resulting video looks like the 1972 video.

In general, an effective way to prove any recorded evidence is a hoax is to make a hoax recording, and show an audience that the two are similar in all important details. This approach serves debunkers of in many areas of interest well, especially stage magicians such as James Randi who use it to show that the supernatural powers claimed by some people can be done using non-supernatural techniques. Sincere moon landing hoax conspiracy theorists would, I think, do better to take this approach than the rhetorical ones with which most of us associate them.

I’m surprised that it-is-a-hoax proponents offer such an elaborate argument, rather than a simpler explanation that NASA, with it’s tremendous financial and engineering resources, built a movie studio-size vacuum chamber, and shot hoax videos in a moderately hard vacuum indistinguishable on film from the moon’s.