pap

Simulating low gravity in a studio is a significant challenge, but to suggest that it was impossible with the effects of the day is nonsense. The best explanation from a hoax-first perspective is a combination of wires, slow motion and dry beach sand. Do you honestly think this video is blokes walking on the moon? Looks very dodgy to me. How come they are never more than a couple of inches off the ground? Why are they so bright? What are those little flashes? Jarrah White's answer:-

Reading this thread, I'm reminded of the time my mates and I spent on magic mushrooms in Southampton (infinitely more interesting place, btw ). An odd characteristic of the hallucinations is that your brain really seems to notice ( and perhaps even create ) patterns. I remember being in Hoglands Park, looking at different patches of grass. No matter where I looked, the grass had exactly the same pattern, as if it were a tiled graphic stretching out into infinity. Told my mates; they looked and saw the same thing. Whether or not they saw the exact same pattern, I don't know. At the time, I briefly considered the notion that it might actually be like that full time, and our optical systems just did a job of generating visual entropy. Shortly afterward, I was dismayed to learn that the Hoglands public bogs had no loo roll, and had to wipe my arse with a sock.

Hello Charlie. Having a nice Sunday, are we? Can I just clear something up? There is very little I actually believe. I'm not religious and my job requires me to hold multiple realities in my head at most times. If I had to put forward any particular notion of what I think the meaning of life is, I'd say it's all about asking your own questions. Unfortunately, that sometimes means questioning the record, and asking questions that make people uncomfortable. In terms of these here moon landings, I think I've been fair. I've conceded points when someone has presented a better set of evidence than me. I've lowered my standard of proof to align myself with Jarrah White. A detailed picture of the landing sites from the VLT would do nicely. I can be convinced. I'm not so sure that the reverse applies.

My thoughts on Flagging The Gems. The transitions are suspect. We don't seem to have much in the way of a continuous tracking shot as they move from a view of Earth to something else. Also, we never see the view of Earth being established. The telecasts of the Earth all begin with a view of the Earth ready to go. The footage toward the end of the film show a very strong case for a confirmed edit on a live feed, which is impossible. The differences between transcript and complete recording suggest another impossible live edit. Sure, the production company is demonstrably lying about the nature of its supposedly complete footage, but that still raises questions about why some of the stuff in the transcript doesn't turn up in the video. Whatever, Clavius and Bad Astronomy have made a lot of hay out of the sunshine of supposedly seamless transitions, yet Jarrah White shows that the footage has been edited. So in answer to Whitey G's point, why is any of this important? Live and recorded are mutually exclusive. If someone is telling you that you are watching live footage when it is in fact, recorded - then I'd argue that damages the credibility of the "live" events that are supposedly unfolding before our eyes.

Currently watching Battlestar Galactica : Blood and Chrome in glorious 1080p. This has been produced as a load of webisodes, but there is a hell of a lot to like. The story follows a young William Adama as he joins the colonial fleet. Justifiably cocky, he has all the drive of the elder Adama (possibly more) but still full of rough edges and the rashness of youth. The space stuff looks glorious, especially in HD - but the clash of the eager young Adama with his battle-hardened colleagues also makes for great drama, even more so as events unfold. Cocky he may be, he's undoubtedly gifted. Seeing Adama do his thing in combat situations is only bettered by the reluctant inspiration he drags from others. Well worth a watch. Hope they go to a full series.

Been a little quiet on this, partly because I was out and about enjoying real life, but mostly to get a better case to present to Whitey Grandad and his trusted lieutenants. I spent an hour watching Jarrah White's Flagging The Gems. He has dissected a number of the telecasts made on the Apollo missions, comparing supposedly complete telecasts with the recorded transcripts. Part of Jarrah's schtick is debunking Clavius and Bad Astronomy. He does so here. Clavius claim the telecasts are uninterrupted seamless live recordings. I think Mr White does a decent job of proving that they were not. Live and edited are sort of mutually exclusive. [video=youtube_share;vifAShq2tvc] Debunk!

Much much better. Specifics we like. First article answers the question, but is just as vague on any shielding used to protect the cameras. Second article is better than the first. On this point at least, I'm almost happy.

If, as I dodder into old age and irrelevance, I was offered the chance of immortality in a Matrix style environment, I'd probably take it.

Sending the same sort of film there and back would be ideal, Whitey G - but if you're going to do that, may as well take a bloke to the moon. You can do an Earth-based test based on the readings collected from Van Allen's geiger counter readings, or at least make an educated guess. Again, nothing special about the film or the camera in terms of shielding from radiation. In the Van Allen belt for four hours, on the moon for even longer. Then let's consider the fact that photographic film has long been used to detect radiation, largely because the reaction happens so fast. ( source BBC GCSE bitesize! http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/science/aqa_pre_2011/radiation/radioactiverev5.shtml ). So yep, standard film, standard camera. 500K round-trip. Pristine pictures.

Excellent news.

Very droll, Whitey G I don't buy it though. You have failed to get this wayward mind convinced on this specific matter, and Clavius don't even address it In their article.

Or not. Whitey Grandad asked me to enumerate things that you could correct me on. That article mentions nothing of camera film, nor does it cover lunar surface radiation.

That is a confirmed image from GeoEye. It is not aerial photography.

And yet, independent tests show that even at low levels of radiation, film is degraded. The report is for space shuttles, which haven't even ventured into the belts ( the one time they got close, things got very squirly ). The film would have had a tough time surviving the dosage levels establshed by Van Allen and his team. The radiation situation was actually made a lot worse by the US and Russia. Both nations detonated nukes in outer space. So if at low levels, film is degraded - then what chance does regular film stand of getting through a 500k mile round-trip which involves a journey through a radioactive sh!tstorm in a poorly shielded craft?

Since you mention photos, Whitey. How's about this one? There was no special protection on the cameras, no special protection on the standard film. This has been confirmed by the people who provided both (Hasselblad & Kodak). Van Allen belt radiation. Lunar surface radiation. Yet the photos are pristine, almost studio quality. Now take a look at this NASA report (page 9, specifically). The entire report is about the effects of space radiation on photography, produced to support the shuttle missions. http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/CR188427.pdf So, NASA are concerned enough about the effects of space radiation on photography to produce a report on best practices for the shuttle. Why is that? After all, they allegedly went all the way to the moon and returned with pristine footage, in the late '60s. That's a problem sorted, surely?

Nvm trousers. Rome from 600km up on GeoEye, eh? The LRO is a ton closer to the lunar surface at all times. Yet the pics are crap.

What's all this, skip? Bit o' context, me ol' china.

Is that a debunking? Seems more like a series of ad hominem attacks. Par for the course.

I'll just post a vid. Give you something to foam over for a few hours. This video was done by a chap called David S Percy. It was made in 2000, features some stunning crimes against fashion, is rather dry - but frankly, I prefer that approach. [video=youtube_share;sKainIQiaKA]http://youtu.be/sKainIQiaKA

Seeing as you don't read links, here's an excerpt from that article I linked earlier http://moonfaker.com/faqs.html And on the Russian side, for the most part the Soviets had relied heavily on Jodrell Bank just to track their own moon-bound spacecrafts because they lacked the capability to do it themselves (this was discussed in the BBC series, The Planets). Although later in the early 60s they were able to build deep space network tracking facilities with a 100million kilometre range, none of these radio telescopes were tuneable to the 2.3GHz (2300MHz) signals used by Apollo. Only at the last minute in November 1968 did they manage to equip their TNA-400 * facility in Crimea with suitable receiving equipment. And even then, because NASA did not supply them with the ballistics data, Soviets were limited to listening to it during the time Apollos 8, 10, 11 and 12 were supposedly in lunar orbit.

How's about you answer some questions first, Charlie. I note with interest that you have nothing to say on the character of your evidence. But assuming you are actually interested in proof and suchlike, there are videos which go into a lot more detail than I have here. Would you like me to post them?

Dunno, Si. The ESO say they can do it. http://amber.obs.ujf-grenoble.fr/spip.php?article154

I'll 'fess to the condescension, but cut me a little slack, Hamilton. I've already said I could be convinced. I quite like this chap Jarrah's idea. He wants them to use the Very Large Telescope in Chile to get a shot of the landing sites. It's capable of resolving lunar detail much better than the LRO. It has been in operation since 2006. I'm a little surprised that the telescope hasn't published pictures of mankind's greatest achievement. I'll not trouble you with the official account of Apollo 13, save to illustrate a couple of things on the public record. First, public appetite for Apollo missions was already diminishing by Apollo 12. People were moaning about I Love Lucy being moved off TV to cover the telecast. The pro-hoax viewpoint posits that the events of Apollo 13 were staged to renew flagging interest in the public by including a moving human story. Another view is that NASA knew they couldn't perpetuate the fraud forever, so Apollo 13 was the near-miss they needed to justifiably withdraw from space travel.

On retroreflectors; catch up. Much to Chapel End Charlie's and Big Bad Bob's annoyance, I think we've firmly established that retroreflectors can and have gotten to the moon without humans putting them there. The point about rocks only really works if you can guarantee me that there isn't 750lb of moon rock already kicking about on Earth.

Do you mean Parkes Observatory? If so, yes, I am aware. This is the world leading radio telescope commissioned by NASA to track Apollo and relay signals. If NASA put them in their employ to monitor the Apollo missions, I'd suggest Parkes don't qualify as a non-NASA agency, at least in its capacity at the time.