CHAPEL END CHARLIE

And why is Charlie still talking in the third person?[/QUOTE] This is because I am in fact Prince Charles and I always employ the 'Royal We'. If I can keep this fred going for just a few years longer Pap might even forget to expose how me and my old dad murdered the wife. I'm sure we can all agree that would be a good thing.

Oh I proved quite satisfactorily that the NASA Lunar reflectors could only have been set up correctly by Human hands. Now (just as with all the other evidence that does not fit in with your pet theory) you may not accept that, but as the entire forum well knows by now you are not exactly the poster boy of rationality on here ......

The important thing to remember is that even conspiracy fan-boy concedes that the film in question is indeed shot in space. His basic theory boils down to little more than the silly supposition that the Apollo Command Module is in low Earth orbit all the time with a photo of the (distant) Earth selotaped to the outside window. The 'suspicious' blue light in question seems entirely inconclusive and when he says "that little white dot could very well be the Moon as seen from Earth's orbit" this is a good example of his mindset as you could ask for. The "little white dot" appears to be a simple light reflection on a glass surface. Again, if the craft never left orbit for a whole week or more, than how come no one spotted this at the time? While Pap struggles to concoct a answer for these questions perhaps he might also remember to tell us how your hero explainers the low gravity/vacuum conditions clearly depicted in all the Apollo moon 'set' film?

I feel you pain. You have of course made a utter fool of yourself on here and my advice to you is you should log off now, chill out, and accept that it is better to shut up and have people think you are a fool - rather than open you mouth and confirm it.

So you don't want to discuss the evidence anymore than and you feel that this transparent attempt to change the subject is likely to get you off the hook? And all this from a man who had the nerve to accuse me of trying to "smear" him not so long ago ....... wow!

I think they call this kind of thing 'guilt by association' and must sensible people don't give it much house room

The Jodrell Bank point is a good one, indeed 30 seconds worth of Googleing shows that there is in fact (contrary what has been claimed on here) ample scientific evidence - from respectable international sources - to confirm the reality of the Apollo moon landings. From the much derided, but often useful, wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings So there you have it - a small mountain of written, oral, photographic, scientific, and hard physical evidence that confirms beyond all reasonable doubt that mankind did walk upon the surface of the Moon. Like all important history it is undeniable that new Apollo evidence is still to be found, and new interpretations of that are still to be made, one suspects this process will continue long after all of us are dead. The one thing I suspect these generations of future historians won't be writing however is that the Apollo Programme was a huge conspiracy to dupe Humanity. This notion is not only a disgraceful insult to those who actually did this wonderful thing, it is also inherently preposterous.

Good grief man! Your own clip shows no wires that I can see on my HD screen, or any evidence of the (shadow casting) support structure your supposed 'wires' must presumably be hung from. Also note how that whenever two Astronauts move closer together and cross each others paths any wires they have attached to them on a harness would surely have become tangled - with hilarious results. Hollywood always gets around these limitations by the use of a judicious edit or two of course - I see no indication of that here. Note the characteristic 'hopping' from of locomotion all the Apollo Astronauts seem to employ to some extent. This 'Lunar Hop' obviously works fine in the Moons low gravity, but try doing that for any length of time on Earth and you'd soon become utterly exhausted. I can't remember ever seeing this performed in any pre 1969 Sci Fi movie (and I've seen a few in my time) so why invent it and make life even more difficult for yourself? As for the film speed being slowed to make movement seem more 'realistic'. This theory has been the subject of much discussion over the years with some claiming that movement in low gravity should be quicker, rather than slower, that normal. I can see some logic in this. For my money however the explanation that astronauts often appear to move quite slowly only because they are wearing heavy pressure suits and the fact that their feet are in contact with the ground far less than would be the case on Earth seems perfectly in order. Observe the last few seconds of your own clip and see just how fast the unwanted rod the Astronaut discards moves, then come back on here and tell me you really think that film has shown at half speed. Oh, and please also note the moondust again resolutely refusing to form any sustained dust cloud. One wonders if your Mr Jarrah White has any explanation for that.

Still awaiting my answers. It's not good enough to pretend you are mearly maintaing a healthy degree of skeptism when the argument you are promoting is palpably false. What is it in Apollo clips posted on here Friday evening you find unconvincing? How do you simulate low gravity conditions in a studio without modern special effects? How did NASA get a vehicle to drive over a dry dusty surface without leaving a significant dust cloud behind it? For that matter why send a vehicle to the moon at all when this can only make the job of faking the moon landings infinitely harder?

Good question. What indeed does a utterly trivial mismatch between a recording, and the later transcript of said recording, mean? For that matter the obvious fact that the Astronaut has to drop the camera while he uses his hands to reposition himself in zero gravity would not appear to signify all that much either. Now I had thought we'd put this foolishness to bed, but as Pap seems to be determined to make an even bigger 'horse's ass' of himself on here, perhaps he'd be so kind as to respond to the two simple questions I asked him on Friday morning. I'll repeat them here to save him the bother of trying to remember: 1 - Does he believe that NASA's 'fake' moon landing films were shot on a vast sound stage somewhere, or out in the open desert? 2 - If each of the Apollo Command Modules never left Earth orbit because stella radiation would have killed the crews, then how come their week long orbits were not spotted by anybody at the time? Then some kind of explanation as to how the two clips posted on Friday evening - clips that very clearly show evidence that they were shot both in a vacuum and in low gravity conditions - produced on earth? Oh and while we're waiting here's another fun video to pass the time away:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKw9uquw5is How Galileo would have loved that !

Ha! If you didn't know better you'd swear that was shot in low gravity conditions

Exhibit One April 1967 close up image of Lunar surface taken by unmanned Surveyor 3 probe: Note typical Lunar 'moondust' surface composition - a deep layer of basaltic/anorthositic dust so fine it might almost be flour. Please also note that 'you-know-who' does not dispute that the Surveyor programme actually did happen and that it is not another NASA fabrication. Exhibit Two April 1973 NASA film of Apollo 16 Astronauts John Young and Charles Duke with the Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV) being driven at speed on the Lunar surface: Note how the 'moondust' kicked up by the LRV's tyres always falls back to ground almost instantly. Question If the Apollo 16 film is a fraud that was in reality made on Earth, how come NO sustained dust cloud is generated as might be expected when driving a vehicle over a powdery surface? I'm no scientist alas, but it seems to me that common sense should tell you that the simplest (and hence the best) explanation for the absent dust cloud is that this film was indeed shot in a vacuum. Nature abhors a vacuum of course - expect in space ....

Going to work now so I don't have 3 hours spare at the moment - I promise you I'll watch it later. In the meantime you can take at look at this:http://debunking-a-moron.blogspot.co.uk/2011/08/what-happened-on-moon-debunked-part-8.html Now don't forget to answer the questions will you.

Oh I think the record shows that I've had plenty to say on the nature of the evidence - too much maybe. Please post your videos after you have answered the two simple questions put to you.

I asked for any evidence of the vast and gloriously unlikely conspiracy you propose - as can be seen above none was forthcoming. You demand primary source evidence - as if I'm in a position to abandon my job, fly to the USA, raid the NASA archives, and deliver the booty to your doorstep. Even if I could do that, all you would then say is that the proof I have brought you is all fabricated anyway! Can you not see just how unreasonable an attitude that is? Supposition noun 1. something that is assumed to be true without proof 2. the act of assuming or supposing something Where is your CONVINCING evidence of this vast 40 year conspiracy you allege? Why is it unfair that I ask you to provide hard evidence of its existence? Is not the onus on you to prove your case, rather than on everyone else to waste their time trying to prove a negative? Would not any reasonable person agree that there is a key difference between supposing something might be true, and then proving that it is. But lets move on. Please answer two simple questions. 1 - If man did not land on the Moon, was this series of monumental sci-fi movies that NASA must have made to dupe us all shot in the open desert somewhere, or on some huge sound stage? 2 - If the danger of Solar radiation means that no manned spacecraft could have safely traveled to the moon, than (presumably) you believe that the Apollo Command Capsule never left orbit. In that case how do you explain why Soviet Missile tracking, numerous international space observatories, and the tens/hundreds of thousands of amateur astrologist's that certainly exist worldwide never noticed this?

But I do know what they look like because I've seen the photographic evidence of the actual devices in question, and I understand how they work because I've taken the trouble to look it up. Now don't bother replying with your catch-all 'the evidence has been falsified' claptrap unless you can provide any evidence - that's any evidence at all - to support your suppositions.

But you don't have a point because the US and Soviet reflectors are completely different designs. You are tying to compare Chalk with Cheese.

I don't think he can comprehend the difference between the need to adjust the alignment of a permanently fixed reflector, and the obvious utter non utility of doing so when a mobile platform is employed. A bit too technical perhaps .....

Bad science now Pap? The reason why they didn't die is because the radiation levels were well within tolerable limits and the Moon was not subject to any significant 'Solar Flare' activity during the Apollo missions. Contrary to the myth, you just don't need walls of lead to protect you in these conditions - a few millimeters of steel (as found on the LEM) was more than enough shielding. The average dose recieved was in the order of 1 rem only. For the record it is reported that the Apollo crews did suffer a unusual number of cataracts as a result of their exposure.

Ok then, while we are waiting for proof of the heavily adapted Surveyor probe, can you please provide your evidence of a alternate reflector design.

So you consider that because the Soviets (always pioneers in space flight) had the capability to do this years later - employing an entirely different and purpose built lander - this then proves that the Yanks must have been able to cobble something together too? Of course this proves no such thing, but please carry on as you are entertaining me.

Again, it is not merely a question of dropping the reflectors haphazardly onto the Lunar surface - with Surveyor's primitive degree of accuracy - and hoping for the best. They have to placed into the correct position and then aligned precisely of both azimuth and elevation. A job for Human beings.

Ah! We might be getting somewhere at long last. So I take it then your hypothesis is that a Surveyor probe might have been modified to carry a heavy Reflector payload to the Moon somehow, and then further modified so that it might be able to place the reflector into its correct position on the Lunar surface. This is a vaguely interesting idea, the problems being that I see no evidence to support it and the fact that Surveyor was a very simple probe that couldn't preform such a complex task anyway - that of course is why it was necessary we sent men to the Moon in the first place. I also see no evidence of the Atlas Rocket launch that would have been required to launch said probe. But keep digging, you never know what you might find ....

I see the originator of the semi amusing diversion for the horrors of the working day is now complaining that it is grossly unfair that I ask him to provide detailed evidence to support the case he has chosen to make. I must reject this complaint on the grounds that - again - extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to support them. Furthermore it seems to me quite clear that only in the examination of the fine detail of the matter will the truth be unearthed. One can easily understand however why too close an examination of the facts may not be a welcome development for some - because the closer you look the more ridiculous and unfounded the lunar conspiracy theory becomes. I also see that for some reason he now considers that I have called him a liar. The record shows there is no truth in this allegation. It is unarguably true however that the theory he proposes on here must mean that men of the caliber of Neil Armstrong and Gene Kranz (and a great many others) are indeed liars of the most serious nature. If he takes the Lunar conspiracy theory to its full loony extent, then he presumably believes that as NASA apparently murdered Gus Grissom and his crew to cover up their dasterdly plot, that not only are these brave and talented men liars, but they must also be murderers too. Ultimately if he possess no respect for the decency, hard evidence, and historical fact then that is a matter for him. Some of us however find this nonsense both insulting and irritating. As long as he continues to promote it, he can rest assured I shall continue to refute it.

I used to consider myself working class. But that was before I went to Fratton Park. Now I think of myself as upper class.