Moon landings

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

I don't want to convince you of my argument.

 

You have succeeded in that ambition, not only with me, but with (more or less) the entire forum it would seem.

[pap]

Never before have I witnessed a dead horse getting such a flogging… and from both sides as well!

 

It’s almost becoming too painful to watch!

 

You had the right idea. Weigh in with one well considered post and step back.

 

I'm thread-committed at this point.

 

Charlie End Charlie is now proper going off on one. It is actually worth being the target of his gentle jabs, just to see this new side of him blossom.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

You had the right idea. Weigh in with one well considered post and step back.

 

I'm thread-committed at this point.

 

Charlie End Charlie is now proper going off on one. It is actually worth being the target of his gentle jabs, just to see this new side of him blossom.

 

'tis true I don't suffer fools gladly - only one of my numerous faults. But if you're committed to this thread now Pulpy then please carry on - I'm starting to think that committal would probably be a good idea in your case.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

So you misrepresent a fact, point out that we didn't point out your misrepresentation of facts, then use a combination of the two to prove that's how conspiracy theorists work?

 

That's some interesting logic there; but you may have excluded one possibility. People may not be reading your posts, or at least, not giving them their full attention. I switched off a bit when you moved off the facts and onto the character assassinations. Bit of a common trait in the valiant defender of the record, isn't it?

 

Chortle - Are you shooting the messenger? You are aren't you?

 

I just stated the facts (with the one exception of the 1901 FA Cup which was to make a point) - take a look at the Urban Dictionary, take a look at Jarrah White and his comments about such things as Christa McAuliffe and the Challenger disaster, his allusions to James Bond and his approach to misleading the reader. I suspect you aren't taking too much notice of my posts because you know that what I am saying is the truth and and sometimes the truth hurts - rigour Paps rigour.

[pap]

Chortle - Are you shooting the messenger? You are aren't you?

 

I just stated the facts (with the one exception of the 1901 FA Cup which was to make a point) - take a look at the Urban Dictionary, take a look at Jarrah White and his comments about such things as Christa McAuliffe and the Challenger disaster, his allusions to James Bond and his approach to misleading the reader. I suspect you aren't taking too much notice of my posts because you know that what I am saying is the truth and and sometimes the truth hurts - rigour Paps rigour.

 

Far from it, Horley. I've acknowledged loads of your points, but you're only posting three times a day, sir - I've covered most of the material that you mention, at least in part, on other parts of the thread. Besides, I find the approach you're taking to be a little unengaging. Part fact, part character assassination, part demand for a CV; except you don't really mean "CV" - you mean dirt, which is what you have attempted to spread on those who raise the question.

 

I have to wonder. If your case is so strong, so watertight on the evidence, then why do you feel the need to cast aspersions on those who question the official account? Why are you generalising about what conspiracy theorists are like? Isn't that an implicit form of marginalisation and a tacit warning to others not to listen to this sort of person?

 

I also have to wonder why you're attacking Jarrah White's fashion sense rather than debunking any of the arguments he makes.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

I'm afraid you have far from covered most of the material I have mentioned in other parts of this thread - check it out if you don't believe me

[a1ex2001]

What's harder?

 

1) Making a movie about going to the moon?

2) Going to the moon?

 

I'd say with 1960's technology it was definitely harder to make a convincing movie about going to the moon than it was to pull off the fake, especially when you consider we know the transmissions were sent from the moon/lunar orbit (confirmed by Russia and the UK) so to pull it off everything including the simple conversations would have to have been pre recorded and then played back with perfect timming?

 

Unless of course you concede that Nasa put the necessary people into Lunar orbit but then that would destroy the theory about Van Allen belt Radiation and solar flares? Only we know that those reasons are rubish and that even Van Allen himself has said it is perfectly possible for a person to survive transit of the Van Allen belt and we also have confirmation that their was no significant solar flare activity during any of the moon missions. It is the simple fact that people Like Jared White still cling to the Van Allen belt nonsense when even the man who discovered it disagrees with them that make the whole conspiracy theory unbelievable.

[pap]

I've seen the "Van Allen said it" argument in relation to the radiation belts. It's superficially compelling, and would be absolutely watertight if he'd designed and created the belts, but they're just named after him due to his discovery of them. Put it this way. America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, an early explorer. He discovered it and at the time, was a handful of Old Worlders who could genuinely claim to be an "expert".

 

In reality, his actual knowledge was next to nil, as it is in the emerging stages of any new discovery. The fact that the place was named after him does not make him omniscient in matters American. Same thing for Van Allen. They made their discoveries using different mechanisms, but both were at the frontier.

[Wurzel]

Not read all thread so may have been discussed. As a kid I watched moon landing and had the picture below as a poster on my bedroom wall and stared at it regularly. (Tennis girl came a few years later). Even then I kept asking myself, why, even after allowing for fact moon is much smaller than earth, and distance is difficult to judge on barren surfaces, and distortions caused by the curve in the visor, are the two horizons (background and visor reflection) such a short distance away? I grew up believing they got there, but pictures and film we saw weren't real.

 

[a1ex2001]

I've seen the "Van Allen said it" argument in relation to the radiation belts. It's superficially compelling, and would be absolutely watertight if he'd designed and created the belts, but they're just named after him due to his discovery of them. Put it this way. America is named after Amerigo Vespucci, an early explorer. He discovered it and at the time, was a handful of Old Worlders who could genuinely claim to be an "expert".

 

In reality, his actual knowledge was next to nil, as it is in the emerging stages of any new discovery. The fact that the place was named after him does not make him omniscient in matters American. Same thing for Van Allen. They made their discoveries using different mechanisms, but both were at the frontier.

 

Classic conspiracy theorist ignoring one argument to focus on another and not really disproving it just disparaging it. There is plenty of information out their to prove the Van Allen belt wouldn't have killed anyone but sadly most of it is from Nasa so inadmissable in the conspiracy court because everything Nasa does is part of the conspiracy have a little bit of fun space maths though http://spacemath.gsfc.nasa.gov/weekly/3Page7.pdf

 

However, I'll play along anyway. So you believe we couldn't put a man in moon orbit so Nasa pre recorded radio and TV footage which was sent to lunar orbit on an unmanned probe and fed back to the world with perfect timming to fit in excatly with what was going on live in mission control? We know the signals originated at the moon because this is independantly verified by the UK and Russia. Given 1960's recording technology consisted of magnetic tapes and traditional film I find this pretty hard to believe don't you?

 

Now to copy the conspiracy theorists template I will switch to something different! Japan, China and India claim to have photographed apollo landing sites at the location specified by Nasa what reson do you think they have for perpetuating the conspiracy? Maybe all three counries are in on it? Japan you might be able to convince me of as they are heavily reliant on US military protection but China and India surely they would much rather be able to say that they found no evidence so they could laugh in the face of Americas superior achievments?

[pap]

Well, if you were really doing your homework, you'd have looked into India's mission, in which radiation detection was a mission objective. Total exposure over the course of the mission was approximately 1.3Gy, which suggests that radiation might not have been an issue going through the belts.

 

The Indian probe did have a relatively quiet time of it though; very little recorded solar flare activity - and oddly enough, this is what the ISRO chief had to say when the mission was terminated.

 

Due to very high radiation in the atmosphere, power-supply units controlling both the computer systems on board failed, snapping the communication connectivity. Some devices were more susceptible to radiation and temperature fluctuations, which resulted in the computer power supply being cut. The kind of radiation problem faced was not anticipated

 

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/31/stories/2009083157910100.htm

[a1ex2001]

Not read all thread so may have been discussed. As a kid I watched moon landing and had the picture below as a poster on my bedroom wall and stared at it regularly. (Tennis girl came a few years later). Even then I kept asking myself, why, even after allowing for fact moon is much smaller than earth, and distance is difficult to judge on barren surfaces, and distortions caused by the curve in the visor, are the two horizons (background and visor reflection) such a short distance away? I grew up believing they got there, but pictures and film we saw weren't real.

 

 

The picture you had on your wall is a cropped and processed edit, the origional is widly available with the appropriate horizon and much less contrast etc etc etc. One of the most heavily dubunked moon landing conpiracy photos yet still people peddle it!

 

Well, if you were really doing your homework, you'd have looked into India's mission, in which radiation detection was a mission objective. Total exposure over the course of the mission was approximately 1.3Gy, which suggests that radiation might not have been an issue going through the belts.

 

The Indian probe did have a relatively quiet time of it though; very little recorded solar flare activity - and oddly enough, this is what the ISRO chief had to say when the mission was terminated.

 

 

 

http://www.hindu.com/2009/08/31/stories/2009083157910100.htm

 

Yet again the classic conspiracy theorist approach pick a tiny bit and make a vague argument against it even though half of it supports the idea that man could have gone to the moon with out being cooked like a microwave chicken. It never stops amazing me how similar these discussions always are it doesn't matter what the conspiracy the discussion always follows the same route.

[pap]

You are the one that brought India into it. I suspect that you didn't really look into it. As I remarked earlier, if your case is so strong on the evidence alone, then why the need for the continued rubbishing of the posters instead of the post?

[buctootim]

As I remarked earlier, if your case is so strong on the evidence alone, then why the need for the continued rubbishing of the posters instead of the post?

 

I suspect its the debating style Pap. Most people in the lounge enjoy a good exchange of views and battling with evidence. Simple deflection and evasion and moving on to more questions isnt really engaging with the issues.

 

Fact is there is the only 'evidence' that the moon landings are a fake is that some people think that it would have been technically possible to fake them. Thats it, nothing substantive - no eyewitnesses, no affidavits, just assertions about wires, sand instead of dust and radiation belts by people who dont have a basic physics degree between them. nothing. At its height 300,000 people worked on the Apollo missions. Its simply not possible that nearly all of them believed that what they were doing was genuine but they were duped by a tiny cadre who all kept the secret all these years. There is a mass of independent verification that the landings took place, much of it from sources not overly sympathetic to the US

[pap]

Yeah, but that works both ways, Tim.

 

It is not as if I have been indifferent to the points made on here. I've had to climbdown when I've been on shaky ground, but at the same time, I've pushed hard on the points I feel I can make.

 

I've given quite a bit of ground on the radiation issue. Indeed, in the post I responded to regarding India, the entire first paragraph is given over to the findings of their radioactivity experiments, which acts in support of Alex's point.

 

Then in the next part, I cite the ISRO chief's statement on termination of the mission, sourced with a link.

 

Amazingly, despite putting forward a balanced post that concedes a point, I'm then accused of focusing on one teeny piece of evidence, when that post taken in isolation shows that I'm not.

[buctootim]

But the bottom line is that there is absolutely no evidence to suggest the landings were faked. There is overwhelming proof they took place. Simply not having read or understood that proof isnt evidence of a hoax.

 

Belief in conspiracies / coverups / UFOs etc is correlated to a specific psychological makeup rather than related to any factual basis. Its a trait, people who believe in one conspiracy tend to believe in many - regardless of different situations and facts. I think its interesting that belief in conspiracies by the powerful has grown as belief in religion and deities has declined. Its almost a faith issue and thats whats makes debating with adherents a nil sum game (im not necessarily lumping you in that category btw)

 

Here is an interesting summary of the radiation issues facing lunar astronauts written by a NASA staffer. People, depending on their makeup, will likely either read it as an interesting piece of information or dismiss it as a hoax prop. http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

Edited 20 December, 2012 by buctootim

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Yeah, but that works both ways, Tim.

 

It is not as if I have been indifferent to the points made on here. I've had to climbdown when I've been on shaky ground, but at the same time, I've pushed hard on the points I feel I can make.

 

My dear Pulp, this is more than a bit 'rich'

 

The record shows that you have been shown time and time again real filmed (and other) evidence that proves the moon landings to be true beyond all reasonable doubt, but you have chosen to reject nearly all of it on the spurious grounds that you think (but cannot show) that it was all staged with the help of invisible wires, "dry beech sand" and (entirly fictonal) space probes.

 

I have seldom, if ever, seen a more DISGRACEFUL, dishonest, and intellectualy vacuous argument put forward on here. If you are under the impression that by continuing to post a uninterrupted steam of BS this somehow means that you are on the verge of persuading other forum members to your bizarre point of view, you are very much mistaken.

[pap]

You asked in the other thread where I stood on conspiracies. I was actively interested around 7 years ago and retain an interest today. It's not the sort of thing that occupies my every thought, but equally, I tend to run news through a bullsh!t filter; many people already do this to some extent. I'd argue that I'll I'm doing is taking less things at face value.

 

I'm not trying to prove that the moon landings were faked. In the early stages of this debate those who were defending the official account went down the "you're wrong because faking it is impossible" route. On that strategy at least, they've failed. So nope, I have zero proof that the landings were faked, and I haven't done the in-depth research. People like Jarrah White have. Almost every question people have raised on here has been answered on his FAQ page.

 

He's had to stretch to get some of his timing (measuring time through beard growth is not an exact science), but even so, that still seems like a reasonable way to estimate time when concrete confirmation is not available.

 

So no concessions on feasibility, and no serious attempt to debunk Jarrah's FAQ page. The position on Jarrah's fashion stylings have been well made though

[pap]

My dear Pulp, this is more than a bit 'rich'

 

The record shows that you have been shown time and time again real filmed (and other) evidence that proves the moon landings to be true beyond all reasonable doubt, but you have chosen to reject nearly all of it on the spurious grounds that you think (but cannot show) that it was all staged with the help of invisible wires, "dry beech sand" and (entirly fictonal) space probes.

 

I have seldom, if ever, seen a more DISGRACEFUL, dishonest, and intellectualy vacuous argument put forward on here. If you are under the impression that by continuing to post a uninterrupted steam of BS this somehow means that you are on the verge of persuading other forum members to your bizarre point of view, you are very much mistaken.

 

Can I ask why you are continually using the term "dry beech sand"?

[buctootim]

I have zero proof that the landings were faked, and I haven't done the in-depth research. People like Jarrah White have. Almost every question people have raised on here has been answered on his FAQ page.

 

 

Pap this is ludicrous. Jarrah White's own webpage states he is still studying for his his BSc and his qualifications extend to a short film & tv course at a Technical college. Even he doesnt claim to know how the landings were faked or even whether the astronauts took off stayed in orbit and then came back or whether they stayed on the ground. Bit of fairly key info missing wouldnt you say?

 

Your touchstone is a student who doesnt know how the fake was pulled off and offers some scenarios but no evidence. Thats it. Way to go.

[pap]

So anyone without a degree is not entitled to an opinion? What happens when he has qualified? What level of qualification does he need to have a valid point?

[CB Fry]

What level of qualification does he need to have a valid point?

 

How about "not be a total spanner".

 

Start there.

[buctootim]

So anyone without a degree is not entitled to an opinion? What happens when he has qualified? What level of qualification does he need to have a valid point?

 

Anyone can have an opinion. To be a polymath and comment with any authority on issues as diverse as the physiological effects of the radiation of the Van Allen belt, satellite tracking, geology of moon rock, Soviet - US geopolitics of the 1960s, material science in low gravity; lets say probably a bit more than a couple of A levels.

 

The irony of it all is that you have missed the real killer punch. This is a young lad with an interest in selling films and space who, wait for it, is trying to raise $200m US to fund his own trip to the moon to prove the landing sites dont exist. Its perfect. So um, lunar space travel is possible then Jarrah for only 200m and they wont die in the Van allen belts?

 

You've been suckered Pap by a commercial young man with a product to sell and an ambition to fund.

[saint si]

I have zero proof that the landings were faked

 

So, end of thread, yes?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Post 350. Pulpy is invited to explain how this film was made (with only early 1970's special effect technology available) on any Earth bound film set:

 

[video=youtube;7ciStUEZK-Y]

 

I put it to you, and everyone else reading this, that the authenticity of this film shines through.

 

But if any doubts do remain (employing the youtube time index) please identify the exact frame(s) that show any supposed 'wires'. What are these 'wires' hung from? If the alleged wires are painted black (to match the blackness of space) then why don't we see them against his (very white) space suit when the astronaut falls over? For that matter why does he fall over at all if he is being suspended on wires?

 

Also provide any evidence he sees that shows this film speed has been slowed down to simulate an idea of what Lunar movement is supposed to look like - because it looks fine to my eyes.

[pap]

I wish Jarrah every success on his trip to the moon. Haven't bunged him any money.

 

I appreciate the different angle you're taking on this, but stripped down, it's the exact same tactic. You're not going after his content, you're attacking the credentials of the man. First on education, now on his Fly Me To The Moon page. First off, a lot of sites on the Internet ask their viewers to donate. This is not unusual, although I have to concur that the intended purpose of the cash is a bit of a stretch ( I wonder how well he's doing ).

 

Another thing that is not unusual is repeatedly seeing people veer of the substance of his claims and onto what he is like as a person. You make an interesting point about his education. You may feel that a few A levels are insufficient for someone to have an informed opinion. I happen to disagree. Some of the smartest people I have ever met have never been near a University full stop. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that he is just a standard undergraduate with nothing to distinguish him from the rest of the student body save some wild-eyed ideas about the moon. If that is the case, dismantling the man's points should be an absolute cinch, especially for someone who meets your gold standard of University education. Why isn't this happening?

[pap]

So, end of thread, yes?

 

I was ready to end this thread days ago.

[pap]

I would like to know why Chapel End Charlie keeps using the term "dry beech sand" though.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So you've abandoned any discussion of the evidence yet again, and you are now reduced to a pathetic attempt to score a imaginary point by repeatedly pointing a spelling mistake? This amuses me.

 

Why don't you point out how I sometimes enjoy watching vintage television again - I'm sure that devastating revelation convinced thousands that the Apollo landing were a fake ......

[pap]

So you've abandoned any discussion of the evidence yet again, and you are now reduced to a pathetic attempt to score a imaginary point by repeatedly pointing a spelling mistake? This amuses me.

 

Why don't you point out how I sometimes enjoy watching vintage television again - I'm sure that devastating revelation convinced thousands that the Apollo landing were a fake ......

 

You put it in quotes ( implicitly attributing it to me ) and continually misspelt it, tarring me with your freeform interpretation of the word "beach".

 

What amuses me is your transparency.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

But it's you the forum can see through my dear Pulp.

 

You've been asked to address the evidence depicted in a short film clip and have (again) declined to do so. I'll be taking that as an admission of defeat.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

So anyone without a degree is not entitled to an opinion? What happens when he has qualified? What level of qualification does he need to have a valid point?

 

For me a degree in Astrophysics might be a good start and a rigorous approach to proving his theories rather than vague suggestions like the beard looks like 72 hours growth (I guess beards grow faster in space or Australia - it would certainly take me longer to grow a beard like the one in the video). Quite frankly his commentaries appear to try to specifically mislead, there's no discerning critical analysis and as far as I can see very little substance - and thats not a character assassination just my own critical assessment of the hour or so I have wasted of my life watching the videos of Jarrah White posted on this thread.

 

Buctootim - thats genuinely interesting comment on JW I hadn't found any of that - can you give us a link for the benefit of others interested in a bit of background to friend Jarrah?

[pap]

For me a degree in Astrophysics might be a good start and a rigorous approach to proving his theories rather than vague suggestions like the beard looks like 72 hours growth (I guess beards grow faster in space or Australia - it would certainly take me longer to grow a beard like the one in the video). Quite frankly his commentaries appear to try to specifically mislead, there's no discerning critical analysis and as far as I can see very little substance - and thats not a character assassination just my own critical assessment of the hour or so I have wasted of my life watching the videos of Jarrah White posted on this thread.

 

Buctootim - thats genuinely interesting comment on JW I hadn't found any of that - can you give us a link for the benefit of others interested in a bit of background to friend Jarrah?

 

Dude, there is a top level link on http://www.moonfaker.com called Fly Jarrah To The Moon. Have you looked at his site at all? It's linked on every page

[Horley CTFC Saint]

Dude, there is a top level link on http://www.moonfaker.com called Fly Jarrah To The Moon. Have you looked at his site at all? It's linked on every page

 

 

So it is - how exciting

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

For me a degree in Astrophysics might be a good start and a rigorous approach to proving his theories rather than vague suggestions like the beard looks like 72 hours growth (I guess beards grow faster in space or Australia - it would certainly take me longer to grow a beard like the one in the video). Quite frankly his commentaries appear to try to specifically mislead, there's no discerning critical analysis and as far as I can see very little substance - and thats not a character assassination just my own critical assessment of the hour or so I have wasted of my life watching the videos of Jarrah White posted on this thread.

 

 

I like your contributions to this thread. How refreshing it is to see someone adopting a reasoned analytical approach to the question, rather than resorting to a tiresome 'deny everything' policy (reminiscent of a criminal being interviewed) when confronted with evidence they find inconvenient to their belief system. With that in mind I'd be most interested to see your reaction to this - evidence based - critique of the old conspiracy theorist argument that Apollo film speed has been deliberately slowed in order to simulate a Lunar gravity effect:

 

 

My maths is almost as bad as my spelling alas, but on the face of it at least, this does seem to be quite conclusive don't you agree?

[Whitey Grandad]

So this young lad wants to fly to the moon to prove that it isn't possible? One thing I do know is that for only $200m dollars it certainly isn't possible.

 

Pap, you are right to question every piece of evidence and information that is offered to you. As an engineer myself (that is a Chartered Design Engineer, not a boiler-mender) I have learnt to examine everything that I come across. Sometimes you can determine its veracity very quickly, at other times you need a more thorough examination. I am quite satisfied that the moon ladings were genuine, indeed the claims of the hoaxists are so trivial that they don't bear a moment's examination and seem to be based on a very meagre understanding of the physics involved.

 

As for man-made global warming, well that's a different story. ;-)

[Horley CTFC Saint]

I like your contributions to this thread. How refreshing it is to see someone adopting a reasoned analytical approach to the question, rather than resorting to a tiresome 'deny everything' policy (reminiscent of a criminal being interviewed) when confronted with evidence they find inconvenient to their belief system. With that in mind I'd be most interested to see your reaction to this - evidence based - critique of the old conspiracy theorist argument that Apollo film speed has been deliberately slowed in order to simulate a Lunar gravity effect:

 

 

My maths is almost as bad as my spelling alas, but on the face of it at least, this does seem to be quite conclusive don't you agree?

 

Whilst on the face of it assuming the math is right (I can have it checked for you if you want) this is cast iron proof - I always find these types of comparison a bit dodgy. My reasoning is that without a 3D perspective and particularly with Moon pictures its very difficult to see whether the ground is flat rising and dropping away - there is little real evidence to tell, and certainly looking at the horizon can be misleading. So I prefer something like this link (one I posted before).

 

 

To my mind this is much stronger evidence of the Moon landings. You just need to compare this with Earth rocket launches which are totally different as the rocket builds up sufficient thrust. There is no flame in this Moon launch sequence which is strongly suggestive that it was filmed in a vacuum or near vacuum. I guess the conspiracy theorists will be able to point to wires and the shadow of a winch somewhere but for me this is more of a clincher than the gravity test video.

 

What I would say is why do a test like that on video for all to see if it risked ruining a good hoax and bringing down the wrath of the Spanish Inquis.....oh that was Galileo sorry.....if it risked exposing the whole thing?!

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Whilst on the face of it assuming the math is right (I can have it checked for you if you want) this is cast iron proof - I always find these types of comparison a bit dodgy. My reasoning is that without a 3D perspective and particularly with Moon pictures its very difficult to see whether the ground is flat rising and dropping away - there is little real evidence to tell, and certainly looking at the horizon can be misleading. So I prefer something like this link (one I posted before).

 

 

To my mind this is much stronger evidence of the Moon landings. You just need to compare this with Earth rocket launches which are totally different as the rocket builds up sufficient thrust. There is no flame in this Moon launch sequence which is strongly suggestive that it was filmed in a vacuum or near vacuum. I guess the conspiracy theorists will be able to point to wires and the shadow of a winch somewhere but for me this is more of a clincher than the gravity test video.

 

What I would say is why do a test like that on video for all to see if it risked ruining a good hoax and bringing down the wrath of the Spanish Inquis.....oh that was Galileo sorry.....if it risked exposing the whole thing?!

 

That's a great clip, and yes the near linear low gravity acceleration evident is in marked contrast to (say) a Saturn V in the early stages of its awesome battle to overcome the Earth's 1G gravity. The lack of all that much in the way of visible emissions from the rocket motor has been employed in the past to claim that this film is a fake - but surely only by those who fail to comprehend the nature of the rocket fuel employed and the Lunar conditions pertaining.

 

Before the LEM's ascent motor is ignited you can also clearly see that the whole site is brightly lit, with no evidence what-so-ever of any wires or gantry structure that (presumably) would be required to pull the craft up vertically on a cable being present. I have always wondered how the camera that filmed this impressive sequence was panned to capture the action, and I take it that the apparent descent of the module (seen in the last few seconds of this film) is in fact a pitch maneuver the craft performs to achieve the correct orbital entry angle?

 

Re my clip, yes it is problematic perhaps to draw too firm a set of conclusions from any filmed evidence where the exact parameters are not exactly known. I must say however that your admirable degree of caution when analyzing evidence is not always shared be those on the other side of the argument.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

That's a great clip, and yes the near linear low gravity acceleration evident is in marked contrast to (say) a Saturn V in the early stages of its awesome battle to overcome the Earth's 1G gravity. The lack of all that much in the way of visible emissions from the rocket motor has been employed in the past to claim that this film is a fake - but surely only by those who fail to comprehend the nature of the rocket fuel employed and the Lunar conditions pertaining.

 

Before the LEM's ascent motor is ignited you can also clearly see that the whole site is brightly lit, with no evidence what-so-ever of any wires or gantry structure that (presumably) would be required to pull the craft up vertically on a cable being present. I have always wondered how the camera that filmed this impressive sequence was panned to capture the action, and I take it that the apparent descent of the module (seen in the last few seconds of this film) is in fact a pitch maneuver the craft performs to achieve the correct orbital entry angle?

 

Re my clip, yes it is problematic perhaps to draw too firm a set of conclusions from any filmed evidence where the exact parameters are not exactly known. I must say however that your admirable degree of caution when analyzing evidence is not always shared be those on the other side of the argument.

You've done you're homework! The first pitch manouvre was programmed for 10 seconds after lift off so yes I'd say thats exactly the effect you're seeing here.

 

Allegedly, and I've not verified any of this Apollo 17 was the only lift off filmed using a camera panning up - it was apparently controlled from Mission Control with the signal to move sent remotely prior to lift off so that the time gap in the signal leaving Earth and reaching the camera would take effect at the appropriate time - if true I'd guess there's a bit of luck involved in it but given that they didn't have to worry about weather conditions and the LEM would have been on a specific trajectory it seems quite possible!

 

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000117.html

[trousers]

Some dodgy looking moon landing footage on BBC2 right now...