Moon landings

[pap]

Although Google uses the word satellite, most of the high-resolution imagery of cities is aerial photography taken from aircraft flying at 800–1500 feet rather than from satellites; while most of the rest of the imagery is in fact from satellites.

 

I thought everyone knew that??

 

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

[The Kraken]

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

 

That's what GeoEye want you to believe. It could just as easily have been manipulated...

 

[trousers]

That's what GeoEye want you to believe. It could just as easily have been manipulated...

 

 

Indeed. So, we're all in agreement then? You can't trust the evidence on either side...

[Horley CTFC Saint]

No earth-based telescope can give results sufficiently detailed of the moon's surface. If they could have, they would have, but they haven't.

 

Not necessarily - booking time on a major scope be-it earthbound or the Hubble is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Every cosmologist/astronomer has their project that they want to progress but the whole issue of booking time has been a problem for as long as I can remember

[Horley CTFC Saint]

Anyone found a decent CV of Jarrah White - all I can find out is that he's an Aussie blogger with what seems to be an axe to grind with NASA (did they turn him down for employment?) and a wannabee James Bond!?!

 

Still at least he doesn't seem to be some hack after making a quick buck

[trousers]

Anyone found a decent CV of Jarrah White - all I can find out is that he's an Aussie blogger with what seems to be an axe to grind with NASA (did they turn him down for employment?) and a wannabee James Bond!?!

 

Still at least he doesn't seem to be some hack after making a quick buck

 

Jarrah White is a NASA employee paid to make the case for the conspiracy theorists so that people on internet football forums can shoot him down thus enhancing the viewpoint that the moon landings actually happened. Canny people these space agencies....

 

In fact "Jarrah White" probably doesn't actually exist....

[Big Bad Bob]

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?

 

Van Allen belt explained

 

But it's only one NASA apologist against 2 Conspiracy theorists, as there are 2 of them they must be believed...

[pap]

Van Allen belt explained

 

But it's only one NASA apologist against 2 Conspiracy theorists, as there are 2 of them they must be believed...

 

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.

[Whitey Grandad]

Not necessarily - booking time on a major scope be-it earthbound or the Hubble is like trying to find a needle in a haystack. Every cosmologist/astronomer has their project that they want to progress but the whole issue of booking time has been a problem for as long as I can remember

Quite true. I wasn't actually thinking of looking for evidence of moon landings, rather that a high resolution earth-based telescope would have been used for other astronomical purposes such as mapping the moon, or indeed Mars or Mercury which have very thin atmospheres.

[Whitey Grandad]

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?

Quite a good chance. We know this because the film went to the moon and back.

 

Nukes in outer space have a very short-term effect. There is an instantaneous (almost) burst of radiation but no blast and no radioactive fall-out (or fall-up).

[pap]

Quite a good chance. We know this because the film went to the moon and back.

 

Nukes in outer space have a very short-term effect. There is an instantaneous (almost) burst of radiation but no blast and no radioactive fall-out (or fall-up).

 

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.

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

So, as far as the film is concerned the only way to find out is to send it out and back. It does not seem unreasonable to me for the film and its photos to have survived such a journey. The dosimeters did and these normally work on the same principle. Clavius do (does?) explain the difference between intensity and strength of radiation and between particles, whihc are straightforward to screen, and rays which are less so.

[pap]

So, as far as the film is concerned the only way to find out is to send it out and back. It does not seem unreasonable to me for the film and its photos to have survived such a journey. The dosimeters did and these normally work on the same principle. Clavius do (does?) explain the difference between intensity and strength of radiation and between particles, whihc are straightforward to screen, and rays which are less so.

 

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.

[Big Bad Bob]

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.

 

http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003a.htm

 

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

[Whitey Grandad]

The trajectories were designed to avoid the densest parts of the belts, or rather to negotiate the weaker parts. I don't consider the photos to be pristine, just very good. I would say that the evidence we have, the photos themselves, neither prove nor disparove whether the particle radiation would have degraded them enough to be significant. Do you accept that they could have gone there and back without being degraded?

[pap]

http://www.xenophilia.com/zb0003a.htm

 

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

 

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.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

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 ....

[buctootim]

Id love to see someone do this springing back up maneuver on earth.

 

 

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

Ha!

 

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

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

Ok, so is it time for the next?

[Horley CTFC Saint]

What really amazes me about threads like this is that at the time it all happened nobody ever questioned the veracity of the moon landings as they quite clearly were happening before our very eyes and there were any number of independent sources to demonstrate the truth of these events - the whole worlds eyes were on what happened yet now with all the advances in technology and such things as satellite pictures of the landings sites, years of studying moon rock samples, first hand testimony and any number of additional proofs as outlined by various contributors above that we get a people who were probably not even a twinkle in their father's eyes at the time it all happened suggesting that it was all just so much hogwash and who are unable to believe the facts before their very eyes.

 

Should we question the WWII or the fact that Southampton lost the - 1901 FA Cup Final - because we weren't there and never experienced it ourselves?

 

The credulity of these people is what the conspiracy theorists rely on to make their money - there's been a whole lot of these guys seeking to make a fast buck from Erich Von Daniken to Henry Lincoln on a never ending range of subjects with theories that simply do not stand up to scrutiny and for some reason we lap it up without even the slightest degree scepticism. People nowadays will believe anything if someone writes a book about it or sets up a website saying its all true simply because its there in black and white before them - even better if its in colour!

[Saint in Paradise]

So if someone spouts their answer on an internet forum it must be true then.

[pap]

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!

[Whitey Grandad]

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!

 

So what's the point?

 

Also, you can't have a live recording. It doesn't surprise me that the transcript and the prepared video recording don't agree, but what does it prove?

Edited 15 December, 2012 by Whitey Grandad

[Horley CTFC Saint]

Anyone found a decent CV of Jarrah White - all I can find out is that he's an Aussie blogger with what seems to be an axe to grind with NASA (did they turn him down for employment?) and a wannabee James Bond!?!

 

Still at least he doesn't seem to be some hack after making a quick buck

 

 

....

[Horley CTFC Saint]

Not really sure what points he trying to make here but for what its worth.

 

Where on the film at the start does it say that they are faking the pictures? The interviewer says this is the case but I cant see it is borne out by actual the film.

Why is the picture edited when mission control is saying that they have quite a way to go before filling up their screen? I don’t see that at all – same goes for the second example

When they were taking pictures of the Earth the lights were out in the command module (as JW himself confirms) so as soon as the camera is moved away from the window there would be little visible to film until the lights were turned on again

 

Also which camera is being used? If memory serves at least one of the cameras was trigger operated. If they were using that camera it wouldn't surprise me if it wasnt in use when the astronaut was trying to manouvre in what was ultimately a very cramped command module.

 

Also does the camera have auto focus given we are looking at 60’s technology here?

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

So what's the point?

 

Also, you can't have a live recording. It doesn't surprise me that the transcript and the prepared video recording don't agree, but what does it prove?

 

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 !

Edited 16 December, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE

[pap]

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.

[pap]

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:www.youtube.com/watch?v=Roee6DmiRek

 

How Galileo would have loved that !

 

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.

[ottery st mary]

The foot prints in the dust are too perfect...

 

The equipment back on earth and on show never even got up amongst the clouds let alone land on the moon.

 

Whenever you see the reaction of any of the supposed men on the moon...leaves a lot to be desired in respect of honest...Wot me Guv.

 

Never believed it and never will.......19 year old serviceman at the original so called shambles....

 

Non believer and as time goes by...convinced the USA should come clean about all this BOLLLLUX.

 

 

My opinion......So don't even bother:p

Edited 16 December, 2012 by ottery st mary

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

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?

[Whitey Grandad]

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.

 

The only time that it would have been 'live' is when it actually happened and everything since then is produced from some form of magnetic tape. I don't think there was any form of deliberate lying, rather that in a project of this length I would expect some discrepancies. In fact, if it were too perfect I would be suspicious. There's a good book about spying in WW2 called 'Between Silk and Cyanide' by Leo Marks where he explains that the coded messages we were receiving from Europe had no mistakes in them at all whereas the operatives would have been working under extreme constraints so he knew that they must be coming from the enemy.

 

There is one sequence where they point the camera through the window and gradually zoom in to the Earth.

[pap]

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?

 

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:-

 

They were filmed either in a studio or on location in the Nevada desert. When it came down to filming the moonwalk scenes, lunar gravity was simulated by suspending the astronauts on wires to reduce their weight. And to complete the look, the videos of the astronauts on wires were played back in slow motion.

 

Ironically, the Mythbusters recently tried to debunk this by filming Adam Savage running around in a replica spacesuit. They filmed him both with and without wire suspension. But the only slow motion footage shown was of when he was not suspended by a wire. If one takes his wire jump footage, slows it down to 67% and then plays it alongside the original Apollo 16 footage, the two are a near-perfect synchronization.

Edited 16 December, 2012 by pap

[Whitey Grandad]

Looks ok to me. High mass, low G. The flashes could be anything, even cosmic rays.

[pap]

There is one sequence where they point the camera through the window and gradually zoom in to the Earth.

 

That's not the same thing as a full sweep around the command module though, is it? Why are they covering that lens up almost every time they make a transition? This is posterity, isn't it? So why keep covering your glory with a cardboard sign?

 

I don't buy the "ooh, the Russians might reverse-engineer stuff", because we see loads of the command module in other shots.

 

I particularly like the shot of the blue windows. The spacecraft has only just left lunar orbit, making the return trip to Earth. The transcript states that they cannot see the sun or the moon, yet the footage shows bright blue light coming through the windows. I'd be interested in Charlie's assessment of that too.

[CHAPEL END CHARLIE]

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.

Edited 16 December, 2012 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE
Additional

[Whitey Grandad]

That's not the same thing as a full sweep around the command module though, is it? Why are they covering that lens up almost every time they make a transition? This is posterity, isn't it? So why keep covering your glory with a cardboard sign?

 

I don't buy the "ooh, the Russians might reverse-engineer stuff", because we see loads of the command module in other shots.

 

I particularly like the shot of the blue windows. The spacecraft has only just left lunar orbit, making the return trip to Earth. The transcript states that they cannot see the sun or the moon, yet the footage shows bright blue light coming through the windows. I'd be interested in Charlie's assessment of that too.

 

But they do sweep from the window to the interior. I don't think the lens is covered up.

[hamster]

I just can't believe someone would name their child Buzz!

 

 

I have met him in real life. When i worked on security at heathrow.

 

It says Buzz on his passport. Fact. Seemed like a nice bloke but was surprised when he told me didn't like flying! He may have been taking the **** though.

[buctootim]

At different times of the day I can't see the sun or the moon from different windows in my house. This is due to a little known scientific phenomenom known as 'facing in the wrong direction'. Despite my inability to see the sun in the morning from my west facing window, it still lets light in. Chapel End Charlie , could you feed my need to find a conspiracy by explaining it please.

 

I am also disturbed by the breaks of a few seconds, too high gain contrast settings making the astronauts look too white and the white flashes on the screen. Stupid gullible people, cowed by their governments, might think this is because they are tapes of a five day live broacast using 1960s technology from 250,000 miles away in the early days of video, but my extra insight and critical thinking enables me to ask independent questions and get the answers I want to hear from a Nashville taxi driver and an Aussie vanity films blogger.

Edited 16 December, 2012 by buctootim

[ottery st mary]

Just spoken to Buzz and he denies he has ever been to the moon.

 

He was not sure about...Woody , Little Bo Peep, Potatoe Head, Andy or Slinky the Dog...

 

They went missing for a few days and always wanted to appear in a Hollywood blockbuster:p

 

 

Now come on ottery take this seriously;) there are sum seriously intelligent girlz and boyz slugging it out here with their crocodile handbags.

 

 

We are Lightyears away from a result as yet.

[hamster]

He was definitely at heathrow terminal 1 fast track security circa 2001. I was there and it was all captured the CCTV.

[buctootim]

He was definitely at heathrow terminal 1 fast track security circa 2001. I was there and it was all captured the CCTV.

 

If there are any little white flashes on that CCtv Im calling you out as a liar and making my own film about it Hamster.

[pap]

At different times of the day I can't see the sun or the moon from different windows in my house. This is due to a little known scientific phenomenom known as 'facing in the wrong direction'. Despite my inability to see the sun in the morning from my west facing window, it still lets light in. Chapel End Charlie , could you feed my need to find a conspiracy by explaining it please.

 

I am also disturbed by the breaks of a few seconds, too high gain contrast settings making the astronauts look too white and the white flashes on the screen. Stupid gullible people, cowed by their governments, might think this is because they are tapes of a five day live broacast using 1960s technology from 250,000 miles away in the early days of video, but my extra insight and critical thinking enables me to ask independent questions and get the answers I want to hear from a Nashville taxi driver and an Aussie vanity films blogger.

 

I look forward to the day you finally get your sneering badge and move onto something else.

 

But the sneering is quite creative, so props for that, Tim.

[Horley CTFC Saint]

That's not the same thing as a full sweep around the command module though, is it? Why are they covering that lens up almost every time they make a transition? This is posterity, isn't it? So why keep covering your glory with a cardboard sign?

 

I don't buy the "ooh, the Russians might reverse-engineer stuff", because we see loads of the command module in other shots.

 

I particularly like the shot of the blue windows. The spacecraft has only just left lunar orbit, making the return trip to Earth. The transcript states that they cannot see the sun or the moon, yet the footage shows bright blue light coming through the windows. I'd be interested in Charlie's assessment of that too.

Whats so surprising about blue light through the window when the Sun and Moon are not visible – sounds like maybe the reflection of light off the Earth to me – I would have thought that the Earth would be much bigger in than the Moon is in our sky. They would also seek to keep direct sunlight out of the command module as much as possible – given the lack of any atmosphere the glare alone would be intolerable. Down here on our blue planet there is plenty of diffusion of the Sun’s light but still I wouldn’t recommend you look directly at – even a quick glimpse will impact your vision short term.

 

You also need to take a look at the inside of a command module – its not the Tardis you know and who’s is saying the Russians might reverse engineer stuff?

 

....and what do you make of this?

 

http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/news/2009/luna15-apollo11/

 

this?

 

http://history.nasa.gov/ap10fj/pdf/a10-postlaunch-rep.pdf

 

..or these courtesy of the Urban Dictionary? (I’m just saying like so don’t shoot the messenger will you!)

 

Pap

1. Verb The act of gently smacking someone’s forehead/upper facial area with a penis

2. Noun The sound a penis makes as it gently smacks the forehead/upper facial area

 

Jarrah

1. Being high on drugs, particularly cannabis

2. Something that is contemptuously laughable, can be used either in jest of perjoratively

 

Which reminds me how are you getting on finding a meaningful CV for Jarrah White and does he really believe that Christa McAuliffe was murdered? :-o

 

Hammy – does he really have Buzz in his passport? How does he get away with not using his given names or am I just being credulous? Is there a conspiracy to investigate here?

[pap]

It's about where they claim to be. They are supposedly in the early stages of their return trip home.

 

I must say, as much as I've enjoyed this thread, with the exception of Whitey G, I'm getting an insult in almost every post.

 

I could spend hours researching additional stuff on this topic, but there's little point. Cheers to those who've participated in the debate in good spirit. Cheers also to those who were so creative and persistent with their abuse.

 

Worst case scenario for me? I might come out of this looking like a gullible nutter. Better than some of the other outcomes.

[hamster]

Yep, says Buzz. I didn't recognise him until I read his name on the passport. Then again, I was only 5 yo when he landed on the moon and he was not wearing his space suit.

 

I used to enjoy meeting celebs in that job, but once I'd met the second most famous history-making person to live in my lifetime, the others became mere mortals and I stopped enjoying the job, transferred to Soton air

[hamster]

Shortly afterward.

[sadoldgit]

I can't remember where it is, but there is an excellent web page which goes through and debunks all the conspiracy theories one by one.

This was Man's greatest achievement - shame that some people want to crap all over it.

[badgerx16]

One of the junior techies here was out on the office pub crawl on Friday and used the chat up line "So do you believe the moon landings really happened ?". He had a long conversation with the girl, who subscribed to the 'faked' line of argument, but when he asked for her number she said she already had a boyfriend

[buctootim]

I look forward to the day you finally get your sneering badge and move onto something else.

 

But the sneering is quite creative, so props for that, Tim.

 

Please, no false modesty Pap. You and Turkish are the TSW Kings of Sneer, belittling and putting down anything that takes your fancy but rarely saying anything positive. I play a much more modest role of sneering at the Kings of sneer, I see it as a public service role.

Edited 17 December, 2012 by buctootim