|
|
Post by zephyros on Oct 8, 2006 4:13:26 GMT -4
Hello all, first-timer here. ;D
For quite a long time, I was firmly under the impression that the moon landings were fact. I on a number of times defended allegations calling it a hoax, simply through the commonsensical observation that it would be simply absurd for something of such an immense scale and worldly impact to be possibly be faked. But I had never actually scrutinized the videos or pictures of the landings.
I then came across Bennett and Percy’s video documentary, “What Really Happened on the Moon”. It immediately caught my interest, and the video was mildly convincing on first glance. However, a quick check of the supposed whistle-blowing anomalies showed that many of the points they brought up were either flawed, baseless, or totally fictional. But there are still a few things that continue to bother me, and thus render me a partial skeptic. For if any one event on any picture or video of the missions cannot be rationally and logically be explained, then there is most definitely something wrong. If there are any explanations that can be offered to the following points mentioned in that video (Bennett and Percy’s), which I’m sure there are, I’d greatly appreciate it.
• In the video, near the end (I cannot remember at what point in the video), there were a few examples of the astronauts moving around on the moon, and what appeared to be a momentary glint above them – on most cases directly above their helmet, and in one case higher up to the top of the frame. It was claimed that these were wire supports. I want to believe that this was not a hoax, so I tried to rationale this, but it makes no sense. Why the glint, if there was no wire there?
• During a video clip from Apollo 16, we can see an astronaut taking the American flag, and moving to erect it. He moves off to the left of the screen as the camera then pans around to the right. Sixty-nine seconds later – as Percy stated – “he[the astronaut] arrived at the location, found the most likely soft spot in a totally unknown surface, hammered in the lower part of the flag mast, inserted in the upper part of the mast and its attached flag, perhaps adjusted the folds, and only them removed himself from the scene. All the while wearing the most cumbersome of gear, a pressurized spacesuit, and the life-supporting backpack.” I assume there is something more to this than what Bennett has said. This seems to be physically impossible if all is as he says it is, leading me to conclude that this sequence had to fake. But I’m giving the mission the benefit of the doubt, and assuming there is something I was not informed of about. I appeal to the excellent community here for an answer to this bizarre occurrence.
• When speaking of the Apollo 13 mission, Bennett states that: “…By Wednesday, April 15th, 2.5 days after the accident, the Apollo 13 had circumnavigated the moon, corrected its trajectory, and was already 19,000 miles into its homeward journey…” I find this a little hard to believe, particularly considering the fact that this was done immediately following such a dangerous accident. Coupled with the fact that Fred Haise, at that point, was supposedly able to spot Fra Mauro, which was on the dark side of the moon, makes her argument rather convincing. Is there any evidence to de-bunk this?
• Finally, there is a video/picture discrepancy of Apollo 17 that I cannot rationally explain, if this mission was indeed reality. The discrepancy is in the photo showing the American flag pointing towards a very distant Earth – an excellent shot. But, as Percy is stating, the flag appears to be billowing towards the camera in the picture, and thus away from the video feed on the opposite side. During the video sequence of the same event, the very same flag is seen billowing forward towards the video, and away from the astronaut holding the camera. How is this possible, if indeed the two represent the very same event?
I am a partial skeptic wanting to be a believer of the moon landing, but these are the only remaining points left inconclusive in my mind. If there is evidence debunking these claims, then I can consider myself ranking among the believers once again.
I apologize for any grammatical or spelling errors. It is very late at night as I am writing this, and even after going through it a good few many times, something is quite likely to have missed my attention.
|
|
|
|
Post by grashtel on Oct 8, 2006 5:10:37 GMT -4
Firstly have you checked out www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html and www.clavius.org/ as yet, if not then you should they answer a lot of the claims f the people claiming Apollo to be a hoax. I'm only going to adress a couple of your paints becasue I'm not sure about the others and have a nasty cold which makes my brain not want to work. • In the video, near the end (I cannot remember at what point in the video), there were a few examples of the astronauts moving around on the moon, and what appeared to be a momentary glint above them – on most cases directly above their helmet, and in one case higher up to the top of the frame. It was claimed that these were wire supports. I want to believe that this was not a hoax, so I tried to rationale this, but it makes no sense. Why the glint, if there was no wire there? I belive that is from the antenna on the suit's backpacks, its a blade type, ie a thin sheet of metal (with a slight curve to give it rigidity IIRC) which makes it nearly invisable from the front in the reletivly low quality video from Apollo. Why? That is the easiest and safest thing they could have done, the ship was already on a free return orbit when the accident happened so they just left it on it which looped them behind the Moon and back to Earth. In fact they didn't have much option to do anything else, and anything else that they could have tried would have meant using the Service Module's main engine that was probably damaged in the explosion and therefor likely to explode doing even more damage if they tried to use it. You're making a very common mistake, the Moon doesn't have a dark side anymore than Earth does. The Moon is tide locked to Earth so the same side always faces Earth giving it a near side and a far side, as it orbits the Earth every 28 days it makes a complete rotation relative to the Sun so all of it gets illuminated over time. (sorry if I'm not very coherent, as I said I have a nasty cold) |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 8, 2006 5:28:26 GMT -4
• In the video, near the end (I cannot remember at what point in the video), there were a few examples of the astronauts moving around on the moon, and what appeared to be a momentary glint above them – on most cases directly above their helmet, and in one case higher up to the top of the frame. It was claimed that these were wire supports. I want to believe that this was not a hoax, so I tried to rationale this, but it makes no sense. Why the glint, if there was no wire there?
There are two reasons for glints. Sometimes they are real glints, mostly the ones that are cloes to the helmet and in the middle of the PLSS, the cause of those is the antenna in the middle of the PLSS. At other times you might see a white flicker onm the film, that's generally an artifact in the TV signal, or the video.
• During a video clip from Apollo 16, we can see an astronaut taking the American flag, and moving to erect it. He moves off to the left of the screen as the camera then pans around to the right. Sixty-nine seconds later – as Percy stated – “he[the astronaut] arrived at the location, found the most likely soft spot in a totally unknown surface, hammered in the lower part of the flag mast, inserted in the upper part of the mast and its attached flag, perhaps adjusted the folds, and only them removed himself from the scene. All the while wearing the most cumbersome of gear, a pressurized spacesuit, and the life-supporting backpack.” I assume there is something more to this than what Bennett has said. This seems to be physically impossible if all is as he says it is, leading me to conclude that this sequence had to fake. But I’m giving the mission the benefit of the doubt, and assuming there is something I was not informed of about. I appeal to the excellent community here for an answer to this bizarre occurrence.
I have to admit I'm not totally sure what you are asking here, though I think you are inferring that it's impossible to lumber over the surface, bang a pole into the ground and put the flag in in the time it took the camera to get back to the astronaut? I haven't timed the squence myself, but I do remember wishing they get the camera back on them. One thing I think is that many of the HP's (Hoax Proponents) make the claim that the suits made things almost impossible to do. Harder yes, but not impossible, and these guys had a LOT of practice in them on Earth. Running a dozen or so yards, banging a pole into the ground, then sliding the second into the first isn't a hugely difficult thing. I suspect the original fiootage is longer than 69sec too, but without checking I'm not going to say it was.
• When speaking of the Apollo 13 mission, Bennett states that: “…By Wednesday, April 15th, 2.5 days after the accident, the Apollo 13 had circumnavigated the moon, corrected its trajectory, and was already 19,000 miles into its homeward journey…” I find this a little hard to believe, particularly considering the fact that this was done immediately following such a dangerous accident. Coupled with the fact that Fred Haise, at that point, was supposedly able to spot Fra Mauro, which was on the dark side of the moon, makes her argument rather convincing. Is there any evidence to de-bunk this?
Firstly, there is no "darkside of the moon." Both sides have similar dark and light period, thereis a near side and a far side. Fru Mauro is on the near side, (it's the landing site of Apollo 14) and so is quite visible from Earth. The Journy from Earth to Moon only takes about 3 days, and the burn that was done on the far side was to speed Apollo 13 up to get them home faster. 2.5 days sounds fine for getting them around the moon and heading home.
• Finally, there is a video/picture discrepancy of Apollo 17 that I cannot rationally explain, if this mission was indeed reality. The discrepancy is in the photo showing the American flag pointing towards a very distant Earth – an excellent shot. But, as Percy is stating, the flag appears to be billowing towards the camera in the picture, and thus away from the video feed on the opposite side. During the video sequence of the same event, the very same flag is seen billowing forward towards the video, and away from the astronaut holding the camera. How is this possible, if indeed the two represent the very same event?
Without being able to see what you're meaning I can't effective answer this one with anything more than a guess. Depending on when the two shots occured, it might be before and after they took the photos with the flag, in which case it will have moved because Cerene grabbed the flag and pulled it straight for one of the photos.
For if any one event on any picture or video of the missions cannot be rationally and logically be explained, then there is most definitely something wrong.
I wanted to just turn this around a bit. If any one thing is genuine, they went to the moon. If they went, why would they have to fake things, even if you can't explain it? Just because you can't figure out something, doesn't mean that there isn't a reason for it occuring, it just means that sometimes the universe does wierd stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 8, 2006 6:11:47 GMT -4
Welcome, zephyros. what appeared to be a momentary glint above them – on most cases directly above their helmet, and in one case higher up to the top of the frame. In the case of the glint directly above the astronaut, it could very likely be the VHF Antenna on top of the PLSS (backpack). It was a thin, flat strip of metal which was not always clearly visible from all camera or lighting angles, so might appear to "glint" as the astronaut moves around. In the case of the "glint" at the top of the screen, without seeing an example it's difficult to say, but offhand I'm thinking it could easily be noise in the video signal. Keep in mind that while the hoax proponents will only show you brief excerpts of what they want you to see, there are hours of continuous video footage of astronauts on the moon, with no cuts or edits which we're accustomed to seeing in TV and Hollywood films. As others here with theater experience will likely tell you better than I can, wiring rigs for a limited stage are difficult enough, but one on an (apparently) wide-open soundstage in which the actors are seen, continuously traversing hundreds of yards, would be nigh impossible to deal with. As I happen to have the Apollo 16 DVD set from Spacecraft Films, I can verify the description of events. First off, I don't recall ever hearing of the astronauts intentionally seeking out a "soft spot" to plat the flag, they just pick a location they think is suitable (and convenient) and hammer the pole in as best they can. It is, after all, meant as a symbolic gesture, not a permenant emplacement. Secondly, and I don't know how much of the footage they show you, but John Young is seen spending a considerable amount of time not only straightening out the flag but also assembling the the two parts of the flagpole, right in front of the camera, before exiting to frame left. That only leaves picking a location and hammering the (assembeld) flagpole into the ground to be done off-camera, which I can find quite easily done in a minute and nine seconds. In fact, there are a series of muffled "taps" heard in the audio which I'm guessing might just be the sound of John hammering in the flagpole picked up by his headset through his arm. I'm not sure I understand what it is you find unbelievable about it. Are you getting this from the movie "Apollo 13," or another source? Is this the photo you're referring to? 161.115.184.211/teague/apollo/AS17-134-20384.jpgIf so, the point that photo was taken appears to be at about 1:24 into this video: www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/a17v.1182451.rmIs this the video presented by Bennett/Percy? If anything, I'd say that in the photo, the body of the flag (toward the star field) were billowing away from the photographer, with only the free end rippling back toward. The individual wrinkles are certainly more pronounced in the photo, since it's viewed across the face of the flag and it's length is forshortened, whereas the video is shot almost perpendicular to the face of the flag. What I find more telling than the "direction" of the wrinkles is the lighting pattern produced by them, which is visible from both sides of the translucent flag. This certainly appears to be identical to me (given the low quality of the video clip). Also apparent in both is that the free corner of the flag is curled toward the video camera. |
|
Bob B.
Bob the Excel Guru?
Posts: 3,072
|
Post by Bob B. on Oct 8, 2006 9:18:19 GMT -4
I have just a couple things to add to what has already been said. At other times you might see a white flicker onm the film, that's generally an artifact in the TV signal, or the video. Yes, many of the white flickers are just video artifacts and are very common. They occur all across the field of view and not just above the astronauts’ heads. If the segment in Percy/Bennett’s video shows them just above to astronauts, then it is very likely Percy/Bennett carefully selected that particular segment from hours and hours of video to try to deceive you into believing there is something suspicious about it. Coupled with the fact that Fred Haise, at that point, was supposedly able to spot Fra Mauro, which was on the dark side of the moon, makes her argument rather convincing. Fra Mauro is most certainly on the near side of the Moon, as it always is. As far as it being in darkness, the hoax believers simply have the facts all screwed up. Fra Mauro was in darkness at the time of Apollo 13’s launch but had moved into daylight by the time Apollo 13 swung around the Moon. All the Apollo landings occurred when the landing sites were experiencing early morning lighting conditions. This was necessary so that the shadows could provide relief and act as a visual aid for the astronauts during landing. I’ve carefully checked this out and I can assure you Fra Mauro was most definitely in daylight at the time in question. |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 8, 2006 11:07:50 GMT -4
Greetings Zeph,
We chewed on these issues ad nauseum over at Loose Change, so here goes...
The glints. Notice that the glints coincide with sun "flashes" from the OPS/PLSS blade antenna. In goung through a lot of EVA footage over at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal site, there are many antenna flashes, but the two from the Percy film are the only ones accompanied by the higher up flashes. I see these as some sort of video artifact as the camera image is saturated by the bright flashes. If these were wires, why do they not appear in any other antenna reflection clips? The answer by the hoax crowd over there is that they were edited out in post mission processing. I don't accept this.
The flag...Young had pre-assembled the flag, with some difficulty, by the MESA. He then scampered off camera right and founs a small rise to place it on. It's all on the audio. The camera, and it's painfully slow pan rate, turns right to catch up. By thre time it gets there, he had gotten it planted. I don't see anything improbable here. The suit wasn't a factor, they spent much time precticing in them. Maybe he was fortunate to find an adequately soft spot on his first try, but this doesn't stretch the bounds of reality by any means. I now want to go back and review those films, see if the camera does a full pan prior to that, with no flag in view...
I need to check, but I recollect Haise remarking that Fra Mauro was "just emerging" from the darkness". I did look at the planned/actual timelines for the mission and the Bennett times/claims didn't make sense. The timelines are available in the mission reports at the ALSJ site as well. I have the book here as well, and can get the times if you like.
While over at the ALSJ site, one can check the photos from A17 as well, I'm sure there's an explaination for the flag's appearance.
I have about 8 pages of notes from that video, it is rife with false assumptions, bad science, out of context remarks and video, and just plain misinformation. It took a lot of pausing to keep up with all the facual discrepencies. It goes into la-la land towards the end, a vast multinational conspiracy involving false players etc...but always in the form of hypothetical questions. It takes about 25 seconds into the video to see what they are doing.
Good hunting to you...
Dave
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 8, 2006 12:06:15 GMT -4
I now want to go back and review those films, see if the camera does a full pan prior to that, with no flag in view... It does indeed. While loading up the LRV, at about 120:12:51 (going by time codes on ALSJ transcripts) the camera pans right past the spot where the flag would be planted, then back left across the same spot at about 120:16:17. The planted flag comes into view at around 120:24:13, again panning right. |
|
|
|
Post by zephyros on Oct 8, 2006 13:25:38 GMT -4
Thanks a lot guys, you cleared up some of the things bothering me. I'm gonna check out some of the links you provided and look into the NASA website to see the full videos of the moments being referred to.
About the billowing flag, Percy and Bennett seem to have grossly misrepresented it. Referring to the video link Data Cable posted, the only portion Percy and Bennett show is a very small clip from about 1:02 to about 1:25, and state the corresponding picture was taken at that time. This is all true. On top of that, at that point, in can clearly be seen the flag is billowing away from the camera - as seen in the picture. No contradiction here.
But they proceed to state that this contradicts the video evidence, and they show a fram of the very same flag billowing towards the video. But they miserably forget to state at what point in the mission the frame of this now-billowing-towards-the-camera-flag was taken. In fact, and I verified this looking into parts of the video you posted, Data Cable, that in fact the frame of the flag billowing towards the video was from after the original picture was taken, and the two astronauts tried to taken another picture. You can see one of them pulling the flag out and altering it, and when he lets go, it then takes the shape of the flag billowing towards the camera. This is the frame Percy and Bennett show.
That's some solid, conclusive, evidence there... top-notch detective work, this one. Clearly a contradiction. Not.
If only I saw the real videos before I saw the Percy and Bennett one, then I would never have even doubted this.
As to the glints, as isolated events they seemed suspicous, especially that one at the top. But looking at some of the other videos, they happen quite a few times and so they really are not all that suspicious. Almost not worth nothing if one takes into account the fact that they had antennae, a fact which Percy and Bennett - you guessed it - failed to mention.
Thanks for clearing up the Dark side of the moon issue, as well as the facts about how long it takes to actuall move around the moon. I'm not really very well versed in these issues, so i need all the help I can find. And Percy and Bennett definetely aren't the people to go to for rational advice...
As for the final point I was confused about, the panorama sequence and the flag being erected, they [percy and Bennet, of course] failed for a third time to state that the astronaut had pre-assembled the flag, with some difficulty. I should have realized Percy and Bennett's claims were absurd when they doubted the astronaut's abilities, which I can see now from all the resources provided have been clearly fine-tuned to allow them to do things quickly and efficiently.
Watching the Percy and Bennett video again, all I can do is be baffled at how they jump to these ridiculous conclusions...they twisted everything that happened in ever negative and illogical way they could, for what purpose I have no idea. All the evidence (and boy, there's a lot of it) seem to indicate quite clearly that this was not a hoax, yet for some reason they try to convince you otherwise... And they do a good job of it - that is of course until you do a 10-minute search and find eveything they said is hogwash.
|
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Oct 8, 2006 14:16:07 GMT -4
You can see one of them pulling the flag out and altering it, and when he lets go, it then takes the shape of the flag billowing towards the camera. Yeah, there are a few photos with Cernan holding the corner of the flag, specifically: 161.115.184.211/teague/apollo/AS17-134-20378.jpg161.115.184.211/teague/apollo/AS17-134-20379.jpg161.115.184.211/teague/apollo/AS17-134-20385.jpg161.115.184.211/teague/apollo/AS17-134-20386.jpg161.115.184.211/teague/apollo/AS17-134-20387.jpg...occasions which are clearly evident in the video, before and after the shot of Schmitt, the flag, and the earth, when Cernan had to get down almost on his knees, which is what made it fairly easy to identify when in the video that photo was taken. In fact, you can see Young's battle with the flag in the following clips: www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v.1201951.rmwww.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16v.1202255.rmHe spends almost the entirey of the first clip (3min,10sec.) unpacking and unfolding the flag, and the second one picks up probably just before the segment shown in the Bennett/Percy video, from your original description. Well, here's a hint: How much did we charge for our information, and how much did they charge for their video? I have to admit, it's refreshing to hear this. I (like a few of the other responders, I'm sure) was mentally preparing for continued arguements and nitpicking over minute details, as we've encountered others who similarly claim to have once believed in Apollo's authenticity, only to have had "questions" raised by some curious inconsistancy, and after a while it becomes obvious these people were only interested in expounding on their own deep-seated belief in the hoax rather than seeking information which might refute it. |
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 8, 2006 14:39:10 GMT -4
This video is a classic in HB "persuasion tactics". They raise a false hypothesis, then proceed to build on this as though it were proven fact...if a then b, if b therefore c...and so on. Toss in a comment about "lethal radiation" , some "SPE" events, and toss in a nerdy looking British narrator...voila! Shake and bake conspiracy flick!
Unfortunately, as you well see, it falls apart with just the slightest scrutiny. And they call us "sheeple"...
|
|
|
|
Post by lionking on Oct 8, 2006 15:24:18 GMT -4
www.ufos-aliens.co.uk/cosmicapollo.htmlwatch the video where it says : WATCH THIS GREAT PIECE OF FOOTAGE.. The astronaut has a very hard time trying to keep the flag still as it blows in the wind... I remember watching it couple of yrs ago, and I remember it was violently shaking. The computer now doesn't open it. How would it blow so violently in the ...er..moon?
|
|
|
|
Post by spongebob on Oct 8, 2006 15:47:37 GMT -4
toss in a nerdy looking British narrator I'm British, and I wonder if your comment means that a British narrator would generally be considered to be untrustworthy to Americans, or whether a less "nerdy looking" narrator (whatever that means) would be a more persuasive messenger? Would you be more inclined to believe a science documentary if Brad Pitt or George Clooney presented it for example? |
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 8, 2006 16:22:17 GMT -4
watch the video where it says : WATCH THIS GREAT PIECE OF FOOTAGE..
How about you find it on the ALSJ site?
And does the flag move without the pole being touched, or does it stop moving shortly after they let go of the pole? Strange thing about rotating a pole with a flag on it, the flag as a wierd habit of moving.
I'm British, and I wonder if your comment means that a British narrator would generally be considered to be untrustworthy to Americans, or whether a less "nerdy looking" narrator (whatever that means) would be a more persuasive messenger?
Actually I suspect it's the other way about. Americans have this dumb ability to believe anything a person with a British acent tells them, regardless to it's actual truth..
|
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Oct 8, 2006 16:32:51 GMT -4
Apologies, SpongeBob, no offense intended. Basically, here in the states, many find a British accent a sign of intelligence and credibility. I realize he was simply reading the script.
I just found it annoying how he tosses out a false premise, then marches through the "natural" logical thought progression. That, and boatloads of hypothetical/suggestive questions.
I just found his demeanor a tad too condescending for me. That, and the fact that he started in with nonsense really early on. They actually did present some credible Apollo information in the video, but never talked about it. It doesn't really matter who presents the nonsense, it's still just nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 8, 2006 16:34:24 GMT -4
If only I saw the real videos before I saw the Percy and Bennett one, then I would never have even doubted this.
Unfortunately, most real dedicated Hoax Believers never go and watch the real things, they perfer the compressed short clips from Hoax Sites. Of course any serious reseacher should get hold of the full length versions on DVD and watch them on a full sized screen.
Watching the Percy and Bennett video again, all I can do is be baffled at how they jump to these ridiculous conclusions...they twisted everything that happened in ever negative and illogical way they could, for what purpose I have no idea. All the evidence (and boy, there's a lot of it) seem to indicate quite clearly that this was not a hoax, yet for some reason they try to convince you otherwise... And they do a good job of it - that is of course until you do a 10-minute search and find eveything they said is hogwash.
It helps if they are telling you what you really want to believe, that the US Govt is a bunch of lying criminals who could only beat the Soviets by resoting to fraud and chicanery, the same sort of people that are quite willing to shoot down passanger planes and blow up buildings with nearly 3,000 people inside just for oil. If you are wanting to believe that the US Govt is pure evil and lies and cheats and schemes and murders anyone that gets in the way, then you don't bother looking for any counter evidence, the HP's claims are exactly what you expect from the US and those you are comforted by your knowledge that you were right about them being evil all along. Since real evidence might actually show you are wrong, it should be dismissed as either disinformation or just totally ignored.
|
|
