View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby FatFreddy » 31 Jan 2014, 04:53

Okay, so I looked through your wiki references and the list of people who believe it was a hoax. Unfortunately, I didn't find one astrophysicist or peer-reviewed scientist in their field. There were filmmakers, violinists, and Russian politicians, but I don't see anyone in the field of astrophysics. I have to admit, I didn't know that Hugo Chavez didn't believe, and his name as a reference to the success of something American kind of tickles me.
So, I'll continue wait for that one credible, peer-reviewed scientist. If you don't know what "peer-reviewed" means, you can probably find that on wikipedia as well...


You seem to have the attitude that any scientist could simply go to the press and spill the beans and the press would print all of it all over the country and nothing would happen to said scientist or his family afterwards. You're not considering the fact that the press wouldn't print a word of what he said and that he'd be risking his career and maybe his own life if he were to try to spill the beans.
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=ZfYBJFPuiwE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipKyUVuQ2Uk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHU

If science journals are controlled so that only the official version of things can get printed...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bAE7FGdNmA
(00:16 time mark)

...I would wonder if a peer review group was objective.

Here's a guy with a PH.D. who thinks the moon missions were faked.
http://www.gobeyondnow.com/rorke.htm

Look what happened to his YouTube videos.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB4623D251703905A

They seem to have gone the way of Jarrah White's. You can find some of his writings here.
https://www.google.es/?gws_rd=cr&ei=Abb ... lunar+hoax

Here's a guy who is talking about things related to his field.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK3R2en4p_8


You're also playing down some of the people with science degrees other than astroPhysics on the list.
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Moon_Hoax
(excerept)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stanislav Pokrovsky
Dr Stanislav Georgievich Pokrovsky (b. 1959)[192] is a Russian candidate of technical sciences and General Director of the scientific-manufacturing enterprise "Project-D-MSK".[193]
In 2007, he studied the filmed staging of the first stage (S-IC) of the Saturn V rocket after the launch of Apollo 11.[194] Analysing it frame by frame, he calculated the actual speed of the Saturn V rocket at S-IC staging time using four different, independent and mutually verifying methods. With all of them, the calculated speed turned out to be at maximum half (1.2 km/s) of the declared one at that point (2.4 km/s). He concluded that due to this, no more than 28 t could be brought on the way to the Moon, including the spacecraft, instead of the 46 t declared by NASA, and so a loop around the Moon was possible but not a manned landing on the Moon with return to the Earth.[195][196][197][198]
In 2008, Pokrovsky also claimed to have determined the reason why a higher speed was impossible—problems with the Inconel X-750 superalloy used for the tubes of the wall of the thrust chamber of the F-1 engine,[199] whose physics of high-temperature strength was not yet studied at that time. The strength of the material changes when affected by high temperature and plastic deformations. As a result, the F-1 engine thrust had to be lowered by at least 20%. With these assumptions, he calculated that the real speed would be the same as he had already estimated (see above). Pokrovsky proved that six or more F-1 engines (instead of five) could not be used due to the increased fuel mass required by each new engine, which in turn would require more engines, and so on.[197][198][200][201]
Pokrovsky claims that his Saturn V speed estimation is the "first direct proof of the impossibility of the Apollo Moon landing".[193] He says that fifteen specialists with scientific degrees (e.g. Alexander Budnik)[202] who reviewed his paper, of which at least five aerodynamics experts and three narrow specialists in ultrasonic movement and aerosols, raised no objections in principle, and the specific wishes and notes they (e.g. Vladimir Surdin)[203] did have could not change his results significantly even if followed.[204][205] Pokrovsky compares his own frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Saturn V flight to the frame-by-frame analysis of the filmed Trinity nuclear test (1945) done by the Soviet academician Leonid Sedov who created his own blast wave theory to estimate the then top secret power of the explosion.[206]
See also author's note below.[207] Pokrovsky's findings about the rocket speed were later confirmed by Alexander Reshnyak and Alexander Popov (see below) and his smoke lag method proven to be valid.[208]
Alexander Popov
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr Alexander Ivanovich Popov (b. 1943) is a Russian senior research associate, doctor of physical-mathematical sciences, and author of more than 100 scientific works and inventions in the fields of laser optics and spectroscopy.[209]
Helped by more than forty volunteers, most of which with scientific degrees,[210] he wrote the book "Americans on the Moon" (2009).[211][212] In it, Popov placed the burden of proof on NASA,[210] and denied all Moon landing evidence, dividing it to five groups:
Visual (photo, film and video) material that can successfully be made on Earth, in cinema studios.
Obvious counterfeits and fakes, when visual material from ordinary space flights on Earth orbit is presented as Moon material.
Space photos, attributed to the astronauts but which by that time could already be made and were made by space robots, including American ones.
Devices on Moon (e.g., light reflectors)—by that time both American and Soviet automatic "messengers" had sent on Moon several tens of similar devices.
Unfounded, unprovable claims, e.g., for about 400 kg of soil, overwhelming part of which NASA keeps safe and gives only grams for checking.
Thus he concluded that the NASA claims on Moon landings are left unproven, and pursuant to science rules, in the absence of trustworthy evidence, the event, in this case the American Moon landings and their loops around the Moon, cannot be considered real, that is, having taken place.[14] He also confirmed Pokrovsky's results for the speed of the Saturn V at S-IC staging time (see above).[213][214] Popov accused the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee of trading the 1970s Détente for covering up the US Moon hoax and stopping the Soviet Moon programme.[215]
----------------------------------------

Dr David Groves, British physicist and holographic computer image analyst. Analysing NASA photo AS11-40-5866,[227] knowing the focal length of the camera's lens, and having an actual boot, he and David Percy (see below) calculated (using ray-tracing) that an artificial light source is 30 ± 6 cm to the right of the camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

----------------------------------------

Dr Sergey Andreevich Alexeenko, Russian inventor, candidate of physical-mathematical sciences, Honorary builder of the Baikonur and Plesetsk space launch facilities, member of the Federation of Cosmonautics of Russia, and nuclear weapon test participant.

Bill Wood, American scientist with degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and a space rocket and propulsion engineer who has worked with McDonnell Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn V rocket. He attended David Percy's documentary film "What happened on the Moon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPDg3y4wTbY

This is nothing to sneeze at.
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31






Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 31 Jan 2014, 08:42

FatFreddy wrote:
Bill Wood, American scientist with degrees in mathematics, physics and chemistry, and a space rocket and propulsion engineer who has worked with McDonnell Douglas and engineers who worked on the Saturn V rocket. He attended David Percy's documentary film "What happened on the Moon?

This is nothing to sneeze at.

Ahhhhh chooooo!!!! (sorry, couldn't resist.) :-)
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 31 Jan 2014, 08:45

FatFreddy wrote:
Here's a guy with a PH.D. who thinks the moon missions were faked.
http://www.gobeyondnow.com/rorke.htm

Hey now, okay, this guy has potential! Dr. Stephen Rorke who has "experience as a Professor of Physics for Loyola College."
Hope you don't mind if I track down his info? I'll post my opinion of his in a bit, either good or bad. Promise!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 31 Jan 2014, 09:39

ProfWag wrote:
FatFreddy wrote:
Here's a guy with a PH.D. who thinks the moon missions were faked.
http://www.gobeyondnow.com/rorke.htm

Hey now, okay, this guy has potential! Dr. Stephen Rorke who has "experience as a Professor of Physics for Loyola College."
Hope you don't mind if I track down his info? I'll post my opinion of his in a bit, either good or bad. Promise!

Mr. FatFreddy,
I understand that showing how deceitful some conspiracy theorists are can be a little disheartening if you support their positions. I hope that with the following information, you too will begin to understand that not all people are always honest. I have spent considerable time looking into Dr. Rorke and I have come to the opinion that he is either a liar or an incompetent professor. Let me explain how I came to this conclusion.
First, please check out the following website if it wouldn't be too much trouble (don't worry, it's a site for conspiracy theorists.)
http://www.paranormalstories.com/indexII.asp?contentfile=2&articleid=2218&isdefault=False&caption=Lunar%20landing%20was%20a%20hoax

Do you notice anything unusual about it? Dr. Rorke is claiming that photo 2 is NASA photo #66-40127 and is of Michael Collins on a spacewalk. Dr. Rorke is stating that the picture is identical to the picture on the left which is of a training mission. Thus, he wants the reader to believe, NASA faked those photos! Now conspiracy theorists will certainly be quick to judge that NASA is the one who fakes pictures, but could it not be the conspiracy theorists themselves? Yes! Here's why. First, Dr. Rorke claims #66-40127 is the photo on the right (well, actually Ralph Rene claims this, but Dr. Rorke went on Coast to Coast with this revelation.) Okay, how about digging through NASA's photo archives and finding #66-40127. Can you? Well, yes, if you put an "s" before the 66 rather than the # and search the national archives. Here's the "official" NASA picture of S66-40127:
Image
Found at: https://ia600503.us.archive.org/2/items ... _thumb.jpg
First, does it look anything like what Dr. Rorke is claiming is photo 2? No, not really. I mean, it's the same picture of the guy but it doesn't show the WHOLE picture. He's trying to con us all Mr. Freddy. He wants us to believe that photo 2 is NASAs depiction of Michael Collins in space when, in reality, photo 2 is also actually NASA's depiction of Michael Collins inside an airplane and just a doctored version of photo 1 and NOT the whole NASA photo. Besides, have you ever seen an astronaut walk in space without the gold coating on their visor? I haven't (though I guess it could be possible.) Mr. Freddy, some people on this site know that I preach credibility in references and this is a prime example that things are not always what they appear on the surface.
ahhhh chooo!!!
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby FatFreddy » 31 Jan 2014, 20:42

Let's hear you do this one now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
"Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis"
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 01 Feb 2014, 21:30

FatFreddy wrote:Let's hear you do this one now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
"Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis"

Once again, you are referencing someone who is stating his opinion on photographs which, as I've pointed out time and again, does not mean we didn't go to the moon.

We really need to start two new threads. One should be "The Photos NASA posted were faked" and the other should be "Did we actually land on the moon." They really ARE two separate things Freddy. I'll watch they video though and make a comment in a bit.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 01 Feb 2014, 21:37

FatFreddy wrote:Let's hear you do this one now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
"Apollo Moon Hoax? Dr. David Groves Analysis"

Since it appears that you would rather quote other people than use your own thoughts, then suffice to say that I can do the same thing:

"There are several photographs of objects that are in shadows, yet they appear lighted and with surprising detail. Objects located in shadows should appear totally black.

The problem with this statement is that it fails to consider reflected sunlight. Next to the Sun, the largest source of light on the Moon is the lunar surface itself, which reflects large amounts of sunlight. At the Earth-Sun distance, maximum solar illumination is about 10,000 lumens per square foot; however, if the Sun is not directly overhead its rays will strike the surface obliquely. This decreases the intensity of sunlight per unit area. A typical Sun elevation during the Apollo landings was about 20 degrees, thus the illumination per square foot was about 3,400 lumens. Since the Moon's surface reflects about 10% of the light it receives, each square foot of surface reflected about 340 lumens. This is equivalent to the luminosity of a 35-watt light bulb. This amount of light easily explains the illumination observed in the Apollo photographs.

In many photographs the shadow side of the astronauts appear illuminated, while the shadow side of rocks appear totally black.

This Apollo 17 photograph [see photo] is a good example of the above hoax claim. The explanation is apparent from the photo itself. Look at the astronaut's feet and you will see that the shadow in this area is just as dark as that of the foreground rocks. The lunar surface acts as a reflector to illuminate the shadow side of the astronaut. At the elevation of the astronaut's feet, and the foreground rocks, this reflector surface is mostly covered by the adjacent shadows. However, at the elevation of the astronaut's head and torso, the shadows cover a much smaller percentage of the surface. For example, on a flat surface the angular distance from horizon to horizon is 180 degrees. At an elevation of five feet, a one-foot wide shadow subtends an angle of 11.4 degrees, or only 6% of the distance from horizon to horizon. At two inches above the ground, this shadow subtends an angle of 143 degrees, or nearly 80% of the surface. Furthermore, the rocks are darker and less reflective than the astronaut's white space suit."
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm
Last edited by ProfWag on 01 Feb 2014, 21:41, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 01 Feb 2014, 21:40

Also Mr. Freddy, I would like to hear YOUR comments on the reliability of your original post concerning Dr. Rorke. Specifically, I'd like to hear a simple "yes" or "no" answer to the question: Is it possible that those who choose to be pro-conspiracy purposefully post deceptive ideas to further their cause?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby FatFreddy » 02 Feb 2014, 02:19

You forgot to analyze his proof of the light source next to the camera.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
(00:45 time mark)
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby pwil » 02 Feb 2014, 02:50

pwil
 
Posts: 45
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 00:10

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby FatFreddy » 02 Feb 2014, 04:00

This video didn't address the issue I asked about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2nqyCtnMzE

There is a reflection of a light on the astronaut's boot and David Groves calculated the light to be next to the camera.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby pwil » 02 Feb 2014, 04:59

pwil
 
Posts: 45
Joined: 22 Dec 2013, 00:10

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby FatFreddy » 02 Feb 2014, 05:14

Clavius is a government damage-control site. The Webmaster (Jay Windley) has said some pretty lame things which totally discredit him.

I asked him this.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=7907

Here's his response.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p= ... count=7990

You'll see some more of his lameness here.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=251326

Look at posts #5 and #8 of this thread to see more on the Clavius forum and Jay Windley.
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=125628
FatFreddy
 
Posts: 114
Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 03:31

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 02 Feb 2014, 05:17

pwil wrote:http://www.clavius.org/bootspot.html

Thanks pwil
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio

Postby ProfWag » 02 Feb 2014, 05:43

FatFreddy wrote:Clavius is a government damage-control site. The Webmaster (Jay Windley) has said some pretty lame things which totally discredit him.

Freddy, I think discussing this topic is over. You keep putting forth information that can be shown to not only be misleading, but downright wrong or lies. You mention that Clavius is a "government damage-control site." Those exact words have been used for years by other people, starting with David Icke's forum. You are simply regurgitating other people's words and have nothing new to offer that hasn't already been exhaustively discussed in other people's forums. It has become blatantly obvious to me that regardless of what is posted to refute your post, you won't believe it unless it's from conspiracist such as Jarrah White.
If you want to learn the truth about the moon landings, you should focus on peer-reviewed science journals that have a basis in solid evidence from respected researchers in their respective fields. Peer-reviewed journals are presented and discussed for validity. If you wish to believe that the government controls all forms of media, then no one can help you change your mind and you will fall under control of people like the administrator of this forum who hates everything concerning the American government yet keeps coming back.
Good luck, but I, for one, give up attempting to refute your post. Solid evidence presented by thousands of unbiased researchers is simply too overwhelming to support the success of Apollo. If you want to lay your belief that the entire moon landing was a hoax based on what some unknown guy says about a small light source on the heel of an astronaut that could quite probably be wrong, then more power to you.
Let me know if you wish to discuss something original.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron