Doubts about the moon landings

Since you are such a brilliant physicist, you should have no trouble determining that period of oscillation for me.

You have studied it right? It does not get anymore elementary than that. How strange.

And somehow 24 x 36 = 565. :)

Such a brilliant mind.
 
Last edited:
OK, dude. I've really, really tried. Each time I've posted, I've been hoping to myself, "Maybe now that I've explained this as clearly as I can, he'll see the sense in it - maybe even just enough to wonder and ask a question". But it's by now clear that that's never going to happen. You just want to be right, even though you're not. Not only do you want to be right, but you want to be stunningly right, and to bash and insult those who are actually right, even though you are too ignorant to realise that they are right. I've tried to extend a friendly hand of advice, but you just slap it away. I guess that's just the way it is.
 
You know what? I suspect that I should have just stayed out of this altogether and left it to Bart V. His approach was in all likelihood the most appropriate one in the circumstances, and the most likely to achieve success. All I seem to have done is enrage the beast. Bart was possibly in the process of taming it.
 
Hey, I am willing to admit I may be wrong about gravity slowing the pendulum and that the article saying the same thing is also wrong. That it may be just a coincidence. I have not been wrong about everything though.

The first site I linked that was quite in depth and also showed this graphic of position over time for the pendulum.



It is decreasing. It seemed clear to me that my interpretation was correct. Then I find the article that was saying the exact same thing. Looking at these things can I be blamed for believing it's true?

Have I been duped by faulty sources? Could be.

But why is there this contradiction in opinion? I mean it is not just me. These sources also show it and state it very clearly. It could be that they are wrong and so am I. What if the other opinion is wrong? and this is correct? I don't know.

What if my sims where actually pointing to something that is true and both are correct depending on the set up?

But it really doesn't matter, the mix between abstraction and reality has muddied the waters I think. We know that in reality friction will prevent perpetual motion. We don't see any real perpetual motion machines. They only exist in the math. it is interesting but it does not help solve the original issue.
 
You know what? I suspect that I should have just stayed out of this altogether and left it to Bart V. His approach was in all likelihood the most appropriate one in the circumstances, and the most likely to achieve success. All I seem to have done is enrage the beast. Bart was possibly in the process of taming it.
As i said in the beginning, I should have stayed out of it as well. It was a mistake. Another mistake. I won't be adding any more content. This subject is what made me leave skeptiko. And I am very nearly at that point again.
 
The first site I linked that was quite in depth and also showed this graphic of position over time for the pendulum.



It is decreasing. It seemed clear to me that my interpretation was correct.
Yes. It does, unfortunately, look as though the amplitude of that graph is gradually decreasing with time. I presume that whatever software they used to generate the graph was faulty. I noticed it too, but didn't say anything at the time. It is, again, unfortunate. The true graph for an ideal pendulum in a vacuum with no friction should not show any decay as that graph apparently does. I know that you don't trust my competence on this, but it is a fact, as your first 3D sim showed. I can see how this graph might have led you astray. You are not to blame for that.

Hey, I am willing to admit I may be wrong about gravity slowing the pendulum and that the article saying the same thing is also wrong.
Then I find the article that was saying the exact same thing.
Again, and I'm not trying to be cruel, just honest: you misunderstood what the article was saying. I tried (really, man, I tried hard) to explain how and why you were misunderstanding it, but you just ignored me. I don't know whether you even read my explanations, but you sure didn't respond to them.

We know that in reality friction will prevent perpetual motion.
Yes. Very much correct. But we also know that friction on the moon will be approximately 1/6th of what it is on the Earth. Over a few tens of seconds (which is all we have of the video), combined with the lack of air resistance, that might very much seem to be perpetual motion.
 
Again, and I'm not trying to be cruel, just honest: you misunderstood what the article was saying. I tried (really, man, I tried hard) to explain how and why you were misunderstanding it, but you just ignored me. I don't know whether you even read my explanations, but you sure didn't respond to them.
I really don't think I misinterpreted the article. I don't see how that is possible it is quite clear. I would more inclined to believe it was just wrong.

I still stand by my position on the ETB. But I am done with arguing.
Agree to disagree.
 
Just coming on this thread now, how fun! I agree with LoneShaman, man has not landed on the moon, or at least not lived to tell about it.
Are y’all familiar with the work being done by Crrow777 and associates? If you haven’t seen his footage and the documentary Shooting the Moon, I’d highly recommend it. I haven’t yet looked through the pages here, just noticing them now, but I look forward to see what’s being presented!
Cheers
 
I will try to change approach. many pages have been wasted on a abstract principle that does not exist in the real world. I will concede to that argument.

I will try my hardest not to get sidetracked like that again. I will leave it up to you to decide.

Is this abstract issue of perpetual motion that does not exist in the real world enough to explain why there is absolutely no reduction in the motion of the ETB. Should even the minimized friction of lunar gravity at two points, a bag on hooks have no effect what so ever? You decide.


There has been much in this thread that has not been targeted for discussion. And what has beyond this one issue of the pendulum is quite lacking.

For example, How the mere tapping of a rock can register in the VOX microphone, and even the closing and opening of the rover seat without contact from the astronaut. All this despite the complete contradiction of modern astronauts in much more extreme examples. It has only happened on the moon apparently and only occasionally as well. There is no justification for this. You decide.

The issue with the flag, we had to dive into fantastic depths to explain it as some sort of video artifact. When it is quite clear it is not.

There are things just left unsaid. The obviously composited picture of the Earth and astronaut taken at a impossible angle and yet perfectly composed without a view finder. As well as the shifting Earth in the other two examples.

You decide.

I did mention this one in my re timed video of the astronauts. At about 1:45 the astronaut is suddenly lifted onto his tippy toes like he is being pulled by a wire. Check out the entire video and just observe. What is wrong here?


Now compare that with NASA original simulations of gravity in a space suit. I guess they were completely wrong about that. This is pretty cool.

 
Last edited:
Here's a few snippets from a study by Oleg Oleynik, a link to the full article is below.

A Stereoscopic Method of Verifying Apollo Lunar Surface Images
The photographic validation method presented here is based on the detection of two-dimensional objects among three-dimensional objects, and determining the mutual arrangement of these objects in space and the distance to them by applying a technique known as stereoscopic parallax.

...Optical transformations are used when images are subtracted. During image convergence simple operations are applied: x and y axis scaling, rotation and distortion plus two additional processes: perspective and shift.

Such processes are referred to below as "optical transformations". Objects further than two kilometres distant, with a minor camera shift, have zero parallax...



If any given image was taken inside a pavilion or dome with a panoramic background, i.e. when there are no distant objects with null parallax, then such a 2-dimensional object can be detected among any 3D bodies. In the case of such a finding, reaching the conclusion that there was deception could be stated with confidence.



Nearby objects: the LM, the rover, and astronaut Jim are shifting relative to each other. The Apennines and the crater St. George are also moving as a whole. (Moreover, the shadow is changing on the mountains and the crater.) This finding indicates that it is less than 300 metres to the background (the ‘mountains’) instead of 5 kilometres!

In addition, the Apollo 15 stereoscopic photos feature a clear separation line between the ‘mountains’ and the foreground. Based on the distance between the camera and rover, the distance to the panorama of the ‘lunar’ scape cannot be more than 150 metres.


Despite a slight offset of the camera, the mountains are moving, which contradicts the condition of distant mountains. If the image subtraction criteria are changed, the most darkened background condition is replaced with the most darkened front area.


It is possible to see the movement of the surface areas relative to each other along the edge of the trench between points A and B. This situation cannot occur in real world photography.

Study Conclusion​

Numerous Apollo 15 photo examples indicate an identical distortion grid – a projection screen at the distance of 100-120 metres from the front of the studio stage. A serious falsification of the true lunarscape, in particular, an artificial trench 30-60 metres in width given for the lunar Rima Hadley which is actually 1,200 metres in width; the image of this remote lunarscape being projected onto the curved background screen; and ‘astronaut’ photographers taking pictures in front of it in a studio set.

The Apollo 15 photographic record contradicts the stereoscopic parallax verification method. The apparent change in the relative positions of objects by moving the camera when the camera angles are separated by several tens of cms show that:

  • the distance to distant objects such as mountains is not tens of kilometres but is no more
    than a few hundred metres;
  • the landscape is not continuous, but with clear lines of separation;
  • there is movement between nearby sections of the panorama relative to other sections.
Thus, based on the above examples, this study concludes that the Apollo 15 photographic record does NOT depict real lunarscapes with distant backgrounds located more than a kilometre away from the camera.

These pictures were, without doubt, taken in a studio set – up to 300 metres in size. A complex panorama mimicking the lunarscape shows degrees of movement, such as horizontal and vertical changes to give an impression of imaginary distance to the objects and perspective.

About the Author
From 1984 to 1993 Dr Oleg Oleynik graduated from the Physics and Technology Department (Phystech) of the Kharkov State University. He obtained a Master’s degree in physics in physical metallurgy.
From 1993 to 1999 Oleynik was a senior engineer, scientific assistant, postgraduate student, and a Soros postgraduate student.

In 1999 Oleg successfully graduated from the Phystech postgraduate school, obtained his Ph.D.c specializing in experimental nuclear physics and the physics of charged particle beams at the Physics and Technology Department of the Kharkov State University.​

Afterword

Two years have passed since the original publication of this article in Russia. During that time, NASA decided to create a series of stereo photographs for 3D red-cyan glasses (anaglyph images), superimposing overlapping parts of Apollo surface photos. Reports slip out now and then that some of the photos on NASA’s Web sites have been replaced by retouched counterparts.

An article entitled "The method of correlative calculation of parallax and camouflage" was published (in Russian). I criticized the article stating that: "The merging of frames is carried out in the application for creating 360 degrees panoramas PTGui, which erases parallax, and eventually the distance to background objects artificially increases. Please double check the algorithm of the application". More here (In Russian).

There was no answer from NASA. Instead, in the Russian Wikipedia, late 2009, the following paragraph was added (and removed on July 31, 2011) to The Moon Hoax article: "Also, analysis of the lunar surface images, taken during the missions shows that distance to background objects is indeed vast and cannot be achieved in a soundstage with trick photography", referring to "The method of correlative calculation of parallax and camouflage" publication.

Any attempts to change or correct the information in Wikipedia, and to point out the serious errors in the Wikipedia article did not succeed, the moderator continued to erase the link.
Dr Oleg Oleynik

https://www.aulis.com/stereoparallax.htm
 
Joe Rogans opinion after talking to people from both sides and he talked about it further on a separate podcast was both items were true. That is 1) Some scenes were faked but 2) the moon landing still happened. I can’t remember what the proposed supposed motivation for this was. There may be something to this though. I would agree that if it could be demonstrated that even one scene were faked, it would be a terrible blow to their reputation and maybe one would choose to not give them the benefit of the doubt. But if it were demonstrated conclusively that scene A or B was in fact staged, I might still hold the opinion that the moon landing happened, although it would damage my faith that it happened obviously. I really feel that it happened. And the people involved are amazing actors if it didn’t happen regarding later interviews etc. Talk about poker faces. Would it not be something if both sides of this debate were right? Don’t think that isn’t possible.

Either way idk really. But I kind of hope that this pendulum thing is resolved lol.
 
Joe Rogans opinion after talking to people from both sides and he talked about it further on a separate podcast was both items were true. That is 1) Some scenes were faked but 2) the moon landing still happened. I can’t remember what the proposed supposed motivation for this was. There may be something to this though. I would agree that if it could be demonstrated that even one scene were faked, it would be a terrible blow to their reputation and maybe one would choose to not give them the benefit of the doubt. But if it were demonstrated conclusively that scene A or B was in fact staged, I might still hold the opinion that the moon landing happened, although it would damage my faith that it happened obviously. I really feel that it happened. And the people involved are amazing actors if it didn’t happen regarding later interviews etc. Talk about poker faces. Would it not be something if both sides of this debate were right? Don’t think that isn’t possible.
Yes, I share this opinion. These are two separate questions. Faked footage and photographs do not directly say we never went. I suspect they went by different means (secret space program). This is just a suspicion, I have nothing to show that this is true. There could be reasons why they had to fake the footage. It may be something as simple as the technology of the time was inadequate to document it. Photographic exposure detrimental to radiation? Limits in sending coherent TV signals from the Moon? Maybe it had to be done for appearances. I don't know.

There may be other reasons. Stephen Greer offers the ET hypothesis. I am not saying I believe him. I do find Karl Wolf's testimony quite compelling.

Stephen Greer : We did go to the Moon, but the footage was fake.

ET Structures on the Moon. Sgt Karl Wolf
 
Yes, I share this opinion. These are two separate questions. Faked footage and photographs do not directly say we never went. I suspect they went by different means (secret space program). This is just a suspicion, I have nothing to show that this is true. There could be reasons why they had to fake the footage. It may be something as simple as the technology of the time was inadequate to document it. Photographic exposure detrimental to radiation? Limits in sending coherent TV signals from the Moon? Maybe it had to be done for appearances. I don't know.

There may be other reasons. Stephen Greer offers the ET hypothesis. I am not saying I believe him. I do find Karl Wolf's testimony quite compelling.

Stephen Greer : We did go to the Moon, but the footage was fake.

ET Structures on the Moon. Sgt Karl Wolf
Thats interesting. I’ll look at those videos after work, thanks. I didn’t know Greer ever spoke about the Moon landing. Not that I’m surprised. Are you aware of any good debates on this topic on YouTube or on any podcast?
 
A Curious Contradiction Between Astronauts
Edgar Mitchell at Autographica UK, 2012

'He [Neil Armstrong] didn't know what he was talking about!' – Ed Mitchell
Dr Mitchell explained that the stars were 'magnificent', and described them as being 'ten times brighter' than when observed from Earth.
I responded immediately, expressing how impressive his description had been of the voyage to and from the Moon and specifically the emphasis he placed on the magnificent and intense star field he so passionately portrayed. I then achieved a long-held ambition by asking the 'sixth man' to walk on the Moon why the first moonwalker, Neil Armstrong, had told Patrick Moore that the stars were unobservable whilst voyaging to and from the Moon on Apollo 11.
Dr Mitchell, seemingly surprised, immediately switched the subject of my question. Describing the view from the lunar surface, he stated that 'this required more time for the eye to adjust'. I brought him back to the question which specifically related to the view of the stars during the Earth/Moon/Earth voyage that he had so euphorically dramatised.
'Why would Neil Armstrong deny the visibility of the stars?' I asked, as to do so, obviously contradicted the focal point of Dr Mitchell's lecture. Neil Armstrong is credited as the astronaut with the greatest interest in observing the heavens. He had flown jet fighters at 40,000 feet to observe the clarity of the universe at that rarefied altitude.
'No he wasn't!' was his abrupt and venomous reply. The sixth Moon trekker and holder of an MIT doctorate in astronautics glowered at me, and mystifyingly refuted my historically-corroborated reference. Determined not to give up, I repeated clearly, 'Mr Armstrong stated that he couldn't see stars!'.
Note; Mike Collins also stated in the press briefing he could not remember seeing any stars.

This time Mitchell's reply stunned the large audience – many whom were filming this exchange. 'He [Neil Armstrong] didn't know what he was talking about!', Dr Mitchell exclaimed sharply. Immediately I received a number of nodded acknowledgments from fellow audience members who obviously were taken aback by this
Many of the audience would have been aware of Armstrong's interview with Patrick Moore on the BBC’s The Sky at Night in 1970 in which he stated: 'The sky is a deep black when viewed from the Moon as it is when viewed from Cislunar space (the space between the Earth and the Moon).
The Earth is the only visible object other than the Sun that can be seen – although there have been some reports of seeing planets. ‘I myself did not see planets from the surface, but I suspect they may be visible.' Cislunar space was described by Edgar Mitchell as the place where the stars were 'ten times brighter than if viewed from the Earth'.
I was sure that stellar visibility memory retention should be consistent given the enormous impact it made on Ed Mitchell, so you can guess the question I put to retired Air Force Brigadier General Charles Duke: 'No we couldn't see the stars anytime on the voyage: it was too bright!' he unequivocally stated, before returning to the business of the day, autograph signing for the appropriate fee.
Footnote

Kathryn C. Thornton, Space Shuttle astronaut has orbited the Earth 256 times and travelled over six million miles. She logged a total of over 40 days in Cislunar space. In October 2011, I asked Kathryn if she could describe the stars from her four shuttle voyages. She stated that they were 'brighter than if viewed from the Earth' and, surprisingly, confirmed that she had never used a telescope or binoculars to aid her view of the stars from the shuttle windows.
https://www.aulis.com/edgar_mitchell.htm
 

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
I will try to change approach. many pages have been wasted on a abstract principle that does not exist in the real world. I will concede to that argument.
That is mighty big of you LS, no sarcasm here, i am honestly glad you did not leave the forum this time.
I will try my hardest not to get sidetracked like that again. I will leave it up to you to decide.

Is this abstract issue of perpetual motion that does not exist in the real world enough to explain why there is absolutely no reduction in the motion of the ETB. Should even the minimized friction of lunar gravity at two points, a bag on hooks have no effect what so ever? You decide.
We were indeed discussing a purely theoretical situation, but nobody pretended it was anything else.
It was meant to be some sort of baseline, to try to estimate the influence of the real world factors. And more importantly, the difference between them here on earth, and on the moon.

Given that these differences are game changing, and an estimated slow down of at least 25 times, the bag would lose no more than a few degrees of swing in the short time we observe it. It is doubtful that that would be observable in the grainy footage we have available.

But, if we need a dozen pages to agree on something that is basic physics, how would we ever agree on anything else?
Therefore, i would not agree to disagree, but agree to no longer spend way to much time to disagree.

There has been much in this thread that has not been targeted for discussion. And what has beyond this one issue of the pendulum is quite lacking.

For example, How the mere tapping of a rock can register in the VOX microphone, and even the closing and opening of the rover seat without contact from the astronaut. All this despite the complete contradiction of modern astronauts in much more extreme examples. It has only happened on the moon apparently and only occasionally as well. There is no justification for this. You decide.

The issue with the flag, we had to dive into fantastic depths to explain it as some sort of video artifact. When it is quite clear it is not.

There are things just left unsaid. The obviously composited picture of the Earth and astronaut taken at a impossible angle and yet perfectly composed without a view finder. As well as the shifting Earth in the other two examples.

You decide.
An all of these could have explanations you did not think of, that is the problem with this kind of argument.
Like it is with so many of the subjects on this forum, the conclusion (in this case: conspiracy) is reached by a lack of knowledge, not by gaining new knowledge. They are basically "god of the gap" arguments.

If there was more positive evidence, evidence that enlarged our knowledge, that would be so much more convincing.
For instance, if there was credible evidence of putting this faked footage together, or material evidence, plans, contracts, unused footage etc..
Or as one would expect with such a massive operation, witness testimony.

And the biggest problem with any grand conspiracy, If real, a lot of people would have been involved, it seems impossible that they all stay silent. Human nature simply does not allow for that.





I did mention this one in my re timed video of the astronauts. At about 1:45 the astronaut is suddenly lifted onto his tippy toes like he is being pulled by a wire. Check out the entire video and just observe. What is wrong here?


Now compare that with NASA original simulations of gravity in a space suit. I guess they were completely wrong about that. This is pretty cool.




These simulations are really interesting, they do confirm a lot of what we see on real footage from the moon, like the slower looking locomotion, jumping and things. But they do not simulate gravity perfectly, they are suspended, like sideways puppets on strings, and move on an inclined wall.



the lower gravity is calibrated by the incline of the wall, if i am correct. that means that gravity is only simulated in one plane, that will have it's limitations. There is more footage of this, it is amazing, a bit funny, and very interesting.
Ironically though, that makes the astronauts human pendulums.



 
Given that these differences are game changing, and an estimated slow down of at least 25 times, the bag would lose no more than a few degrees of swing in the short time we observe it. It is doubtful that that would be observable in the grainy footage we have available.
I happy with all that Bart. And thanks btw. Of course I have a different opinion. I do disagree that the slow down time is 25 times. This is because the free fall ratio and pendulum period on the moon are directly proportional, weight to gravity etc... So it would be about 2.457 times, all things equal. Then we have the additional air resistance factor. The the weight to friction normal of course.,1/6 of the weight and friction coefficients, surfaces remain the same of course etc...etc... A lighter weight will swing less overall than a heavier object but the periods will be the same if the length is the same. lots to consider. There are many unknowns in this case.

I just think there should be at least some effect, that is my opinion. I respect yours.

I think we should move past all that. Like I said it is up to the individual to decide.
 
Last edited:
Top