Doubts about the moon landings

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
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.
OK, for but what it is worth, this how i got to that 25 times longer estimate:

Everything else being equal, the bag swings 2.5 times longer just by changing the gravity, i think we agree on that.

Then we have to take into account the factors that suck up the energy, most import being aerodynamic drag, friction at the pivot point(s), and friction in the material of the straps. You think that friction is the most important factor,right?
Let us say 90% friction, and 10% air resistance.

If friction decreases linear with weight, we have only 16.6% of the loss compared with the situation on earth.
16.6% of 90% ~ 15% of the total

Then we have the aerodynamic drag, which is going to be a bitch to calculate, you have the bag changing direction all the time, vortexes that create low pressure zones, angular velocities resulting in different air speeds at different heights on the bag. the only way to make a serious estimate would be experiment, i guess.
For me it, must represent at least 10% of the total energy loss on earth, and that is one we leave out completely.

So IMO we are left with 15% - 10% = 5% of the energy loss on earth, to be conservative, and ease of calculation, let us say only 10%.

So, only 10% of the energy lost on earth, per period, is lost on the moon. so we can say the bag swings ten times longer, even if the period would be the same.
But the period is 2.5 times longer, so 10 times a 2.5 times longer makes for 25 times longer in a rough, but very conservative, estimate.

Like you said, let everybody decide for themselves.
 
Shaman, do you have any thoughts about Australia’s broadcasting of the landing? I don’t know anything about how any of that works or what it means. But I’ve heard some state that this is evidence that the landing happened. I’d like to hear a skeptics view on it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pri.org/stories/2019-07-19/how-australia-helped-show-world-live-moon-landing?amp
This was never an independent affair.

HoneySuckle creek antenna is owned by NASA.



Parkes is owned by the CSIRO. But nonetheless, its operations during Apollo were overseen by NASA employees and NASA contractors and it was considered an auxiliary antenna to the Honeysuckle Creek Station.
 
A different Sun for the Moon


We compare two individual Apollo 12 images AS12-46-6739 and AS12-46-6766 and images2 with photos of the sun taken above the Earth’s atmosphere, shown in the second row of figure 8. The first, S129-E-007592 (22 Nov. 2009), shows the sun and the International Space Station, photographed by one of the STS-129 crew members and downloaded from here. The image next to it is from the STS-77 shuttle mission in 1996, downloaded from here. Additionally, in the third row we present our own sun photographs taken at different hours of the day. All the images are processed in exactly the same way for easy comparison, in this case with the Photoshop® gradient mapping tool (which maps the colours of a gradient, defined by the user, to the luminance values of an image). Of particular note is the considerable difference in ‘roughness’ around the sun’s periphery.

However, in the Apollo 12 images (first row of figure 8) there is a bright centre (the lamp?), a ring that has lower luminance, a third ring (the reflector?), a very thin and dark ring (the casing of the lighting) and so forth. Not only the light source itself, but also the thickness of the rings do not correspond with the sun as seen from space (second row figure 8), nor with the sun photographed through the Earth’s atmosphere (third row figure 8), smoothing its irregularities. On an actual image of the sun the disc is so bright that no graduations of brightness can be distinguished on the film or recording medium. Also the disc is the brightest part and the brightness gradually diminishes outside the disc. No outer part of the disc is as bright as the centre. All totally different characteristics to the Apollo photos of the sun.

https://www.aulis.com/scientific_analysis.htm

Why is the Sun so Big?


Note: We already know the Earth and flag is a composite image as previously posted.

Is this really the Sun?

These images were taken on the same roll (magazine 134/B) by a Hasselblad Lunar Surface Camera, fitted with a 60mm Carl Zeiss Biogon lens, photographed onto 70mm color film.

It is a fact that no matter whether viewed from the Earth or the Moon, the Sun appears to be virtually the same size in the sky. The reasons for this are twofold:
1) the Sun is approx 93 million miles away from the Earth and Moon;
2) the Earth and the Moon are relatively close together.​
Therefore, as the Sun appears to match the size of the Moon to produce a total eclipse (when viewed from Earth), and as the Earth is 3.66 times LARGER than the Moon – when viewed from the Moon, the Sun must appear 3.66 times smaller than the Earth.

The Sun's structure is revealed.



(Please note: given the 'disappearance' of reticles/cross hairs against objects far less bright than the Sun, the reticles should not be visible in the above image. Moreover, the left hand reticle is doubled/distorted.)

Why does the 'sun' have a hot-spot in the centre of it?

It is very apparent that the brightness varies considerably across the disc. In fact it has a 'hot-spot' in the central area similar to those found in other Apollo images (see for example Further Findings). It is difficult to regard the ‘sun’ in this image as a photograph of the Sun as we know it.


AS17-134-20410 and 134-20384 sun/earths combined, full width of combined images

Photos AS17-134-20384 and 134-20410 were taken only 26 frames apart. Working with the full areas of both pictures at high resolution, and without changing any relative sizes, we cut out the image of the ‘earth’ from 20384 and placed copies of it over the image of the ‘sun’ in 20410:

As previously stated, the Earth should appear several times LARGER than the Sun if these images really were taken on the Moon.

But, incredibly, in this imagery the situation is reversed. The ‘earth’ is not just smaller than the ‘sun’ – it is SIX TIMES smaller than the ‘sun’. A conclusion also reached by photo analyst Jack White.

The ‘earth’ may be the correct relative size for the scene depicted in 134-20384, but the ‘sun’ is most certainly far too large in 134-20410 and is therefore a very strange-looking Sun.

Some people may wish to argue that the hot-spot in the centre is actually the Sun. But even if this zone is considered to be such, it nevertheless extends well over the diameter of the 'earth' and is still at least four times too large.

https://www.aulis.com/sunsize.htm


 
Well, as a complete dunce on the science on this subject I just did the lazy hint and googled the question. I found a website that simulated how pendulums behave under certain conditions with a simple graphic. I looked at a video of the scene on the moon [allegedly] with something swinging like a pendulum and compared it with the graphic of the pendulum swinging in moon-like gravity.

I observed an apparent match between the apparent behaviour of the alleged lunar swinging object and the pendulum graphic calibrated for moon equivalent gravity. The impression I gained was that if the video was real it had to be shot on the moon. Otherwise somebody created a graphic of a pendulum to further a conspiracy of the moon landing - and while that is possible, it does not strike me as probable.
 
Well, as a complete dunce on the science on this subject I just did the lazy hint and googled the question. I found a website that simulated how pendulums behave under certain conditions with a simple graphic. I looked at a video of the scene on the moon [allegedly] with something swinging like a pendulum and compared it with the graphic of the pendulum swinging in moon-like gravity.

I observed an apparent match between the apparent behaviour of the alleged lunar swinging object and the pendulum graphic calibrated for moon equivalent gravity. The impression I gained was that if the video was real it had to be shot on the moon. Otherwise somebody created a graphic of a pendulum to further a conspiracy of the moon landing - and while that is possible, it does not strike me as probable.
Did the graphic include friction? No? So it would not show any sign of slowing down correct?. So yeah it would look very similar.
I was saying there was no indication of it slowing down at all. Hence my original premise.

What about all the other anomalies? do we ignore those and spend another dozen pages on beating this dead horse?
 
Last edited:

Bart V

straw materialist
Member
Did the graphic include friction? No? So it would not show any sign of slowing down correct?. So yeah it would look very similar.
I was saying there was no indication of it slowing down at all. Hence my original premise.
We all agree it slows down, although it would be more correct to say that the amplitude decreases.
But the question is, how much?

Facts here are, we see the bag for less than a minute, 16 oscillations or so, the video is not very clear.
We know the amplitude decreases at least 25 times slower then on earth, at that rate it will not lose more than a few degrees over that time.
The question is, will this be visible? How can you say, from this grainy footage, the amplitude does not decrease?

What about all the other anomalies?
They can only be "a"nomalies if we know what the nominal is for being on the moon. We didn't at the time, and there is a lot we don't know now.

For instance the typical hop-skip like steps we see the astronauts use for moving around. That wasn't foreseen, it was just what they found out to be the easiest with their inflexible space suits, and in low gravity.

do we ignore those and spend another dozen pages on beating this dead horse?
Well, it is you who tries to keep the poor thing on life support.

But i agree we could go on and on on all of these.
Though it would not be very useful, in the end they may all be explained, simply by things we do not even know we have to consider.

It is not that the moon hoaxers exhausted all possibilities to explain these alleged anomalies, they do quite the opposite.
They point at an 'anomaly', put some eerie music over it, overlay it with some conspiratorial commentary, and move on to look for the next one.
Their target audience is pre-convinced, so their motivation for further research is non existent.

And if we do not know, the answer is not automatically "fake" or "conspiracy", it can simply be that we don't know.

What these moon hoaxers say about these perceived anomalies is basically "we don't know what the explanation is therefore we do know what the explanation is" You see how they are missing at least one logical step?

These arguments probably make sense to you, because you are already convinced, that is what ties the 'anomaly' to the conclusion.
But that is als what makes them sound circular to those who are not convinced, and will not help at all to convince them.
Like i said before, this is very similar to a lot of other subjects on this forum.

For me, to even consider a conspiracy of this magnitude, i would need more positive evidence, not something that starts with "It is impossible that.."

All that said, that would not stop me to give an explanation, if i think it is obvious to see, as in case of the pendulum/bag.
 
We all agree it slows down, although it would be more correct to say that the amplitude decreases.
But the question is, how much?

Facts here are, we see the bag for less than a minute, 16 oscillations or so, the video is not very clear.
We know the amplitude decreases at least 25 times slower then on earth, at that rate it will not lose more than a few degrees over that time.
The question is, will this be visible? How can you say, from this grainy footage, the amplitude does not decrease?
First of all you do not know it is at least 25 times slower. These all just guesses at every point. With a massive accumulation of errors. It does not even consider the most important factor, that being the weight. It is just ridiculous I'm sorry to say. I could come up with a bunch of guesses as well. But I would not say it is a known fact.

Lets say it is decreasing, All you would have to do is have enough weight and the right friction and the exact same thing could be achieved on Earth. After all it is only 16 oscillations or so. As you say. So it is a weak argument. For or against. Happy? My argument does not depend on it. It was a fun exercise, and hey I even learnt something! Hopefully we all did.

The interesting thing is the break in protocols and the strangeness of the scene all round.

I am not keeping it on life support. How ironic because here you are beating that dead horse again. Because it is easy to argue i guess, no doubt you will want to yet again.

The rest of your argument is just hand waving. IMO.

Sorry but we know the physics of sound, and the result of decades of spacewalks providing that. We know the flag should not move. We know we basically have never put anyone past low Earth orbit in nearly 50 years. We know much of the data was lost, taped over, etc.. We know the astronauts contradict themselves. We know of the relationship between parallax and distance. We know of the doctored picture with the Earth. We know what the sun should look like Even from the Moon. Etc.. etc...

Why not just ignore this silly little thread? Surely it is just nonsense right? So why bother?

I would never bother to try and convince a flat Earther, because I think it is just silly. What's the difference here?

I know I will never convince a true believer. I know it does not work that way. So this thread is not for you. Especially with the blanket hand waving nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Lone, just post away. your stuff is outstanding. everything the government has done is a lie. from vietnam to afghanistan. from kennedy to the battleship Maine. So if you folk who believe want to believe... go ahead. PS. Don't forget to put your tooth under the pillow so nancy pelosi can help you.
 
Lone, just post away. your stuff is outstanding. everything the government has done is a lie. from vietnam to afghanistan. from kennedy to the battleship Maine. So if you folk who believe want to believe... go ahead. PS. Don't forget to put your tooth under the pillow so nancy pelosi can help you.
Thanks CM, I do need to hear that. I am posting for those who may have some doubts. I know very well I will never convince those who have convinced themselves. If the only eyes were those people then this would just be pointless.
 
Lone, i have been delving into "Earth expansion theory". VERY compelling theory with much evidence. One of the lead researcher was a VERy well respected Tasmanian Geologist. His name is Samuel Warren Carey. Just read this guys CV. Very impressive theory that builds where plate techtonics stops.
 
Lone, i have been delving into "Earth expansion theory". VERY compelling theory with much evidence. One of the lead researcher was a VERy well respected Tasmanian Geologist. His name is Samuel Warren Carey. Just read this guys CV. Very impressive theory that builds where plate techtonics stops.
Yes, I agree. It was in direct competition with the standard theory. It was dropped because no mechanism for expansion could be found. One of the things that make me consider it is the Dinosaur size problem. There is a muscle to mass ratio. The larger you are the more muscle you need to hold yourself up. It obeys a inverse square law. If you were to scale a weight lifter up 10 times, he would not have the strength to stand up.

The largest land dwelling animals, African Elephant reach those limits. Except dinosaurs like the T-rex apparently ran on there toes, tails off the ground. The enormous brachiosaurus may have held there heads and tails level. The reason seems to be that gravity was different. One possibility is a smaller Earth.

There is is much we think we know, each one built on the previous and in many cases resembling a house of cards.
 
This was never an independent affair.

HoneySuckle creek antenna is owned by NASA.



Parkes is owned by the CSIRO. But nonetheless, its operations during Apollo were overseen by NASA employees and NASA contractors and it was considered an auxiliary antenna to the Honeysuckle Creek Station.
Did the graphic include friction? No? So it would not show any sign of slowing down correct?. So yeah it would look very similar.
I was saying there was no indication of it slowing down at all. Hence my original premise.

What about all the other anomalies? do we ignore those and spend another dozen pages on beating this dead horse?
It didn’t. At least not that I noticed. It seemed to be a sensible website on pendulums that contained all the necessary to know stuff. I would presume, were friction a factor, it would be included. It gave me options to vary a range of factors, which I did play with. I presume friction wasn’t there, because I couldn’t account for that on the moon, and so would have had to consider that an X factor - and I don’t recall that - which I would have - so no.

Now I am curious. Why do you think friction is a factor and this website does not?
 
Photographed on the Sea of Tranquillity?
The following is a a shortened version of a study from Andreas Märki, M.Sc. The full article can be found here.


On the relatively flat Mare Tranquillitatis the lunar horizon should be more than two kilometres away from an astronaut’s Hasselblad camera, but in the case of the Apollo 11 photographic record there is insufficient visible lunar surface.

In all the Apollo 11 photographs the missing lunar surface background in general, and the far too low horizon in particular, strongly indicate that these photos were taken in a studio environment. This is also demonstrated to be the case for the so-called ‘live’ TV broadcasts.

At the Apollo 11 landing site (unlike other Apollo missions 12 and 14-17) there were no visible mountains or hills. Everything is relatively flat and level.
....the height of the Hasselblad still camera was approximately 1.35 metres (4.43 ft) above the lunar surface.


In this photo Aldrin’s chest is in line with the horizon. And from a camera height of 1.35 m (4.43 ft) the surface area appears to be virtually level as far as the horizon.

In this instance the visible distance to the horizon in the photo with the flag (AS11-40-5875) should therefore be 2.2 kms.

The range of visibility over a flat and horizontal area can be calculated easily for a camera height of 1.35 metres:

On the Moon it extends as far as 2.2 kilometres
and for comparison,
On Earth it extends to 4.1 kilometres

AS11-40-5928 seems to fit best for detailed analysis: Aldrin is upright and therefore the photograph can be considered to be well levelled. Nevertheless, the distance from the camera to the horizon is extremely short and can be estimated as being in the order of only 38 metres, as indicated below:


The length of the shadow of the LM is calculated taking the height of the LM to be 7 m, and the sun incident angle of 14° at the beginning of the extravehicular activity (EVA). In the initial photograph with the solar wind collector, (fig 1) the incident angle is somewhat steeper; but the estimation will remain on the conservative side.

The distance from the camera to the astronaut can be calculated with the angle between the cross hairs (10.3°) and the height of Aldrin (1.8 m).

In this image, there is foreground, mid ground – the LM and shadow – but no distant background surface area whatsoever.


On the left half of this photo one looks down to the horizon and also "down to space". The estimated sight angle to the end tip of the shadow is 1.35m/38m or 2.0°; this conservative estimate is in line with the 2.5° as measured in the photo. Even if one added a margin of 45 cm to the height to cover possible bumps in the terrain and 7 m to the length, the angle to the end of the shadow would still be 0.9m/45m or 1:50 or 1.1°. And at the left border the angle would be somewhat greater still.

Even a 1:50 downward viewing angle on the Moon would mean that the landing area was actually a plateau towering at least 350 metres above the level of the Sea of Tranquillity – without any hills extending above the line of sight for the next 35 kms. This is illustrated in the following figure:


For a 4° downward viewing angle the height of the plateau would be 4,200 m and the distance (without any other high mountains) extending to 120 kms.

However, taking AS11-40-5928 alone is not a proof for a studio scene; the inclination of the surface area towards the horizon can only be estimated together with the other photos. Therefore the so-called 'live' (at the time) TV is now taken into consideration. The following figure shows a single frame of this coverage together with the re-creation; the approximate camera height is shown as a blue dashed line.


Here the "looking down to space" effect is so obvious that this can be considered as mathematical proof that this TV sequence was recorded in a studio. Even if the camera had been slightly tilted or its height lower – the lowest option would be around the chest of Aldrin – the "looking down to space" effect would still be huge.

In this sequence the effect is 13°, this corresponds to a plateau at an altitude of over 45 kms and no mountains in the vicinity of 400 kms. Even if one applies a margin, the effect would be at least 1:10, or 5.7°.

Conclusion

In a real environment this limited visibility would only be possible from a 8,600 metre-high platform – with no visible mountains in the neighbourhood for 170 kms. All this fits with neither to the Moon in general nor to the Sea of Tranquillity in particular.

But it does correspond perfectly with these images having being created in a studio environment where one can only see a limited surface area – the equivalent of the illuminated foreground in the re-creations.

Therefore this study concludes that these Apollo 11 still photographic images and the ‘live’ TV coverage must have been taken in a studio on Earth.

Andreas Märki,



Andreas Märki was born in 1955 and graduated as Master of Science from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. He is employed as a technical expert in the space industry.

It was as recent as 2008 that he began to notice inconsistencies in the Apollo record and realised that virtually no public person was willing to address this matter.

Andreas therefore commenced his investigation into Apollo 11 history and found disinformation to be more prevalent than is generally realised. He has published the results of his findings – mainly on the Web.
 
Last edited:
Why is the Sun so Big?


Note: We already know the Earth and flag is a composite image as previously posted.

Is this really the Sun?

These images were taken on the same roll (magazine 134/B) by a Hasselblad Lunar Surface Camera, fitted with a 60mm Carl Zeiss Biogon lens, photographed onto 70mm color film.

It is a fact that no matter whether viewed from the Earth or the Moon, the Sun appears to be virtually the same size in the sky. The reasons for this are twofold:
1) the Sun is approx 93 million miles away from the Earth and Moon;
2) the Earth and the Moon are relatively close together.Therefore, as the Sun appears to match the size of the Moon to produce a total eclipse (when viewed from Earth), and as the Earth is 3.66 times LARGER than the Moon – when viewed from the Moon, the Sun must appear 3.66 times smaller than the Earth.
An anonymous source shared with me a few days back a couple of photographs taken a few hours apart on planet Earth from this live webcam. Everything about the shots is the same - same camera, same lens, same location, same everything except for time of day... and yet the sun appears vastly larger than the moon. So, this sort of thing happens, and it doesn't point to the lunar landings being a hoax.

CAM_8_moon.jpg CAM_8_sun.jpg
 
Hmmm... no hot spot in that sun.


It has been established beyond doubt that this image is a composite of at least two elements; this fact has been researched and proven elsewhere, e.g. here (Aulis, 2017). It is important to recall that this photo was allegedly taken without the benefit of a viewfinder. It is also obvious that the picture (check the left column) was officially modified several times to make it harder for viewers to understand the make up of the image when it is enhanced. To those who are familiar with photographic compositing, it is obvious that in both the lower enhanced frames the random glows do not have a natural origin – evidence of deliberate manipulation at work.
https://www.aulis.com/moon-earth3.htm
 
Last edited:
Top