Doubts about the moon landings

the lost technology is as lame as my "dog at the homework". can someone find a technology that we have LOST in the west (not improved on) but LOST in the last 50 years? we are talking about landing on the moon not little Bobbie's homework! That clip said it all and then some.
WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON in the manner presented.
 
Shadows can reach an extremely long way (a wave of an arm will reach 100s of metres in an uninterrupted environment at sunset) when the sun is very low in the sky, as here.

Not even close Malf.

The following are calculations of shadow length for a individual of 1.8m

Sun elevation 30 degrees = a shadow length of approximately 3.1m

Sun elevation 20 degrees = a shadow length of approximately 4.95m

Sun elevation 10 degrees = a shadow length of approximately 10.2m

These are all elevations well below that of the observed light source in the visor. To illustrate what those angles look like here is a physical based sky simulation that matches exactly the formula used to calculate shadow length.


Elv30_Lth3.1m.jpg

Elv20_Lth4.95m.jpg

Elv10_Lth10.2m.jpg
Please stop just making things up. That has been the only responses to any of this so far. These shadows are impossible, unless the light source is actual close and not that of the sun.
 

Attachments

  • Elv30_Lth3.1m.jpg
    Elv30_Lth3.1m.jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 0
You mean why it was faked?

Was it faked and why it was faked are related but also separate questions I think.
I was asking for some idea of what did happen - or at least might have happened.

Were the astronauts actually launched into space? If they were, where did they spend their time?

Did an empty Apollo spacecraft+LEM fly to the moon?

Also, I think we need to think about a reason for doing this.

Surely the question of the levels of radiation in Van Allen belts was known well before 1969, so if these were too high to fly through, wouldn't that have been clear years before?

Alternatively, was an assessment made that the technology was too likely to fail?

In other words, why fake it, with the enormous political risk that would involve?

David
 
OK - but Apollo did too (I think) - surely these can be separately tested.

David

Not sure what you mean Dave.

The point is you don't need a manned mission to get them there.

Actually you don't even need a reflector at all, they were bouncing laser of the Moon before well Apollo.

Four years ago (1962), a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment.

http://www.moontruth.org/NationalGeographic/index.htm

Also to clarify my point and Malfs for that matter, is that the issue of the footage and photographs being doctored does raise the question but it doesn't directly conclude whether they actually did go or not.
 
Last edited:
chroma bloom.jpg
chroma bloom2.jpg
chroma bloom3.jpg

The presenter in the video was exploitatively lazy, Nelsonianly dishonest or both.

The idea that this is a shadow cast by 'a stage light' behind and to the right - is CLEARLY falsified by the lack of a fall pattern consistent with the topography/distant astronaut.

The astronaut at the rover pulled an object (most likely the wires running from the right side of the LRV) across the lens of the camera, creating the RGB chroma bloom.
 
Last edited:
I was asking for some idea of what did happen - or at least might have happened.

Were the astronauts actually launched into space? If they were, where did they spend their time?

Did an empty Apollo spacecraft+LEM fly to the moon?

Also, I think we need to think about a reason for doing this.

Surely the question of the levels of radiation in Van Allen belts was known well before 1969, so if these were too high to fly through, wouldn't that have been clear years before?

Alternatively, was an assessment made that the technology was too likely to fail?

In other words, why fake it, with the enormous political risk that would involve?

David

They are all good questions, but for the most of them only speculative answers could be given. I had already given some thoughts on the question of why.

I believe they did launch.

The question of study of the Van Allen belts at that time is I think available, from Van Allen himself I believe.
 
View attachment 1461
View attachment 1462
View attachment 1463

The presenter in the video was exploitatively lazy, dishonest or both.

The idea that this is a shadow cast by 'a stage light' behind and to the right - is falsified by the lack of a hypothesis-consistent fall pattern on the distant astronaut.

The astronaut at the rover pulled an object (most likely the wires running from the right side of the LRV) across the lens of the camera, creating the RGB chroma bloom.

That's not bad TES. If it were wires running in front of the camera I would expect to see the colour banding in the black as can be seen in other shots. But you are correct about the fall pattern I think. I went through frame by frame. And yes I would expect even those bands to conform to the shape as well, as they should follow the shadow.. So I am happy to concede that it is inconclusive.
 
Yet another indication of an atmosphere. There is one simple conclusion over the multitudes of spurious individually tailored ones for each and every anomaly.

 
The flag is much more challenging yes. One can be forgiven for considering that rather strange and holding it in epoché.

I was thinking about this.

Why should we hold it in epoché? The flag is clearly moving. For example you state...

...is CLEARLY falsified by the lack of a fall pattern consistent with the topography/distant astronaut.

If I change a few words relating to the flag here the meaning should remain the same.

...is CLEARLY falsified by the lack of a pattern consistent with a vacuum.

This is also true of sound in a vacuum.

Sound in a vacuum falsifies what is consistently demonstrated in decades of space walks.

There should be no exceptions. If all things are equal here this should apply just as much as your falsification here. We could make various assumptions as to why this is, just as much as we could make assumptions about why the motion blur that spans the entire RGB range infact would not be expected to define the fine contours. And why there should be banding in the black areas if an object was passing in front as seen in other examples of this. Don't get me wrong, I do think this is spurious conjecture. Just as much as other excuses used to explain away an obviously moving flag and the twisting of physics to explain away the sound. And i anticipate similar spurious conjecture to explain away the perpetual motion of the ETB bag.

All things being equal The footage has been falsified already.

This is a clearly a double standard.
 
Last edited:
OK - but Apollo did too (I think) - surely these can be separately tested.

David

I have some more information relating to this.

I mentioned that reflectors were not actually needed in order to bounce lasers off the moons surface.

Four years ago (1962), a ruby laser considerably smaller than those now available shot a series of pulses at the moon, 240,000 miles away. The beams illuminated a spot less than two miles in diameter and were reflected back to earth with enough strength to be measured by ultrasensitive electronic equipment.

Andreas Märki Master of Science of the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology 8703 Erlenbach ZH, Switzerland

Andreas Märki presents the results of four LLR stations and compares them with the theoretical forecast. Only one station measured the expected return signal – that was in 1962.

Lunar Laser Ranging (LLR) was performed the first time in 1962, i.e. soon after the invention and the first operation of a laser in 1960. LLR then became well known by NASA’s Apollo program. Since 1969 several observatories reported about their LLR experiments on lunar retroreflectors (Fig. 1) providing millimetre accuracy. Often there is no or only little information to the link budget, i.e. the calculation of the number of received photons in relation to the emitted photons. Therefore I derive first the necessary theory to be able to review the different measurement results.

The paper is highly technical. The kicker is right at the end in the conclusions.

According to the number of return photons I go even further and conclude that in all lunar laser ranging experiments the measurements were taken to the bare surface of the Moon.

https://www.aulis.com/PDF/lunar_ranging2.pdf
 
Why should we hold it in epoché? The flag is clearly moving. For example you state...

Because the flag is not moving. I said 'one can be forgiven for holding the flag issue in epoché'. For myself, I do not hold the flag issue in epoché at all because your hypothesis, has

a. failed the test of a hypothesis, and​
b. failed to address the following critical path issues which must have an objective resolution by a mechanism of explanation, not simply appeal to ignorance.

1. The phantom image does not possess a square edge as it should, but only horizontal flares with parabolic end shapes that taper in transparency, indicative of phantom images produced by analog electronic effects, not natural line-of-sight vectors.
2. The red stripes do not appear, only white ones.
3. The focus of the screen always changes commensurate with the appearance/disappearance of the white 'stripes'.
4. A cathode ray tube electromagnetic interference pattern appears when the stripes disappear, indicative of a current flow inside the camera.
5. The flag does not demonstrate the slight wavering or shaking (even with a rod in it) which a 'wind' would impart. If the wind can move the flag, it can and will also waver (not flap) the flag. It did not. Wind is chaotic, the flag 'movement' was mechanical in nature.
6. There existed ANALOG (not digital) mechanical maintainers for focus and horizontal sweep, supported by devices which would enact the CRT EMI, like which was seen.
7. The 'wind', did not stir up any dust whatsoever at any time (or in any video ever). If it can move an 8 ounce flag with a bar inside it on a pole without a frictionless swivel point, then it is strong enough to move baby powder fine/high albedo dust much more easily than that. Dust which would have easily been seen moving in the cross-lit landscape bright sun.
8. We did not see much (none of it really) of the flag, and would need to see a greater percentage in order to hypothesize a wind - this would equate to not having a sufficient sample size.
9. I am forced to assume that thousands of people, promoted for their integrity and hard work, would have had to lie, to their death beds with not one confession - firm that the flag did not move, even though they knew that it did.
10. The gamma flares on the left side of the screen get longer and shorter too - and the distance from objects in the field of view, to the edge of the field of view, keeps changing throughout the video. So there is horizontal chaos.
11. The horizontal sweep controller had a specification sweep error tolerance of 1% of the horizontal view area. The stripe variance occupied about .8 to .9% of the horizontal sweep frame, so it fell within the HOR Sweep specification error tolerance.
12. You must falsify the science of analog phantom images on old CRT technology - and contend that such effects never existed.
13. The orange dish on the left side of the screen shows horizontal sweep variance of 4% of the screen - SHOWING CLEARLY THAT THE ORANGE DISH IS PICTURED-BY-FLARE/BLOOM, WHERE IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.

#13 is fatal to your hypothesis.
#'s 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 are consilient (all agree) and are also fatal to your hypothesis, separately from #13.

This is called the Duty to Reduce, Address and Inform

It would be what I would require of you on Monday at 10 am if you were requesting my lab to invest money/resources into your hypothesis.
 
Last edited:
13. The orange dish on the left side of the screen shows horizontal sweep variance of 4% of the screen - SHOWING CLEARLY THAT THE ORANGE DISH IS PICTURED-BY-FLARE/BLOOM, WHERE IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.

#13 is fatal to your hypothesis.

Bingo. Though I didn't try to confirm the horizontal variance of the orange dish, I did confirm vertical variance, which, if occurring horizontally, could explain the flag's moving in and out of shot.

Here's an image of the video's top-left at timestamps 3:43 (the image on the left) and 2:34 (the image on the right). I've added a red line to show how much the shot has shifted down vertically in the left image compared to where it was earlier on the right image.

flag-moving-on-moon-disproof.jpg
 
1. The phantom image does not possess a square edge as it should, but only horizontal flares with parabolic end shapes that taper in transparency, indicative of phantom images produced by analog electronic effects, not natural line-of-sight vectors.

Nonsense, the edge is clearly visible as are the stripes. The entire image suffers from chromatic aberration, distinctly distinguishable from the solid portions of the flag that move many pixels into and out of frame.

2. The red stripes do not appear, only white ones.

Nonsense, anyone can clearly see the red.

3. The focus of the screen always changes commensurate with the appearance/disappearance of the white 'stripes'.

The image is consistent throughout except for noise. The technical specifications show that no change in aperture or focus is possible that was only manually adjustable no amount of noise or imagined focal adjustments are equal to the number of pixels in the flag moving min and out of frame.

4. A cathode ray tube electromagnetic interference pattern appears when the stripes disappear, indicative of a current flow inside the camera.

That is meaningless gobbledygook, the bloom appears when the white enters into the frame due to the automatic gain controls and high contratst this is because the flag is moving in and out of frame.

5. The flag does not demonstrate the slight wavering or shaking (even with a rod in it) which a 'wind' would impart. If the wind can move the flag, it can and will also waver (not flap) the flag. It did not. Wind is chaotic, the flag 'movement' was mechanical in nature.

More nonsense. the flag is supported wire, hence mechanical. It would be as a sail, and need not flutter. A gentle breeze or and change in pressure is not chaotic.

6. There existed ANALOG (not digital) mechanical maintainers for focus and horizontal sweep, supported by a devices which would enact the CRT EMI, like which was seen.

More gobbledygook. The aperture was boosted and fixed, no amount of scan line artifacts can shift all those pixels in and out without afecting the rest of the image.

7. The 'wind', did not stir up any dust whatsoever at any time. If it can move an 8 ounce flag with a bar inside it on a pole without a frictionless swivel point, then it is strong enough to move baby powder/high albedo dust much more easily than that. Dust which would have easily been seen moving in the cross-lit landscape bright sun.

Dust is extremely difficult to see for the quality of footage that it is as is the distance. Dust was controlled by adding oil into the sand. This is a necessity. as floating dust is a certain give away.

8. We did not see much (none of it really) of the flag, and would need to see a greater percentage in order to hypothesize a wind - this would equate to not having a sufficient sample size.

You don't seem to see much of, I think everyone else can. Including NASA which is why they cropped it.

9. I am forced to assume that thousands of people, promoted for their integrity and hard work, would have had to lie, to their death beds with not one confession - firm that the flag did not move, even though they knew that it did.

Conjecture, only a few would need to know. Controllers could not tell the difference between simulation or reality, they only see a screen. This is reaching beyond the scope of this single anomaly.

10. The gamma flares on the left side of the screen get longer and shorter too - and the distance from objects in the field of view, to the edge of the field of view, keeps changing throughout the video. So there is horizontal chaos.

This is just a repeat. That is noise.There is no change beyond noise. There cannot be because the controls were limited to manual. The gain controls (not gamma) will be stagnate in a completely still scene, unchanging contrast except for the flag entering and exiting the frame.

11. The horizontal sweep controller had a specification sweep error tolerance of 1% of the horizontal view area. The stripe variance occupied about .8 to .9% of the horizontal sweep frame, so it fell within the HOR Sweep specification error tolerance.

Rubbish. Anyone can clearly see how much of that flag appears in frame and then disappears. Completely independant to anything else happening in the frame.

12. You must falsify the science of analog phantom images on old CRT technology - and contend that such effects never existed.

It is falsified by the fact that the flag and only the flag is dramatically entering exiting the frame while everything else is consistent except for the noise.

13. The orange dish on the left side of the screen shows horizontal sweep variance of 4% of the screen - SHOWING CLEARLY THAT THE ORANGE DISH IS PICTURED, WHERE IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY EXIST.

Anyone can see that the orange dish is wobbling with noise and not at all relation to the flag at all that is also along the very same scanlines of the horizontal sweep. Ridiculous.

#13 is fatal to your hypothesis.
Just a repeat.

#'s 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 are consilient (all agree) and are fatal to your hypothesis.

It is completely absurd. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Wow TES I guess I must have really triggered you with common sense on the falsified thing.

Really poor form. Very unethical.
 
Bingo. Though I didn't try to confirm the horizontal variance of the orange dish, I did confirm vertical variance, which, if occurring horizontally, could explain the flag's moving in and out of shot.

Here's an image of the video's top-left at timestamps 3:43 (the image on the left) and 2:34 (the image on the right). I've added a red line to show how much the shot has shifted down vertically in the left image compared to where it was earlier on the right image.

View attachment 1464

Wrong direction. The whole frame shifts not independent pieces of it except for the flag.
 
Geez it was in epoché.

Then right after I point out the double standard he's got it all worked out again. After failing twice already.

Very transparent.
 
It was obviously depth of field the first time, obviously.

Then we discovered that is not possible.

Then it admitting it was not depth field, proceeds to give a techno contorted version where there is an imaged horizontal and vertical scans are adjusting the aperture, which is what depth of field actually is!

Face palm!

And around and around we go.

At least I can be honest and admit my mistakes. I'll have nothing more to do with that nonsense. I work in film and TV, I can see through the techno babble.

You lost point with me here today TES. If all that nonsense keeps you happy have at it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top