This is the clearest proof I've seen yet that the moon missions were faked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

What happened to the Hannity moon landing thread?

I don't know. I was asking about it here.

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...showtopic=18777


Here are some moon hoax threads from another forum. This guy seems to have done a lot of research. There's a lot of good stuff here.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11139
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...11116&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...11053&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10575&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10576&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10553&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...10234&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9659&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9890&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9853&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9661&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9660&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9663&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9690&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9167&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9235&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9436&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8768&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9174&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9338&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9097&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8687&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8984&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8985&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8983&hl=apollo
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=8986&hl=apollo

The astronaut is a lot closer to the flag then you think the camera is rather lower than the flag and the astronaut yet the top of his head is only slightly above the flag. On top of that the flag is angled slightly towards the camera. Enough that contact could be made (remember if there is air there why didn't the flag move when the astronaut was jumping around on the other side of the flag?).

When the astronaut walks by the flag, it moves toward him. If he'd touched it, it would have moved away from him.
Jumping around near the flag does not create the same air currents as walking by the flag.

You cant tell which way it moved intialy since the astronaut's body is in the way.

If you look at the video at the 30 second mark before the camera tilts up, you get an idea of how far away from the flag the astronaut is when he goes by the flag. Look when the astronaut waks by the flag at the 2 minute 35 second mark. He must be at least four feet from the flag when he goes by. If you double click on the mouse to make it go in slow-motion, it's clear that he doesn't touch the flag

Nice. Thanks.


But my personal favorite the one where the astronaut falls down and somehow is magically lifted back up again by his back pack. It's a famous one. So obviously bullshit [wire use].

sounds funny got a link? lmao

Here's the link to the wire support footage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE


Here are some more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html#flag

There are several cases of the flag's allegedly waving in all of the Apollo footage. The analysis in the above link doesn't deal with the case in question here.

Thanks Dave, re:


http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE


The exact part I was referring to was here:


02:06

I can't wait to read this:


http://www.darkmission.net/


Has anyone here (Dave maybe?) read this book, feature on the above link? Thoughts? I'm desperate to get my hands on it.

You can order it at a book store.

http://www.amazon.com/Dark-Mission-Secret-...A/dp/1932595260

If mainstream stores such as Walden Books say it's not in their computer, try going to a private store.
If you have a credit card, I suppose you can order it over the internet.

I'd like to take a look at it too but I don't have time now.

You may enjoy this thread at AboveTopSecret...I'm on page 30 now, with more to go.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread312623/pg1

Where are all the regular posters from Clavius and Bad Astronomy who usually post on moon threads on this site.

They were all over this thread.
http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...topic=1212&st=0

They were all over the moon thread at the old Loose Change forum.
http://z15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_F...?showtopic=4560

They mentioned and laughed at the issue being raised here but made no attempt to analyze it.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...ge=4#1195392638

Could it be that they all know that Apollo was a hoax and they know that this anomaly is so clear that if they try to debunk it they'll just make themselves look like horses' a----s?

hahaha!! Love ya Dave.

That's exactly what it is!

Nice to have a free-thinker here.

J71 B)

I would imagine that you haven't seen this then...
'A funny thing happened on the way to the moon'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3HT3_X9Suec

Thanks. I've seen it. That's probably the major reason why they had to fake it.

Here's some stuff I've found on the internet about space radiation.


http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is an old saying that "A liar needs a good memory". Nowhere is this more true than in the Apollo program. NASA tell lies to cover up previous lies, and other discrepancies uncovered by people investigating the Moon landings. Altering previous data, removing photographs, and retracting statements made, only re-enforces the evidence that NASA are on the run, and being forced into a corner to which they cannot escape. The actions of those under investigation makes the investigator more aware they are bluffing. The longer that person, or persons, who make the extravagant claims continue, the more lies they have to tell in order to counteract it, until it reaches the point where it becomes ridiculous. That point was passed in July 1999, when NASA officials were questioned about the Moon landings on television. They dodged the all important questions like a drifter dodges the heat.


Many Apollo astronauts have long since died, as to have many of the original NASA officials involved in the scam, consequently current officials, who know that Apollo was a fake, have not quite got it right when talking openly in public. Perhaps the biggest slip of the tongue was made by NASA Chief Dan Goldin when interviewed by UK TV journalist Sheena McDonald in 1994. He said that mankind cannot venture beyond Earth orbit, 250 miles into space, until they can find a way to overcome the dangers of cosmic radiation. He must have forgot that they supposedly sent 27 astronauts 250,000 miles outside Earth orbit 36 years earlier.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ65d30kYME

two sets of radiation data
http://hey_223.tripod.com/bulldoglebeautaketooooo/id82.html
(excerpt)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To prove his thesis, Rene tries to get certain solar data from NATIONAL
OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, (NOAA) using clever techniques
to
disguise his true intentions, [i.e. to get true data on solar flares.] NOAA,
unfortunately, proved to be as cagey as Rene in dodging the giving out of any
really good DETAILS on this matter, [you know, where the devil resides.]

Rene, seeing games being played, deduced that there must be two sets of data,
one which is sent to scientists on the preferred list, and one sent to the
likes of Rene as casual strangers. (p.125)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/apollo5.htm
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...=9659&hl=apollo

Goldin was referring to long term plans for a Mars mission, where journey times mean that space radiation will present bigger challenges to be overcome.

So if these "killer" electrons can pass right through the space station in LEO, why aren't all the astronauts aboard dead?

Here's that data Rene found so hard to track down.

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/ftpsolarflares.html

Comprehensive flare listing sorted by date

Some more sources of information for anyone with a genuine interest who doesn't just want to get there information from conspiracy sites.

http://www.nsbri.org/Radiation/HumanAffects.html
"So far, no American astronaut has received doses anywhere near these limits (although details of each astronaut's exposure are private medical data and cannot, by law, be revealed to the public). But, the longest stay in orbit has been measured only in months. The possibility of long-term spaceflight makes this issue much more important than it has been in the past."

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars...ers_040120.html
"A 2-1/2-year trip to Mars, including six months of travel time each way, would expose an astronaut to nearly the lifetime limit of radiation allowed under NASA guidelines.

The Moon, with no atmosphere, is more dangerous than the surface of Mars. Lunar forays will have to be brief unless expensive shielded habitats are built.

Mission planners knew the Apollo astronauts would be at grave risk if a strong solar flare occurred during a mission. The short duration of each trip was a key to creating favorable odds.


"A big solar event during one of those missions could have been catastrophic," said Cary Zeitlin, a radiation expert at the National Space Biomedical Research Institute at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. "The risk was known. They gambled a bit.""

I never said the radiation issue was conclusive proof that the moon missions were faked. The only people who know the truth about radiation in space are scientists with high security clearances in countries who have sent probes far into space.


Here's some conclusive proof that at least some of the footage was faked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

At the 2 minute 35 second mark of the video the flag is still. When the astronaut goes past it, it starts to move.

There's an analysis of it here at the 3 minute 5 second mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

If some of it was faked, it was probably all faked. Let's hear your analysis of this anomaly.

I wasn't aware someone needed "high security clearance" to send a probe into space. Isn't that just something Rene assumed? If what you're suggesting about a true set of radiation data for security cleared personel, and a "safe" set for the rest of us is true of course, then all those countries that rely on NASA data (or gather their own) about the nature of the Van Allen belts must be keeping quiet too... Russia, China, India, France, Japan, Canada, UK... etc.

Conclusive proof? Your comment suggests you're not being objective by analysing all possibilities, but are just accepting the one that supports your conspiracy theory.

I've just spent a lot of time debating this issue on another forum.

Apollo 15 flag issue on Unexplained Mysteries

In a nutshell:-

There are several competing theories as to what caused the flag to move: static electricity; air turbulence; arm brushed flag; slight settling of flag arm (either coincidental, or caused by slight vibration); dust kicked against flagpole; possibly others.

I don't believe it's possible with the evidence available to be absolutely certain what caused the flag to move. However, from a conspiracy point of view, the only one that really matters is the "air turbulence" one. There is a lot of evidence that contradicts this being caused by air turbulence.

1. Motion of dust kicked up by astronauts in same clip does not appear to be affected by an atmosphere, since there is no apparent clouding.

2. Most HBs whom I've discussed this with claim the astronaut is at least 4 feet away when he bounces past the flag. It's extremely unlikely that the turbulence this kind of motion would create would cause the very regular, pendulum-like motion of the flag.

3. The flag visibly continues to move with a regular, pendulum-like motion for at least 20-25 seconds, a good indicator of a vacuum, not an atmosphere.

4. Slightly earlier in the clip, one of the astronauts moves very close to the flag, almost brushing it, but we don't see the same effect. (The flag is moving due to it being handled, but the movement continues to die down even as and the astronaut moves past, very close to the face of the flag).

I've checked out how a 3'x5' nylon flag behaves in an atmosphere when someone moves past it, and I can't recreate the very pendulum-like motion seen here. What I can see very easily, is that the motion of the flag is much more damped than what we see in this clip.

Conclusion: even if this was the only video evidence I had of the moon landings, the conclusion I'd come to is that it was filmed in a vacuum. What actually caused the flag to move I can't be sure of, but it's extremely unlikely to be due to air turblence caused by the astronaut's motion through an atmosphere.

At the 22 second mark the astronaut is about as far from the flag as he was when he walked past it at the 2 minute 35 second mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1UEv2PIzl4

Look how many steps he has to take to get next to the flag. Also, look at the difference in the size of his arm when he is next to the flag and when he is walking by the flag. The objectivity of anyone who entertains at all the idea that he touched the flag is doubtful. This shows he already has his mind made up and is willing to distort science to prove his foregone conclusion--just like a creation scientist.

The flag moves toward him just like this analysis shows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC1legw5-gs

It moves toward him just at the moment that is expected according to the air current explanation. In a studio where the air is still, the air current caused by the astronaut's passing could have lasted a few moments. The length of time the flag continues to move is not unusual.


Show us how objective you are.
Tell us what you think of the way Jay Windley ducked this question.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1187016551

His is reply #3.
An objective scientist would not hesitate to answer any science-related question asked of him or her. He is obviously owned and has to conform to the official version of everything no matter how silly it is.
If you try to explain away his behavior, you will look suspiciously like you are owned too.

That is quite simply incorrect. He is a LOT closer at 22 seconds, than when he bounces past starting at 2:35. Here are four screenshots from 22 secs, 33 secs, 2 min 36 and 2 min 37. They have been aligned to show the flag in the same position in each frame, since the camera has panned slightly between the shots.

Quite clearly he is closer to the TV camera in the first frame than the second.

Someone who is willing to examine all claims and see whether they have any scientific merit based on empirical evidence is actually objective, not trying to support a foregone conclusion. You've been shown to be wrong about your claim above, hence your reasoning about how far the astronaut moves to get closer to the flag is faulty.

Are you referring to is someone wafting a piece of card past what appears to be a small flag made of card? Do you really expect anyone to accept this as some kind of proper analysis? Even the author of the video said it was just a "fun demo". On top of that, the initial movement of the flag in each and every one of the 22 "fun demos" was AWAY from the astronaut. It's plainly obvious that the flag will then move back once the piece of card has passed, as it is returning to it's equilibrium position. What does this "fun demo" prove? That wafting one piece of card near another one will cause it to move, something I hope no reader of this thread will disagree with.

Empirical evidence to support this?

Here's some advice: spend a few dollars on a 5' x 3' nylon flag. See how quickly small movements are damped in an atmosphere. See if you can recreate the regular, pendulum-like motion of the flag for about 25+ seconds, as seen in the Apollo 15 footage. It's the minimum that a truly objective person, wishing to personally examine these claims about the Apollo 15 flag, would do.

I proved that in the Hannity thread, I'm not playing your silly games in this one.

If I remember right, you avoided the question. If you're an objective truth-seeker, you won't have any qualms about answering any question asked of you.

Ok. I should have been more precise. I should have said to start watching at 22 seconds--as he walks closer from there, he gets to the same distance as he was when he was walking by the flag and he has to take a few more steps to get to where he is next to the flag. Look at it at the 19 second mark. The astronaut on the left is next to the flag. Look at the size of his arm. Now go to the 2 minute 37 second mark. The arm is significantly bigger than the arm of the astronaut on the left of the flag at the 19 second mark.

Also, if you double click quickly on the mouse as he walks by the flag at the 2 minute 35 minute mark you can see it frame by frame. He clearly doesn't touch the flag.

The effect is the same. It's just to a lesser extent because he's further away. The flag starts moving at the precise moment it would be expected to move according to the air current explanation.

If it were static electricity, the flag would have been attracted immediatly--not just after he passed.
Wouldn't it have been similar with the vibration explanation? The flag would have started moving much earlier than it did and it would have taken quite a vibration to make it move.

I'll see what I can find in the house.

I've seen natural phenomena all my life and there's nothing that seems unusual about the time the flag keeps moving. It's barely moving so the atmosphere isn't having a significant effect. I'm wondering if you actually carried out the experiment yourself. That's why I'mn asking you to comment on these other issues. An objective truth-seeker would simply answer the questions. A shill who is owned would avoid the questions with lame excuses.

Tell us what you think of the way Jay Windley ducked this question.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1187016551

Bad Astonomy says it's dedicated to truth and it says Apollo was real.

The moderator there closed this thread with a lame excuse.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theori...-smuggling.html

That doesn't look like the behavior of an objective truth-seeker.

If you're an objective truth-seeker, tell us what you think about these issues.

Also, you did say that you agreed that Jay Windley was wrong about this issue in the Hannity moon thread, didn't you?
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1194111920

If you can do that, you can comment on the other issues.

I just did a little experimenting. I hung a pillow slip on a coat hanger and hanged it from the light fixture in the living room. I walked by it at different speeds at different distances and I found that it continued to move for about as long as the flag did. Atmosphere dampens long movements significantly but when the movement dies down to less than an inch, the effect of atmosphere is almost nothing.
I don't think you even performed the experiment with the flag that you said you performed.

You remember wrongly.

I don't think it's possible to be certain either way from the video, without a much more rigorous examination, probably by someone qualified in photogrammetry. Regardless, I'm not overly concerned in proving what caused the flag to move (a feat which may be totally fruitless), more in finding out whether it's possible that this clip was filmed in an atmosphere or a vacuum.

And you have proved this how? By saying it is so? Various other phenomena could also account for the flag moving at the precise moment it moves.

Firstly, if it was static electricity (and I don't know how likely this explanation is), then you would need to be able to demonstrate whether the astronaut and the flag were of equal charge, opposite charge, or whether was one was charged and the other uncharged. Then you could determine whether the initial flag movement should be away from or toward the astronaut.

You seem to be saying that the flag motion starts after he has passed here - something not born out by the video.

How can you possibly make such statements and expect to be taken seriously? It's impossible to know exactly when the flag would move if this is the correct explanation, since there are so many variables that it is nigh on impossible to know with any degree of accuracy.

And so has everyone else capable of reading this forum.

It might not seem unusual to you just by thinking about it, but I've tried to recreate it and can't. The damping is way to high.

Not interested in your games!

Yes I did. Point proven about my objectivity, whether you accept it or not.

You used a pillow slip? What, about 2' x 1.5'? Made of what material, cotton?

Try is using a nylon or polyester flag, 5'x3' - it has a much higher surface area, and the material will likely be a lot flimsier than your pillow slip.

Then, try doing this empirically, by actually counting the number of oscillations and timing them. Then, compare that to the Apollo footage. I tried it, but the flag came to a virtual standstill after about 10 seconds with an initial displacement similar to that on the Apollo 15 video. The flag in the Apollo clip visibly moves for about 25 seconds. The amount of damping in both clips is visibly and demonstrably different.

Because my results, using a 5'x3' nylon flag (same size and material as Apollo flags), were different to yours, using a much smaller pillow slip (made of what, cotton)?

Whose methods are a better comparison for the Apollo flag

You seem to be totally ruling out atmosphere. Tell us why.

Another thing that makes it clear is the difference in size of the astronaut's arm when it's next to the flag and when he walks by it. You are trying awfully hard not to see this.

I hanged the pillow slip from the light fixture in my living room. I walked by it and it moved. It continued moving for a long time too. It was totally consistent with the footage.

Either way the effect would have begun as soon as the astronaut got to his closest point to the flag--not as he finally passes it.

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. I don't think anybody is confused by what you are saying here. People believe what they see--not what people tell them that they see.

Tell us a variable. He doesn't seem to be changing the intensity of his steps at all. Wouldn't that be the main factor?

That's funny. You say you couldn't recreate it and I say I could. One of is is obviously lying. Could it be the one who refuses to answer questions about the objectivity of Jay Windley and whether the moderators at Bad Astronomy are closing threads that their people can't deal with and giving lame excuses for doing it?

They're not games. They're serious questions. The fact that you're referring to them as games says loads about you.

I ask you again--
What do you think of the way Jay Windley ducked this question?
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1187016551

An objective truth-seeker would simply answer it.

What do you think of the way the moderator at Bad Astronomy closed this thread?
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theori...-smuggling.html

Both the Clavius and Bad Astronomy forums say they are dedicated to truth about Apollo so these are serious issues I'm raising.
The behavior I'm asking you to opine on is not the behavior of truth-seekers.

You seem to be between a rock and a hard place here. You can't say they're wrong because you are loyal to them and you can't say they're right because you'll look like a horse's a---s.

I'll see what I can find but I still doubt that you even performed the experiment. You position is so poor that all you can do is say you performed experiments.

Anyway, your credibility is pretty much shot because you refused to answer my questions about Jay Windley and the Bad Astronomy forum.

People come to their own conclusions and I don't think your having any effect on what people reading here think.

The vibration would have had to be pretty strong to make the flag move from four feet away and in one sixth gravity the force of his steps wouldn't be very heavy.

The electrical attraction theory isn't very plausible; the attraction would have to be pretty strong to attract something that's four feet away.

Sorry but the evidence is consistent with the air current theory and your credibility is shot because you refused to answer my other questions because you are obviously between a rock and a hard place when it comes to those issues.

If a regular pro-Apollo poster at those two forums (you) agrees with a hoax-believer who criticizes them and someone posting there links to that thread, it would be a pretty serious situation for them. That's obviously why you refuse to answer.
I would do the same thing in your place but believe me--you're not fooling anybody.

Already did in an earlier post.

No, I can see that. What I can also see is that when he bounces past, he is side on to the flag, so hi arm will be closer. When the astronaut initially walks up to the flag, he is face on, so his arms will appear to be further away (approx a foot).

These distances are all very subjective anyway, and difficult to prove.

No it wasn't. You used a pillowcase, NOT a 5'x'3' nylon flag. Since a pillowcase would usually be made of denser material, and the surface area would usually be much smaller, it's hardly surprising you saw what you saw. I'd probably see the same if I used a pillowcase rather than a 5' x 3' nylon flag.

The force on the flag would increase as the astronaut moved closer - it would have it's greatest effect the closer together they were. The force would decrease as the distance between them decreased (providing they both had the same charge).

I quite agree, I'm just trying to figure out what your claim is about the flag motion, and why you have ruled out static electricity. I haven't ruled it out, but I'm not entirely convinced either.

How much energy is transferred to the flagpole as the astronaut moves past? How much friction is holding the upper part of the pole in place on the lower part? Is it in its equilibrium position? If it slips, by how much and how quickly?

How can one possibly quantify all that empirically from the video? It's impossible. All we have is a theory that is impossibe to prove - and probably impossible to disprove. It's a possibilty, that is all.

I used a nylon 5' x 3' flag. You used a cotton pillowcase.

Illogical conclusion. We could both be lying, either of us could be lying, or we could both be telling the truth. I've no reason to doubt your results, just the experiment itself. It's apples and oranges.

Not interested in your game playing about other people's actions on other forums. Take it up with them.

No, they're games designed to waste people's time from conducting proper research and discussing the actual issue, i.e. the Apollo Hoax.

I joined two geology forums and asked several people with geology expertise and exerpience for their opinion. In the light of their input, I agreed that you were probably right about the sifted sand issue, and that Windley was probably wrong.

Now who looks like a horses' a**e?

LET ME REPEAT in case it hasn't sunk in. I am not going to participate in your personal vendetta against Windley. Nor am I going to respond to any more of your pathetic "objectivity tests". From someone who clearly has no objectivity when it comes to Apollo, I find it quite ironic that you insist other people take your "tests" before you label them as a shill.

I should make something clear.

Clavius and Bad Astronomy say they are dedicated to Apollo truth ajd just truth in general. Anyone who does some serious reading of the threads on their forums will find lots of cases where the posters are afraid to go against the official version of thing and are afraid to discuss issues they won't be able to discredit.

This is one case.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theori...-smuggling.html

Jay Windley ducks questions.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1187016551

Of course there is this issue.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1194111920

You say those people simply made a mistake. I say they were consciously lying. That is too basic an issue for them to have been mistaken.

I'm presenting the fact that these two sites are obviously not dedicated to truth as circumstantial evidence that furthers the argument that Apollo was a hoax. What you're doing is ducking the issue because you are one of them. If you say they were wrong, you will be admitting they are capable of being untruthful. If you say they were right, you'll look silly. The classic defence against this situation is to take a neutral position and show scorn for the whole issue and play it down and avoid it with lame excuses.
Believe me--you're not fooling anybody. You are avoiding this issue because you can't deal with it.

You can pretend all you want but if you avoid this issue, you're credibility is pretty much shot. It looks suspiciously like you don't even believe your own arguments when you analyze Apollo.

http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

We've already been through this David! I referred to people with relevant experience and expertise, and they agreed with your position! Hence, I disagree with Jay Windley's position on sifted sand! That isn't a neutral position.

The only thing I'm pouring scorn on are your ridiculous "objectivty tests" that you insist everyone pass.

Already dealt with (sifted sand). I even appraised the 911 pentagon attack analysis on the Hannity thread as well. If you recall, I agreed for the most part with his measurements insofar as they could be verified on Google Earth and other sources, with the exception of the size of the device connected to the automatic barrier, which he didn't provide an online source for (none available). IIRC conclusion was that it was possible for a 757 to be just hidden from the security camera at the distance and angle used. You tried to twist this around to say that he was claiming this was proof that there was a 757 behind the object, which he clearly wasn't. This is actually evidence of your lack of objectivity, since you tried to change his conclusion. A strawman tactic to make it easier to knock down. If you were truly objective, you would have properly examined the evidence you asked me to and pointed out which measurements were wrong, and what they should have been, and what the correct conclusion should have been. You failed to do this. Afraid to take your own test?

So there you go - two of your silly tests, one of which I agreed with your conclusion, one of which I disagreed. How this is supposed to prove anyone's objectvity is beyond me, since quite clearly you will only say they are objective if they agree with your foregone conclusion. Even when I did agree (sifted sand), you still twisted that around into proving that I was somehow a lying government shill!

That is why your tests are ridiculous.

Now, time for you to provide some proof of your objectivity.

Watch this video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lABKEZFazfo

Now follow the discussion about it on Unexplained Mysteries you recently joined so should have no problem finding it.

Do you agree with Jarrah White's premise that what was seen was Apollo 11? Do you agree that it is more likely to be Proton 4 during re-entry? Did Jarrah White make a mistake, or was he consciously lying? Post your analysis and conclusion on this forum, UM, and Jarrah White's comments board.

If you avoid this issue, you'll prove that you're not objective when it comes to Apollo, and what's left of your credibility will be shot. If you can't be objective about Apollo, you can't be objective about 911 either.

Here's what I said about you and the ust-free sand issue.

You saw this. You're just stalling.

When I said you were takinga neutral position, I was referring to this.

Tell us what you think of the reason the moderator gave for closing this thread.
http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theori...-smuggling.html

Jay Windley ducked my question.
http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cg...read=1187016551

The fact that these two sites try to duck issues that they can't discredit because they're too clear shows that these two sites are not dedicated to truth. They are dedicated to obfuscating the truth.

Please comment on Jay's ducking the question and the moderator's closing the thread.

As for the Pentagon issue--
I said the guy who did this proof didn't show how he got the numbers on which he based the whole thing.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf

We know it's wrong because if we use the height of the Pentagon at the same distance from the camera as the plane behind the box to base the calculations on, we can see that the plane behind the box is way too short to be a 757.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

If a 757 were stood on its tail next to the Pentagon, it would be twice as tall as the Pentagon. We can see the size of a 757 at that distance from the camera. It wouldn't fit behind the box.

Just the shape of the nose of the plane closes the whole case.
http://www.knowledgedrivenrevolution.com/P...tagon_Video.jpg
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/w...agon1_plane.jpg

That is not the nose of a 757. I know the camera had a fish eye lens but it wouldn't have distorted it that much. It didn't distort anything else in the picture to that degree.

I saw the movie. It's not conclusive proof of anything. It may have been something else they saw in the sky. If it had been Apollo 11, wouldn't it have been visible every ninety minutes--not only on one occasion?

That video can't be used as serious evidence to prove anything.

There some much better evidence here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There's a noticeable difference in the body movements in these two clips.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11v.1101330.rm

What I hypothesize is that only slow-motion was used in Apollo 11. Later, they improved thier methods of simulating lunar gravity and started using a combination of slow-motion and support wires. The slow-motion in the later missions might not have been exactly half-speed. It might have been sixty five or seventy percent of natural speed. It looked better but it was inconsistent with Apollo 11 footage. The inconsistency is apparent.

At around the 21 minute mark of this video the above footage from Apollo 11 can be seen played at double speed.
http://video.google.es/videoplay?docid=413...757736&q=apollo

It looks just like movement in earth gravity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you look at the acceleration of the object that falls from the astronaut's backpack and the acceleration of the hammer and feather that fall, it's apparent that the there's a difference in the way gravity affects the objects differently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C5_dOEyAfk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK2Fy85VyRg

Evidently the slow-motion speed is different.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQj-Mh__fRc&NR=1
http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=sgID31UpYfA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vENebR5hsRs
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5278489814268946247

This is interesting.
http://www.nardwuar.com/vs/bill_kaysing/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
http://www.aulis.com/skeleton.html
http://erichufschmid.net/Interview-with-Bart-Sibrel.html
http://www.geocities.com/apollotruth/


The astronauts look pretty nervous at the press conference.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RcKLAo62Ro

Their behavior look pretty suspicious here too. It begins in the second half of the video.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2265515730495966561
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first thing I want to hear from you is the issue of why Jay Windley ducked my question and why the moderator at Bad Astronomy closed that thread. You've been ducking this.

You've just repeated a lot of stuff you've said before, that I've answered before.

then how did they recreate the Lunar landscape as seen from Earth? Craters from the Apollo missions match up with craters seen from binoculars.

Where the heck is Binoculars, is that a Martian moon or something. :)

Sorry.

You really seem to be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to this issue.

You've never addressed this. If you insist you have, what have to got to lose by doing so again to make it clear?

That's fakable.

No, I'm just not wasting my time rehashing what's already been discussed previously.

If you have an issue, PM the moderator who closed it and ask them to re-open it. My guess is you were intellectually lazy with your answers, but I may be wrong. You have a habit of doing this, for example your "debunking" of the 911 pentagon crash analysis, which consisted of little more than saying "stand the plane upright and it should be twice the height of the pentagon", or your "analysis" of the apollo bag-drops where you say "I can tell by looking at it that it's falling at the wrong speed". Other people actually analyse data and provide conclusions that can be falsified.

You asked for his comments on a TWO HOUR LONG video that had nothing to do with Apollo. Here's his reply:-

"No, you want to try to discredit me by whatever answer I give, or by my refusal to give an answer. Since the outcome will not change no matter what I do, I choose not to participate."

Seems he was absolutely correct.

That hasn't been my experience with either site. Maybe you just push the wrong buttons because your behaviour comes very close to simple trolling, e.g. demanding a response to a 2 hour long video that isn't anything to do with Apollo.

Many things are fakeable. Capable of being faked, and being faked, are two entirely different things.