Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

[Multivac]

Bob 2 never did find his spanners either..

Did he look behind the fridge? Or down the back of the cushions?

 

[Straw Man]

Oddly enough, the reflected light from the lunar surface is an effect I demonstrated live on television, for BBC Channel 4. David Percy of Aulis was invited (twice) to appear on that program with me to defend his claims, but he declined.

Was it the BBC or Channel 4? Just they are two different entities.

Any idea what the name of the programme was?


ETA: I do have some recorded stuff from BBC4's (a BBC channel 4 - confusing, isn't it?) Apollo Night, but I can't recall any live demonstrations.

 

[JayUtah]

Was it the BBC or Channel 4? Just they are two different entities.

Channel 4. I erroneously mentioned BBC in my caffeine-deprived state.

Any idea what the name of the programme was?

The Truth Behind the Moon Landings in the British version. Here is the version that I am told aired on Channel 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ . I have no connection with that YouTube user. The original program was produced by ZigZag Productions in London and funded by Channel 4 and Discovery Canada. It aired first in those markets.

About a year later, it was retitled The Truth About the Moon Landings and aired with an American narrator on Discovery Channel in the U.S. Subsequently it was again retitled Conspiracy Moon Landing and airs approximately once a year on the National Geographic Channel.

I apologize for my haircut.

According to the producers, that program was originally supposed to feature a debate between me and David Percy, but he backed out.

 

[JayUtah]

Or had a studio picture taken.

Or gone outside.

Indeed, the approach taken by Aulis "investigators" seems to be to gather "well-qualified, eminent experts" that no one has heard of and record their pontifications on things they generally refuse to demonstrate -- or (at best) demonstrate only under corner-case conditions carefully rigged to produce the desired effect.

 

[Dcdrac]

Channel 4. I erroneously mentioned BBC in my caffeine-deprived state.



The Truth Behind the Moon Landings in the British version. Here is the version that I am told aired on Channel 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ . I have no connection with that YouTube user. The original program was produced by ZigZag Productions in London and funded by Channel 4 and Discovery Canada. It aired first in those markets.

About a year later, it was retitled The Truth About the Moon Landings and aired with an American narrator on Discovery Channel in the U.S. Subsequently it was again retitled Conspiracy Moon Landing and airs approximately once a year on the National Geographic Channel.

I apologize for my haircut.

According to the producers, that program was originally supposed to feature a debate between me and David Percy, but he backed out.

Funny that, whenever a CTer has to face some one with expert knowledge they run a million miles away

 

[JayUtah]

Can I see that demonstration on the internet somewhere? (Not the BBC iPlayer, since I'm not in the UK) Thanks!

YooToob link posted above. Naturally I recommend the entire program, but to answer your specific question:

08:24 - Illustrates our lighting setup.
24:01 - I demonstrate the surface reflection property using a single light source and an actor in a Beta cloth space suit.

Here are my photographs and commentary from the location shooting, which provide more insight.

http://www.clavius.org/bibzz1.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibzz2.html

Fig. 12 on the second page is especially revealing. The astronaut-actor is being illuminated only by a single 18 kW fresnel luminaire about 100 feet away, and he is standing on a shaded portion of the desert terrain. That is, although he himself is in direct light, the ground he is standing on receives no direct light. The pool of light at his feet is the spill from the suit. That spill doesn't go just downward, but in every direction from which the suit can be seen, in amounts determined by the geometrical and radiometrical properties of the reflector and receiver.

 

[JayUtah]

Funny that, whenever a CTer has to face some one with expert knowledge they run a million miles away

It gets worse. Not only did he refuse to appear on the program (which was a truly third-party production), but after it aired in England he tried to spin the results on the Aulis web site. The problem doesn't appear to be that he's uninterested in debate. It appears to be that he will debate only on his terms -- where he gets to control what is said from both sides.

I simply stood there in the desert, kicked the scorpions out of the way, did my thing, and turned it over to Virginia and Alistair to edit as they saw fit. I have nothing to hide because all I'm demonstrating is the true behavior of the natural world. Anyone can go out and replicate my demonstrations. Conspiracy theorists, on the other hand, are trying to get you to believe what they say about the behavior of the natural world. Their approach only works if you keep tight control over the dialogue.

It's interesting that in Ralph Rene's last on-camera interview before his unfortunate demise, he specifically asked, "Are you going to interview Bart Sibrel or David Percy?" When the producer told him that he hadn't yet finalized the interviewee list, Rene said he would agree to be interviewed only if the producer promised that none of those other conspiracy theorists would appear. It seems Rene believed they stole all his material and are profiting from selling it to a market he believes should rightly be his. And yes, he mentioned this several times during the rambling interview from which only a few statements were usable.

Sibrel ultimately was dropped because the producers would not pay the $2,500 appearance fee he demanded. Percy declined the invitation. Jack White agreed to be interviewed, and coincidentally this was also his last on-camera interview regarding Apollo.

Unfortunately the program was a pilot for a History Channel series whose funding was pulled when History Channel became the Ghost and Bigfoot Channel. Hence it will never see the light of day. Too bad, because we do a pretty good job of showing how hilarious Jack White's claims are.

 

[Straw Man]

Channel 4. I erroneously mentioned BBC in my caffeine-deprived state.



The Truth Behind the Moon Landings in the British version. Here is the version that I am told aired on Channel 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ . I have no connection with that YouTube user. The original program was produced by ZigZag Productions in London and funded by Channel 4 and Discovery Canada. It aired first in those markets.

About a year later, it was retitled The Truth About the Moon Landings and aired with an American narrator on Discovery Channel in the U.S. Subsequently it was again retitled Conspiracy Moon Landing and airs approximately once a year on the National Geographic Channel.

I apologize for my haircut.

According to the producers, that program was originally supposed to feature a debate between me and David Percy, but he backed out.

Thanks for the link, Jay. I've not seen this, and look forward to watching it.

 

[Bell]

Channel 4. I erroneously mentioned BBC in my caffeine-deprived state.



The Truth Behind the Moon Landings in the British version. Here is the version that I am told aired on Channel 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4tk-3KeYNQ . I have no connection with that YouTube user. The original program was produced by ZigZag Productions in London and funded by Channel 4 and Discovery Canada. It aired first in those markets.

About a year later, it was retitled The Truth About the Moon Landings and aired with an American narrator on Discovery Channel in the U.S. Subsequently it was again retitled Conspiracy Moon Landing and airs approximately once a year on the National Geographic Channel.

I apologize for my haircut.

According to the producers, that program was originally supposed to feature a debate between me and David Percy, but he backed out.

Thanks for the link, Jay. That was a good program and I really liked your part. Too bad the program refers to the hoaxers as skeptics, though.

Eta: Thanks for the other links. And yes, I watched the whole program

 

[threadworm]

Likewise - a very enjoyable watch. I particularly enjoyed the allegation that the government responsible for faking the missions were also responsible for failing to assassinate Kaysing. Three times.

 

[Peter May]

For Jay Utah

If you read “Into the Lions den” at Aulis under the heading “Record of the Meeting, second paragraph, I think you will see the reason, or at least part of the reason for this reaction. There is some hint of paranoia in correspondence with Aulis where Mary Bennet states in two mails to me the following.
Caveat: You do not have permission to reprint or publish the contents of
this email * either in part or in its entirety. But there may be other reasons.
She did not address my refutation of their flag billowing from both side analysis, just pointing out that if I read their book, all would be clear. What I would really like to do is publish refutations of every single one of their claims in book form.

 

[Peter May]

Well to be correct I have never been employed as a scientist.

 

[JayUtah]

She did not address my refutation of their flag billowing from both side analysis, just pointing out that if I read their book, all would be clear.

That is their standard evasive response.

 

[abaddon]

If you read “Into the Lions den” at Aulis under the heading “Record of the Meeting, second paragraph, I think you will see the reason, or at least part of the reason for this reaction.

Provide a compelling reason why anyone should?

There is some hint of paranoia in correspondence with Aulis where Mary Bennet states in two mails to me the following.
Caveat: You do not have permission to reprint or publish the contents of
this email * either in part or in its entirety.

Oh, copyright

But there may be other reasons.

Yet you fail to specify.

She did not address my refutation of their flag billowing from both side analysis, just pointing out that if I read their book, all would be clear. What I would really like to do is publish refutations of every single one of their claims in book form.

Off you go and do it then.

 

[nomuse]

I apologize for my haircut.

In my mind, you always have that powdered wig.

 

[abaddon]

In my mind, you always have that powdered wig.

LOL. OK.

In hindsight that needs an extra LOL, so LOL.

 

[Peter May]

Transcript of the Youtube video Lunar rover on the moon. Is it an RC model (Extended Edition)
Reproduced here verbatim by Peter May
Posted by moon fakery. Length 2min 22secs
Information about the subject
Vsevolod Yakubovich is a director of photography of the Mosfilm Studios. He teaches "Technology of the shooting process". He graduated from the All-Union State Cinema Institute (VGIK) in 1968. Currently he is an Associate Professor of VGIK Camera Department. As a special effects cinematographer he was involved in shooting of more than 200 movies.

I, as a trick photography cameraman think it was a doll on a radio controlled model it looks like a movie production in a big pavilion with front projection using a radio controlled model which mimics a rover running on the lunar surface What is cause for doubt? The camera is dangling on the rover It shows At the same time, there is no reaction from the person sitting on the rover He works as if his wrist and elbow are fixed either to the body or to the rover The camera is moving but the arm is not moving at all The notebook is moving although it’s not clear why the notebook should move But still it is moving and the arm is not It raises questions In addition there are areas where differences between the foreground soil and the soil located in the background is very noticeable They are different both in color and texture from one another These very doubts arose when we watched Kubrick’s movie 2001: A Space Odyssey In the movie as well there where differences between foreground and background and some inconsistency Most likely this footage was taken here on Earth under Earth’s gravity Changing the shooting speed accurately imitates conditions on the moon

 

[Belz...]

Did Youtube steal your punctuation ? Man, this is hard to read.

 

[dafydd]

Did Youtube steal your punctuation ? Man, this is hard to read.

And not worth reading either.

 

[DJW001]

The obvious fallacies in this absurd statement have already been pointed out and ridiculed. Why are you quoting it at length? Do you believe this "analysis" has any merit?