• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter May said:
Please read my post 9092 up to Gas Has Mass, OK.

Please read DJWOO1 post 9102, OK

No extra effort was required to send it as a PM. Where did you get the idea from?
Click to expand...

Why should I reread your long boring post again? What does that have to do with my post?

Yes, there is extra effort. It requires at least an extra click. You have to click on the poster's name and then the "quote this post in a PM". You have to specifically go looking for it when the forum quote button is at the bottom of every post. But more importantly, it appears that you are trying to hide your response especially when you post this in reply "You have not asked for, nor have you received permission to post a private message from Peter May included in your posting 9104."
 
Last edited:
Peter May said:
You have not asked for, nor have you received permission to post a private message from Peter May included in your posting 9104.
Click to expand...

And I distinctly and emphatically informed you that I would have no further private communications with you. By sending a PM, you tacitly gave me permission to post my response in the open forum.
 
I remember when this thread used to be about Apollo. It was great back then because Apollo was really cool and interesting.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I remember when this thread used to be about Apollo. It was great back then because Apollo was really cool and interesting.
Click to expand...

It still can be - I see no reason why people have to sit back and wait for the CT's to come up with some more garbage to respond to.

I believe very strongly that there is still a massive amount of information in the Apollo photographs and video for people to explore. I've been having fun over at DIF posting comparisons of LRO images and photographs from the lunar surface (you need to be a member to see it as it the thread is in the 'Rant Room'), as the surface images show details that were not visible on any other photographs until the LRO began its high resolution images.

For example: Apollo 15, Hadley Rille - a section of a pan taken at Station 9A compared with a high resolution LRO image of the same area:

hadleycrop1.jpg


or a shot of Dune crater (again Apollo 15) with some nice features visible from the LRO:

dunecraterrocks1.jpg


dunecraterrocks2.jpg


Or From Henry crater at Taurus-Littrow

henrycrater.jpg


statiob6view.jpg


(the red circle is the big 'split rock' on the left of the Apollo image).

Much more fun than explaining to some dullard about the absence of stars in photographs for the 15th time!

My examination of satellite meteorology from the same era is another case in point - there is plenty of material out there that wipes the floor with the human centipede of Apollo denial and I don't see why we should let them dictate the direction of debate. Assuming you bother debating - I've given up. There is no rational discussion to be had with them, so why bother. Just keep piling on the evidence until the weight of it suffocates them. Use Apollo resources to educate yourself instead of someone who has no interest in learning about it.
 
Last edited:
Jack by the hedge said:
I remember when this thread used to be about Apollo. It was great back then because Apollo was really cool and interesting.
Click to expand...

"Cool" as I have a tiny general interest question. In one of the video links Michael Collins is wearing sun glasses while sitting in the Command Module. I guess the windows of the command module are not tinted and he's simply wearing sunglasses to look out the window at the moon. Fair enough.

Here's my dumb question. Because there is no atmosphere on the moon there would not be "glare" but the moon would still be fully bathed by the sun and very bright against black space. Therefore he wouldn't need polarised sunglasses but just darkening sunglasses. As his space ship is not always level to the horizon, polarised sunglasses wouldn't serve any purpose

A pilot on earth has glare from the atmosphere and generally flies horizontal to the horizon and polarised sunglasses would work.

Would polarized sunglasses have had any benefit for anyone in space?
 
Matthew Ellard said:
"Cool" as I have a tiny general interest question. In one of the video links Michael Collins is wearing sun glasses while sitting in the Command Module. I guess the windows of the command module are not tinted and he's simply wearing sunglasses to look out the window at the moon. Fair enough.

Here's my dumb question. Because there is no atmosphere on the moon there would not be "glare" but the moon would still be fully bathed by the sun and very bright against black space. Therefore he wouldn't need polarised sunglasses but just darkening sunglasses. As his space ship is not always level to the horizon, polarised sunglasses wouldn't serve any purpose

A pilot on earth has glare from the atmosphere and generally flies horizontal to the horizon and polarised sunglasses would work.

Would polarized sunglasses have had any benefit for anyone in space?
Click to expand...

While Wikipedia isn't always reliable, your exact question found this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunglasses#Sunglasses_in_space

The first sunglasses used in a Moon landing were the original Pilot Sunglasses produced by American Optical. In 1969, they were on board the Eagle, the lunar landing module of the first manned mission to land on the Moon (Apollo 11). – NASA research primarily by scientists James B. Stephens and Charles G. Miller at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) resulted in special lenses that protected against the light in space or the light during laser and welding work. The lenses used colored dyes and small zinc oxide particles; zinc oxide absorbs ultraviolet light and is also used in sunscreen lotions. The research was later broadened to further terrestrial applications, e.g., deserts, mountains, or fluorescent-lighted offices, and the technology has been commercially marketed by a U.S. company. Since 2002, NASA uses the frame of the designer model Titan Minimal Art of the Austrian company Silhouette, combined with specially dark lenses developed jointly by the company and "the" NASA optometrist Keith Manuel. The frame is noteworthy in that it is very light, weighing 1.8 grams, and contains neither screws nor hinges, so that no small pieces can loosen]
Click to expand...

You can still get them:

http://shop.aoeyewearonline.com/ORIGINAL-PILOT-Gold-Frame-52mm-Grey-Lens-Bayonet-Temples-OP52GBATC.htm

Worn by the flight crew of Apollo 11, the first astronauts on the moon in 1969
Click to expand...

You could even buy a pair that has been in space:

http://www.spaceflownartifacts.com/flown_sunglasses.html
 
Jack by the hedge said:
I remember when this thread used to be about Apollo. It was great back then because Apollo was really cool and interesting.
Click to expand...


I agree, and in this spirit I contribute these notes.
It is my opinion and experience that conspiracy theorists do not seek out
forums like this to establish the absolute truthfulness of their claims. I see no evidence here that they are queuing up to tell us how deluded we are. Aulis online published these images on their site claiming that the flag (Apollo 11) is billowing both ways. i.e. (towards the viewer) while the images are acquired from two directions 180 degrees apart, how could this be? Is this more evidence of Apollo fakery? No, I wrote to Aulis pointing out why their assumptions are false. David Percy states he is photographer, his first reaction should have been to ask himself, why there is a noticeable difference in contrast between the two images, the reason being is that one side is in direct sunlight, while the other side is illuminated by light reflected by, and more importantly, scattered by the lunar surface. This scattered light “washes out” the contrast, which in this case gives rise to an optical artifact, or illusion giving the impression that the flag is billowing towards the viewer from both directions. He should also have noticed that not all of the white binding material, (on the edge of the flag closest to the pole) is visible in both views, clearly showing that they are two separate images, and not as Aulis claim, the same image purposefully composed by a “NASA whistle blower. David Percy is simply not interested in the physics of why the flag appears as it does, this is clear. We must then look elsewhere for his reasons. He is certainly not the average Youtube semi literate type, he seems educated, and as far as I can see has received at least one award for photography, and yet, and yet, he publishes “Photographic studies of Apollo anomalies” by Jack White. Why?
The JREF forum may be great place for confronting the occasional Apollo hoax theorist. It is also a source for debunking their claims, and for contact with those who not only believe the Apollo record, but by researching the record have found no “anomalies that are not easily explained, in fact, the more one researches Apollo, the more one becomes aware as to the truthfulness of the account. If we are to confront them, should it not be on their home ground? I do this, and wonder are there any other members who do the same?
Mary Bennett (also of Aulis) replied that she thanked me for the refutation, but added with words to the affect that, “life is to short to continue corresponding. The Apollo hoax theorist is ever evasive. Am I, and others simply wasting our time, sometimes I think so.

This posting contains only part of my refutation of the Aulis claims above.

The Aulis article in question may be found at
http://www.aulis.com/
Under, Apollo/Moon. Serious Apollo anomalies

http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther /5905_5886flags.jpg

http://www.aulis.com/imagesfurther /11-40-5905+886_2.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Peter May said:
If we are to confront them, should it not be on their home ground? I do this, and wonder are there any other members who do the same?
Click to expand...

You think people here haven't done that? I, and several other members here, have spent many hours arguing with morons, abusive trolls and offensive idiots in well known internet locations defending the truth against a ceaseless tide of babble and bilge. I spent the best part of two years writing a document that blows their ridiculous nonsense out of the water, and made sure they saw it. You think any one of them bothered to read it? I once posted an image in support of an argument. It was a message that said something along the lines of "I bet no-one has bothered to read this because they are scared of the truth". Not one single Apollo denier commented on it, but a number of Apollo supporters did. That right there is the difference between deniers and supporters of the moon landings.

Go ahead and argue with them. It will get you nowhere, because the last thing these idiots want from their constant barrage of pointless nitpicking questions is actual answers. They aren't interested in hearing the truth, they're asking questions to try and catch people out. The truth will turn their world view upside down, and they will avoid that at all costs. The only answers they want are the ones that confirm their own beliefs. The current DIF thread on the topic (visible only to members) is just a stream of irrelevant sycophancy designed to wear down the opposition, not deal in rational discussion and debate.

I referred to it earlier as the human centipede of denial. If you are familiar with the film you'll know the metaphor I'm driving at. It is an entirely accurate one.
 
Peter May said:
Am I, and others simply wasting our time, sometimes I think so.
Click to expand...

Posting refutations on JREF to the long ago debunked Aulis is a waste of time, we all know Aulis is full on nonsense and no new hoax believer will ever bother to read what has already been written. Sending refutations to Aulis is a waste of time, because they are not interested in truth. Confronting currently posting hoax believers is not a waste of time.

Why don't you go over to Goodlike Productions and rebut the waste of an education that has been running amok in their forum?
 
Aulis used to run a rudimentary web forum on their site in which they received feedback from readers and answered questions. John Witts from the U.K. pointed me to it, and I systematically dismantled their entire premise on it. Then the feedback forum was suddenly disabled for more than a month for "maintenance," then removed altogether.

This was replaced in due time by a guestbook, entries to which were moderated by the Aulis webmaster. They accepted no comments from anyone who had previously posted to their web forum. Several people posted comments under pseudonyms that, for a time, seemed to challenge their claims. But soon this too was abandoned and removed.

Aulis webmasters, authors, and editors have amply proven over several that they are simply unwilling an unable to tolerate challenges to their claims on their own territory. The original Aulis authors have withdrawn from all public comment and engagement, although they continue to sell their wares. They have been given ample opportunity to participate with me and others in third-party forums, including international television coverage. They have refused each time.

They are intellectual cowards and profiteers. They will tolerate no dissent, challenge, or discussion on their own terms. Therefore we present our criticism of their findings in separate forums. This works out reasonably well because, given their censorial history, it is important to place such criticism outside their ability to suppress and remove it.
 
threadworm said:
You think people here haven't done that? I, and several other members here, have spent many hours arguing with morons, abusive trolls and offensive idiots in well known internet locations defending the truth against a ceaseless tide of babble and bilge. I spent the best part of two years writing a document that blows their ridiculous nonsense out of the water, and made sure they saw it. You think any one of them bothered to read it? I once posted an image in support of an argument. It was a message that said something along the lines of "I bet no-one has bothered to read this because they are scared of the truth". Not one single Apollo denier commented on it, but a number of Apollo supporters did. That right there is the difference between deniers and supporters of the moon landings.

Go ahead and argue with them. It will get you nowhere, because the last thing these idiots want from their constant barrage of pointless nitpicking questions is actual answers. They aren't interested in hearing the truth, they're asking questions to try and catch people out. The truth will turn their world view upside down, and they will avoid that at all costs. The only answers they want are the ones that confirm their own beliefs. The current DIF thread on the topic (visible only to members) is just a stream of irrelevant sycophancy designed to wear down the opposition, not deal in rational discussion and debate.

I referred to it earlier as the human centipede of denial. If you are familiar with the film you'll know the metaphor I'm driving at. It is an entirely accurate one.
Click to expand...

I believe that many of the members here have indeed taken the fight to it’s source. My point is how many, hopefully together with your response, and others this will become clear.
So what are we to do, shortly before being banned from Alien Scientist forum I asked this question of a moderator, “who moderates the moderators“, a lifetime ban was the result. I wrote to Alien Scientist himself without result.
There are forums for them, and for us, and nary the twain shall meet.
I have not seen the film you mention, a URL if you please.
 
Pooneil said:
Posting refutations on JREF to the long ago debunked Aulis is a waste of time, we all know Aulis is full on nonsense and no new hoax believer will ever bother to read what has already been written. Sending refutations to Aulis is a waste of time, because they are not interested in truth. Confronting currently posting hoax believers is not a waste of time.

Why don't you go over to Goodlike Productions and rebut the waste of an education that has been running amok in their forum?
Click to expand...




I have come to the same conclusion myself, but I do not know how many of their articles have actually been debunked, therefore it would be nice to know just who has debunked what. Your feedback would be appreciated, but I know what you mean. I will take a look at Goodlike Productions.
Regards
Peter.
 
Last edited:
Be prepared, when you look at Godlike Productions the stupid can burn holes into your brain
 
I did not understand the written title, but on seeing the site, I realized I have been there. Nej tack
Click to expand...

Might I suggest you check out a user called "RelentlesslyClever?" He is none other than Patrick1000, the OP of this very thread. I would enjoy seeing you engage him on such stimulating topics as deadly rubella, faked lightning, impossible celestial navigation, the etiology of Menière's Syndrome and of course, his all time favorite, interplanetary waste management. Since he clearly knows he is wrong, the object of the exercise, as always, is to provide the facts of the situation to prevent others from being duped by his chicanery. Have fun!;)
 
Peter May said:
I have not seen the film you mention, a URL if you please.
Click to expand...

Reasons of good taste prevent that. Google is your friend, though you may disagree if it finds you clips. The victims of the human centipede's creator are joined surgically, mouth to anus, so that waste from one person is passed directly into the mouth of the next, and so on and so on.

That is pretty much how information passes down the Apollo denier food chain.
 
Apollo enthusiasts may like to see this:

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/

Which is a re-run of the Apollo 11 landing footage with the MOCR audio as well as the usual Capcom to crew dialogue.

I've also re-done my satellite research document as a webpage. I dedicated part of the acknowledgements on that web version especially to people like FatFreddy ;)

There's other stuff too on the Apollo section of my shiny website:

http://onebigmonkey.comoj.com/obm/
 
Both links point to your website - no video.

I must say, though, I do like what you have on your site.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom