Brand new Clyde Lewis article: "The New Moondoggle" (uploade

As late as June 21, 2002, Clyde Lewis has uploaded a brand new Moon Hoax article, entitled "The New Moondoggle" !!

He has hidden this gem at:

http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/moondoggle/moondoggle.htm

..... but we all know that it´s impossible to hide anything from the BABB, don´t we !? [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

(If you have the feeling that you have seen some of Clyde´s pictures before, then you are absolutely correct. I too have seen these allegedly "new" pics before ... at:

http://www.geocities.com/apolloreality/ )

And now the beginning of Clyde´s latest gem:

"The Alleged Moon Hoax argument flares up again and this time some new pictures surface. If we are to believe that man set foot on the Moon in 1969 then we should also be able to see that it could have been possible to fake pictures, and television images. The only problem is that if we concede that they faked some of the record then the slippery slope would be that perhaps they faked it all.

A few weeks ago I was invited on the Dee Snider program originating from Hartford Connecticut. I was asked to appear on the show to talk about the alleged moon-landing hoax. Dee Snider who was the man behind the 8o's rock leviathan Twisted Sister sounded tired and probably wasn't sure about what he was about to hear. After being on the air with Snider and his crew for almost an hour his "peeps" were very receptive and his audience was very fair and openly discussed both sides of the issue.

Even people who thought the whole idea was absurd even made great points and I walked away feeling good about my first outing on a show that wasn't paranormal or conspiratorial in any way.

Snider commented that I made some good points and thanked me for staying awake at 4:00 AM to do the show.

I received e-mails from people who were curious about my appearance and wanted to read about the controversy.

I had pointed them to many websites that claimed we did go to the moon in 1969 and I gave links to my postulating in my web forums and on my website.

There was one e-mail however that was sent to me with several attachments. I opened them up and what I saw shocked me. There were pictures with an explanation as to what I was seeing.

I am not able to verify the validity of the pictures but the explanation raised my eyebrows. What I was given was some very interesting pictures that may demonstrate that the Moon Images we saw in 1969 were made right here on planet earth.

I was told that I could share the pictures with whomever I felt needed to see them and that I should give the explanations that he enclosed. He told me that there will be many people who will not believe the explanation but if they investigate them that they will see that the pictures are real and that the areas would be familiar to those who know what happened in 1969.

I contacted my Webmaster John Hart and told him that I was going to present them and I asked him to help me present them to anyone who reads this. So here are the pictures and the explanations."

Oh, as to how I know the date "June 21, 2002" ... Well, Clyde has an "open directory" at

http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/

So ... Fresh meat for the BABB at:

http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/moondoggle/moondoggle.htm

Now, now ... No pushing ... There´s plenty for everybody !! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Spooky on 2002-07-01 18:37 ]</font>

[RalphVanDyke]

http://www.clydelewis.com/dis/moondo...s/doctored.jpg

He has stars in the background! lol

[JayUtah]

Lewis: Now I know these photos prove nothing.

Darn tootin'.

They are photos obviously sent to me to show that it could have been faked.

The big gantry at Langley is well known. If you look closely at all the photos you'll see a piece of the structure itself in all of them. And as soon as you get far enough away to make a 22-foot lunar module appear that small in the frame, you realize there's no direction you could photograph that wouldn't include one of those large structures.

Ah, but they could do it in miniature. Then they could make the LM small in the frame without needing to photograph a wide angle that would risk showing part of the crane. But if you're committed now to something less than a 22-foot lunar module, why not just a 22-inch lunar module? Then you could use a much simpler arrangement and even do it indoors where they could create a proper background and avoid curious gaze.

If you're going to lower the LM gently to simulate landing and jerk it upwards to simulate liftoff, any crane will suffice. Better to use one that's not so well-known and not in full view of everyone.

You can see this becomes an ad hoc speculation: "Gee, what a cool crane! I'll bet that's what they used to fake the moon landings." And nobody stops to think whether or not a better way of obtaining the footage was available. Why would NASA intentionally do it the hard way?

I asked Maxx to zoom into the picture to demonstrate how a close up cropped image looks like the moon's surface.

I don't think it does, but that's obviously subjective. This plaster simulacrum is actually the source of Jim Lovell's comment from Apollo 8 that the moon resembled plaster of Paris. This model was generally viewed by the astronauts to be crude and unrepresentative, so Lovell's joke is about the real moon looking like a poor simulation.

Here we have a classic affirmation of the consequent.

"If the moon landings were to be faked, a simulated landscape would be necessary. A simulated landscape was created, therefore the moon landings were faked."

Neat and tidy, no? Consider also

"If NASA were training astronauts for an actual moon landing, a simulated landscape would be necessary."

In other words, the observation has at least two possible explanations, one corresponding to a moon hoax theory and the other to a legitimate moon landing. Any argument which attempts to establish one over the other must present evidence that it actually happened that way.

We have the testimony of several people, including the astronauts (whose evidence cannot be dismissed simply because they are astronauts), who know of this method of flight training and participated in it. We have much evidence that this plaster model was used as a simulation training.

In favor of Mr. Lewis' hypothesis he has provided ... ?

As you can see a touched up photo can look like the real thing.

The Photoshop manipulation is highly unconvincing. Shade and shadow are consistent with earth lighting, not lunar lighting. And the visor reflection was left untouched.

Plus, the artist foolishly included stars in his sky.

The picture of the mountain in the background looked reminiscent of a moon mountain.

Nope. The black-and-white section includes a portion of the distant mountains with haze-induced scattering -- telltale evidence of the presence of an atmosphere.

Plus, the sky is suspiciously white.

Again, more ad hoc argumentation. The fact that one small segment of one earth mountain resembles a lunar mountain superficially, is not proof that Icelandic mountains could have been used to fake the landings. The photography, video, and film is far too extensive. And if the argument is not that Iceland was a "location" for the moon landing, then the evidence from Iceland is irrelevant.

In order for such a hypothesis to be considered realistic, specific mountains in the lunar photography must be correlated to specific mountains in Iceland or Nevada or wherever, in such a way as to be inexplicable by coincidence. I.e., the alleged mountains must have a complex enough topography to be a definite match.

The speculation includes the possibility that the Moon Landing "fraud" was a masterpiece devised by the conglomerate that funded Kubrick's work.

As the Bad Astronomer notes, and I concur, Kubrick is a perfectionist. The "goofs" that conspiracy theorists identify wouldn't have been permitted.

And there are plenty of logical errors in 2001: moving starfields, dust billows, gravity clearly present. Kubrick's ability to pull of a perfectly convincing space film is quite limited. That some people consider the special effects very good (and they are) doesn't mean they are faithful to real life.

Kubrick's film was quite popular at NASA just as Star Trek has been popular among modern aerospace workers. We Apollo geeks managed to arm-twist one of the illustrators for Star Trek: Nemesis to put an Apollo DSKY cel somewhere on the Enterprise. Look for it.

But I wonder about a radio remote camera in 1969.

What's to wonder about? A remote-control pan, tilt, and zoom are simple mechanical assemblies -- child's play.

Video Cameras back then were large.

Video cameras today are large. But do they have to be? I worked on a project that involved a video camera no larger than the cap to my pen. Yet when I go to a television studio I see cameras that are quite bulky.

It's all about design. Television studios want cameras that produce very high quality images and are reasonably inexpensive. Size and mass are therefore the design factors that give way in terms of quality and cost.

Suppose NASA goes to Westinghouse and says, "We need a camera that's small in size and as light as possible. We don't care if the picture quality suffers."

I think that what I do is a good thing. I know that is arguable.

Very arguable. It's important to question assertions, but on appropriate grounds and with appropriate evidence. What Lewis and others do is to encourage hysteria and superstition under the guise of open-mindedness and healthy skepticism. His style of discourse gives undue attention to the uniformed opinion.

[Tomblvd]

In all honesty, Clyde makes cosmicdave look like Stephen Hawking (ahem, without the wheelchair).

First of all, not only does this screed have nothing new, it has nothing at all. There is no real proof of a hoax, just wild speculation, which is one of Clyde's specialties.

Along with that we see that consistency was never one of Clyde's strongpoints.

He first says:

1. "Now I am waiting for them to tell me that the technology to manipulate images didn't exist back then. I am awaiting the argument that special effects that could create such a manipulation did not exist in 1969.
   
   Well to those projected arguments I want to point out something that I find most interesting. Being a science fiction buff, I read a lot of magazines and books about movies. One movie in particular is the 2001 a Space Odyssey.
   
   There is a curious speculation about the Moon landing that is held by many believers in the hoax. The speculation includes the possibility that the Moon Landing "fraud" was a masterpiece devised by the conglomerate that funded Kubrick's work."

Clyde then goes on to pile conjecture on top of conjecture to prove the technology could have existed.

However, a few paragraphs later he says:

1. " But one thing that makes the whole moon shot a Hollywood movie to me is when the LEM ascent module takes off. The camera that has been left behind on the Moon is there to record the take off into space. The camera tilts up. It follows the ascent module up. Now I can understand a radio remote camera today. But I wonder about a radio remote camera in 1969. Video Cameras back then were large. Now using what I know about television production, the astronauts would have had to pack a large camera, power supplies, a radio link, and a radio link for the video. Who controlled the upward tilt of the camera? Was it Houston?"

OK clyde, which is it? Either we had the technology to pull off the greatest hoax in history, technology which, by the way, still doesn't exist, or we are too backward to even produce a remote control camera.

You know, most people at least wait for a different article to contradict themselves. Clyde is "special" that way.

[Tomblvd]

Another inconsistency:

1. President Johnson even has put many of the details about the moon landing as classified and not to be opened until by 2026.
   

A pretty nifty feat considering he wasn't even president when we landed on the moon.

[JayUtah]

The high-tech versus low-tech argument has been around forever. "NASA didn't have the technology to go to the moon," but then when you point out just what would have to be done to produce the Apollo record as a special effect, NASA is all of a sudden able to pull all kinds of hitherto (and subsequently) unknown technology out of various orifices. The funny thing is that there aren't any examples of any of this speculative special-effects technology that we can examine and test to see if it would work. But there are plenty of examples of spaceships that allegedly went to the moon. You can examine them and make up your mind.

Stephen Hawking? I actually met Prof. Hawking several years ago. He's a riot. The most excruciatingly slow conversation I've ever had, but well worth the effort. He's my favorite sit-down comedian.

Regarding the classification of Apollo materials, some of it was indeed classified either because it involved booster technology that we didn't want the Soviets copying at the time, or because it involved personal confidential information about the astronauts which was not appropriate for wide publication. Classifications are automatically downgraded every five years.

The question is not so much about what is classified as what we can discover by what was never classified and what has been subsequently declassified. It has always been possible to verify NASA's claims using publicly available material.

[infocusinc]

On 2002-07-01 19:40, JayUtah wrote:
Lewis: Now I know these photos prove nothing.


As you can see a touched up photo can look like the real thing.

The Photoshop manipulation is highly unconvincing. Shade and shadow are consistent with earth lighting, not lunar lighting. And the visor reflection was left untouched.

Plus, the artist foolishly included stars in his sky.

[

You know this is an interesting picture. Look at the earth image and you will see the brown earth reflecting in the lower right arm of the spacesuit and also around the boots. You can see it even better in the altered image. The power of reflected light once again...and this one is color coded for easy viewing. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Craig

[LunarOrbit]

Here are two of Clyde's earlier articles about the moon hoax theory:

Good Luck Mr. Gorsky
To the Moon Alice!

I find reading Clyde's articles about as exciting as watching paint dry.


_________________
Kel Jones
www.thespacerace.com

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LunarOrbit on 2002-07-02 01:31 ]</font>

[RalphVanDyke]

Clyde Lewis wrote:
Good Luck Mr. Gorsky
We have been to the moon! At least that is what NASA tells you. We have carried large payloads 250,000 miles to the moon without one astronaut dead. Yet, we have Space shuttles that travel only 250 miles above earth. We have had seven astronauts die attempting to go only a fraction of what the Apollo astronauts achieved effortlessly.

Thirty years after the moon landing I can't even get Windows 98 to work without crashing and we can put a man effortlessly on the moon and bring him back. I can't even get a conversation going between Juno Alaska and Portland Oregon without a 2-second delay, but in 1969 astronauts can reply incredibly fast from 250,000 miles away with no problems. Not to mention the clearness of the astronauts voices in 1969. Thirty years later you get into a blind area and your Cell Phone dies in rush hour traffic.

I count 4 apples and 4 oranges, what about you guys?

[jumbo]

Take a look at the lunar rover image with the astronaut. Both the earth one and the photoshop moon one have an interesting property with their shadows .The shadow from the lunar rover isn`t parallel with the astronauts shadow. <HB mode on> this means that BOTH photos were clearly faked inside a studio.<HB mode off> Perhaps i`m seeing things though..its not a great picture size on my monitor.

Its interesting that 2001 is brought up as an argument for great visuals being able to fake a landing. Slightly OT...The plot of the book had the discovery travelling to saturn,but this was changed to jupiter for the movie at least in part because the effects department felt they were not able to create a convincing enough saturn. Although impressive for the time, the shots of the moon also seem slightly flat to me. Just my two cents.

[jumbo]

Oops my sarcastic HB mode on off tags didnt appaer in my message they should go around the both faked in the studio bit before anyone thinks i`m one of ,gasp, them.....shudder

[Jim]

Clyde Lewis wrote:
Thirty years after the moon landing I can't even get Windows 98 to work without crashing and we can put a man effortlessly on the moon and bring him back. I can't even get a conversation going between Juno Alaska and Portland Oregon without a 2-second delay, but in 1969 astronauts can reply incredibly fast from 250,000 miles away with no problems. Not to mention the clearness of the astronauts voices in 1969. Thirty years later you get into a blind area and your Cell Phone dies in rush hour traffic.

I count 4 apples and 4 oranges, what about you guys?

I think NASA (and the astronauts) are extremely lucky Clyde Lewis (or Bill Gates) wasn't running the Apollo program!

(I'm not sure what he means by "incredibly fast." Is he dragging out that old "no delay in the responses" argument? As for the astronauts' voices over their radios, I never found them particularly "clear;" they sounded like voices heard over a radio.)

[RalphVanDyke]

On 2002-07-02 08:20, Jim wrote:
I think NASA (and the astronauts) are extremely lucky Clyde Lewis (or Bill Gates) wasn't running the Apollo program!

Imagine getting the blue screen of death 250,000 miles from home!

Seriously though, saying "Well Windows 98 sucks, so we obviously didn't go to the moon" is akin to saying, "I was on a Carnival cruise, and it sucked, so obviously Columbus never sailed to America in 1492." Clyde Lewis can't present a rational argument for the life of him.

[sts60]

Thirty years after the moon landing I can't even get Windows 98 to work without crashing and we can put a man effortlessly on the moon and bring him back.


Effortlessly.


"A century after the Panama Canal was dug it takes utility crews all day to fix a broken water pipe, and we can effortlessly build a canal across Central America..."

I can't even get a conversation going between Juno Alaska and ...
It's "Juneau". No wonder he's having problems.


It's kind of depressing, really, that people are willing to put this kind of dreck on display. It's like watching Jerry Springer. You start to wonder if a really large asteroid whopping us upside the head is such a bad thing after all...


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-07-02 09:31 ]</font>

[The Incubus]

[b]If we are to believe that man set foot on the Moon in 1969 then we should also be able to see that it could have been possible to fake pictures, and television images.

Um...what? Correct me if I'm wrong (please), but is this a bit like saying that if we did go to the moon, there should be more evidence that we didn't?

Or am I making a Straw man?

The (If I only had a brain) Incubus

[JayUtah]

Only Lewis knows what he's thinking, but the sentence seems to say that if it were possible to have sufficient technology to go to the moon, it would have been possible to have sufficient technology to fake going to the moon. Of course having the technology to fly the missions precludes the need not fabricate them, but that's apparently beyond him.

I believe he knows he's used modern technology to create his own cobbled-up moon photos and therefore he's anticipating the argument, "But they didn't have Photoshop in 1969." So he's trying to make a case for being able to develope suitable photo-alteration techniques back then. His argument is that if we can believe in this "miraculous" moon landing technology, why can't we believe in "miraculous" photo-alteration technology.

A completely begged question, of course. There is evidence of the moon-landing technology. Where is his evidence that such photo-alteration technology existed and was actually used?

[The Icelander]

I live in Iceland, like my username probably suggests, and we have many moonlike places here. I only have to walk few kilometers from my home to see a moonlike (or marslike) surface. From far away, many mountains look indeed very much like lunar mountains. But if you look more closely, you see that erosion is clearly visible. You can find many mountains all over Iceland that look very much like lunar mountains. (Indeed, many tourist describe the surface as moonlike when they arrive here.)

The Icelandic picture on his website is from a beautiful place called Askja where some of the astronauts came to visit in 1965 (only once), to learn something about lunar geography. Last eruption there was in 1961 and they were therefore surrounded by new ash (which they investigated) and lava. Their assingment, among many others, was to describe Askja and tell how it formed. Astronaut Gene Cernan told the press that this expedition was successful and that they learned alot of things.

I know this doesn´t say much about Mr. Lewis´ claims. But I hope it tells you something about it.