THE DOCKING OF THE CM TO THE LM IN APOLLO 11
This video is supposed to show the initial docking of the CM to the LM after the launch.
There is a first thing to notice: In the documentation of Apollo, the body of the saturn rocket is still visible when the CM docks to the LM, and, on the video, we can't see it at all.
It is strange that it appears invisible on the video when it is visible on the illustration.
You could say: May be that the illustrator didn't know and wrongly made it visible?
But it should anyway be visible, for it receives the light from the CM, so at least a part of it should be visible, it should not be completely invisible.
Especially when we can see debris flying now and then in the video, which proves that the CM can light them.
So, if the CM can light these debris, why can't it light at all the body of the saturn rocket which is behind the LM?
The way the LM appears on the image is abnormal.
The problem is that the LM starts growing when it is still near the bottom of the image whereas the center of the LM is close to the right top corner of the image in the end.
If the camera is located over the axis of the CM, then the center of the LM will always appear in the bottom of the image when the CM is aligned with the LM.
Likewise, if the camera is located under the axis of the CM, then the center of LM will always appear in the top of the image when the CM is aligned with the CM.
This animation shows what we should have seen: The LM first appearing close to the right top corner of the image before starting to grow.
The fact that the LM starts to grow when it is still near the bottom of the image, whereas its center is close to the right top corner of the image at the end of the docking, means that the CM started to move toward the LM before it was aligned with the latter.
The fact that the abnormal behavior of the LM on the image could come from a disajustment of the camera is to exclude, for we always see the same (dark blue) bit of the window's side on the image; I have outlined it in red.
We see it at the beginning of the video...
...We see it at the middle of the video...
...and we see it at the end of the video.
Normally the CSM should finish its flipover and be perfectly aligned with the LM before starting to move toward the LM if it wants to have a maximum of chance to dock correctly.
If the CSM starts moving toward the LM before it is well aligned with the latter and goes on turning to get aligned with the LM while it moves forward, it will have more difficulty to dock correctly, and it requires a tighter control, which I doubt that the primitive computer of the CM was able of.
Why is better for the CSM to get properly aligned with the LM before starting to move?
Because that way the CSM has all its time to find the good alignment with the LM, and, when it moves, it can safely dock with the LM; on the other hand, if the CSM starts to move before it is aligned with the LM, that means it will have to finish the alignment before it meets with the LM; if it does not succeed to obtain the good alignment in time, it will bump incorrectly into the LM and the docking will fail.
It is obvious that, if the docking had been real, the CSM would have chosen the safer procedure, and not one which might potentially fail!
In fact, it is not just the fact that the LM starts to grow when it is not yet on the right position on the video, it is more than that.
It is outright the fact that the way the LM appears on the video is globally incoherent.
When the CSM makes its flipover to show its nose to the LM, it can do in the orbital plane; if it turns counterclockwise, the CSM will have a nice view of the earth when it turns; if it turns clockwise, it won't see the earth.
But the CSM can also do its flipover in a plane perpendicular to the orbital plane; however, in this plane the CSM won't see the earth.
This is not the only possible rotational plane for the CSM; in fact the CSM can have any orientation relatively to its lengthwise axis; thence the rotational plane of the CSM when it makes its flipover can have any orientation.
The rotational plane of the CSM may be parallel to the orbital plane.
But it can also be descending relatively to the orbital plane.
And it can also be descending relatively to the orbital plane.
The CSM has two sets of lateral engines perpendicular to each other (the CSM I show here comes from Apollo 11).
That means that the rotational plane can be in the plane of vision of the camera, but also perpendicular to it.
Moreover the lateral engines can fire in both directions, which allows the CSM to turn in both directions.
I represent the camera so that it is well visible (oversized and outside the CSM).
In fact we can have different cases that I am going to present.
1.a) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera can be parallel to the rotational plane and the vertical of the image oriented positively relatively to the rotational plane.
In the case that the rotational plane is parallel to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
1.b) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera still being parallel to the rotational plane and the vertical of the image oriented positively relatively to the rotational plane, but the rotational plane being ascending relatively to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
At the end of the flipover, the LM will appear near the left bottom corner of the image.
1.c) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera still being parallel to the rotational plane and the vertical of the image oriented positively relatively to the rotational plane, but the rotational plane being descending relatively to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
A the end of the flipover, the LM will appear near the left top corner of the image.
2.a) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera is still parallel to the rotational plane, but the vertical of the image is now oriented negatively relatively to the rotational plane.
In the case that the rotational plane is parallel to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
2.b) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera still being parallel to the rotational plane and the vertical of the image oriented negatively relatively to the rotational plane, but the rotational plane being ascending relatively to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
At the end of the flipover, the LM will appear near the right top corner of the image.
2.c) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera still being parallel to the rotational plane and the vertical of the image oriented negatively relatively to the rotational plane, but the rotational plane being descending relatively to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
At the end of the flipover, the LM will appear near the right bottom corner of the image.
3.a) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera is now perpendicular to the rotational plane, and the vertical of the image turned clockwise relatively to the vertical of the rotational plane.
In the case that the rotational plane is parallel to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
3.b) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera still being perpendicular to the rotational plane, and the vertical of the image turned clockwise relatively to the vertical of the rotational plane, but the rotational plane of the CSM being ascending relatively to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
At the end of the flipover, the LM will appear near the right bottom corner of the image.
3.c) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera still being perpendicular to the rotational plane, and the vertical of the image turned clockwise relatively to the vertical of the rotational plane, but the rotational plane of the CSM being descending relatively to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
At the end of the flipover, the LM will appear near the left bottom corner of the image.
4.a) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera is perpendicular again to the rotational plane, but the vertical of the image is turned counterclockwise relatively to the vertical of the rotational plane.
In the case that the rotational plane is parallel to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
4.b) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera still being perpendicular to the rotational plane, and the vertical of the image turned counterclockwise relatively to the vertical of the rotational plane, but the rotational plane being ascending relatively to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
At the end of the flipover, the LM will appear near the left top corner of the image.
4.c) The horizontal of the image seen by the camera still being perpendicular to the rotational plane, and the vertical of the image turned counterclockwise relatively to the vertical of the rotational plane, but the rotational plane being descending relatively to the orbital plane, the CSM will look like this...
...And the camera will see the earth this way.
At the end of the flipover, the LM will appear near the right top corner of the image.
So, by examining the earth on the Apollo video, it is possible to know both how the rotational plane of the CSM was oriented relatively to the orbital plane, and also how the camera is oriented relatively to the rotational plane of the CSM.
Of all the animations I have showed, the one I show on the right of this stereoscopic animation is the closest one to the Apollo video.
It corresponds to the horizontal of the image seen by the camera being perpendicular to the rotational plane, and the vertical of the image turned clockwise relatively to the vertical of the rotational plane, and also the rotational plane of the CSM being ascending relatively to the orbital plane.
In this view, the LM appears near the right bottom corner of the image, like I said it when I talked about this case.
That means that, on the video, the LM should start to appear near the right bottom corner of the image (not necessarily where I show it in this example, but somewhere near this corner).
Based on this analysis, I have made an animation which shows how the LM should appear in the video of Apollo.
And I have also turned this animation at a quarter of turn clockwise to show how the camera would see the scene if it was oriented in the rotational plane of the CSM.
Another anomaly is that the part I show with a red arrow on these two top views of the LM appears differently on the two views.
The view of the left is extracted from a photo of the Apollo 14 mission (AS14-74-10206), and the view of the right is an image of the current video.
On the view of the left, the part I show is obviously the same matter as what is around it.
But, on the view of the right, this part appears completely differently, it appears metallic, a bright metal.
And, when we see it closer, it makes me think of a piece of armor of a knight of the middle age!
And also, what is this strange thing I have highlighted and that I show with an arrow???
The thing I have surrounded in red is not a normal item of the LM; it is alien to it.
It looks like a bell.
And this other thing I have surrounded in red is also alien to the LM.
On the video, we can also see a strange behavior of two symmetrical metallic bars I have circled on this image of the video.
On this part of the video (accelerated), we can see that these bars progressively retract themselves, till to become completely hidden.
How can this happen?
These are not a telescopic bars!
Where do they find the place to retract?
How do they do not to bump into each other?
After having seen this anomalies, I clearly call this video a joke!
It is just to make dream some fans of space travel about a fact which in fact never happened.
THE TRAVEL OF APOLLO 11
This part deals about the video of the landing of Apollo 11.
It shows some oddities it contains.
The first one is this sudden change of color of the surface of the moon.
For what reason does the color of the video switch from pink to white?
The camera films the ceiling of the lunar module, then pans on the right and comes down the space ship till the cabin, in which we see the astronaut.
But it is absolutely obvious in this sequence that the top of the lunar module is OPEN!!!
if the top of the lunar module was not open, the camera would not shift on the right to go down the space ship, but would turn instead!
HOW CAN THE TOP OF THE LUNAR MODULE BE OPEN???
Then, here on this stereoscopic view, we have two views of the astronaut, extracted from the video.
On the first one, he is laying on the floor of the cabin.
On the second one, he is standing up, but there is a problem: He seems consistently taller when he is standing up than when he was laying on the floor!
Then I show here two views of the target which is used to make the alignment of the two space ships.
We see a cross which is mounted before the target.
There is an optical alignment system which allows the astronaut to align a reticle, which is fabricated by the alignment system, with a target which is mounted on the other vehicle.
The aim is to align the reticle of the optical system with the target of the other vehicle.
I explain in another section (the strange equipment of Apollo) that the cross which is mounted before the target was not helping for the alignment of the space ships, for it was hindering the reticle of the alignment system and preventing from making a perfect alignment.
But it is for another reason that I show these two views of the alignment target.
We can see that the direction of the shadow of the cross is identical on the two views; that means that it is exposed the same to the sun on the two views.
But there is a shadow on the right, that I have circled in red, which should be the same on the two views, and which is different instead.
On these close-ups, you can see that these shadows are not identical; one is more closed than the other.
At a moment of the video, we can see Buzz's face close; here are two views of his face during this sequence.
There is a piece of his headset which appears white on one image, and black on the other one.
Here are close-ups on this piece; we can clearly see that it appears white on one image and black on the other one.
And, when it appears black, it can't be because it gets shadowed, for the light comes from the right.
At a moment of the video, we can see the CM, taken from the LM, moving.
And, conversely, we can see the LM, taken from the CM, moving.
It is when we put in parallel the two animations that the problem appears.
Given the way that the CM sees the LM, the LM should not see the CM the way it appears on the video.
The CM, as seen from the LM, should not grow, but shrink instead.
And it should not turn around the direction I have represented in red, which is the one we see it turn, but around the direction I have represented in green.
In fact, if I play in reverse the animation of the CM, then it becomes more logical: the CM seen from the LM shrinks like it should, and turns the correct way.
This stereoscopic view shows, on the left, an animation extracted from the video showing the LM making a sudden rotation, and, on the right, the final attitude of the LM.
But, it is not possible, the LM's attitude could not change that much; if the LM was behaving like what we see on the video, it would be absolutely sure to go crash on the lunar ground!
And, on this part of the video, just before the touchdown, we can see the LM fly in bias.
It is absolutely impossible; the LM could not land in bias like what we see on the video.
It it was trying to land this way, it would be certain to tip over when touching the ground!
The only reasonable and sure way for the LM to land on the moon is to position itself over the place it wants to land on, and then descend vertically.
Just before the touchdown, the camera films one of the legs of the lunar module.
But see how the footpad is strangely elongated!
You are going to think that it is because the shadow of the lunar module is extremely elongated, which would explain this excessive elongation of the footpad.
But, in this case, the shadow of the probe, that we can fully see on the previous sampled image, would be much longer!
This stereoscopic pair shows, on the left, a view from the camera just before touching the ground, and, on the right, a view after having touched the ground.
On each of these images, we see, on the left, the side of the LM.
We can see that the orientation of the side of the LM is not the same on the first image (orange arrow) than on the second image (red arrow).
But it should be the same, it has no reason not to be the same!
When the lunar module is on the ground, we can see its shadow projected on the lunar ground.
It is interesting to compare it with a correct model of the lunar module.
What is interesting to compare is the top of the lunar module, and in particular the antennas.
I show here the top of the lunar module as represented on a schema of the lunar module handbook.
I indicate the rendezvous radar (red), which was placed on the front of the lunar module, and the S-Band antenna (orange), which was placed on the side of the lunar module.
I have circled the lower part of the rendezvous antenna, for it is the only part of this antenna we can see on the shadow.
It is still enough to know the orientation of this antenna on the shadow.
This animation, I have made from the schema of the LM handbook, shows how the rendezvous antenna was moving; it is not very good, for, in order to make it better, I would have needed several views of this antenna, whereas I only used one (the one of the schema), but it still fulfills its goal of showing how this antenna was moving.
On this stereoscopic view, I show the rendezvous antenna and the S-Band antenna, both on the LM's shadow and the LM's model (which is completely accurate).
We only see the lower part of the rendezvous antenna on the shadow, but this part is sufficient to know how it was oriented.
Now look: The way the shadow of the rendezvous antenna appears on the LM's shadow, we can see that it is oriented along the arrow I have drawn in red...and the shadow of the S-Band antenna is oriented along the arrow I have drawn in orange.
These two arrows should have perpendidular directions, since the S-Band antenna is placed on the side of the LM, but they have parallel directions instead!
THE LANDING OF APOLLO 11
In the Apollo 11 video library, there is an interesting composite video comparing what the camera of the lem sees with a LRO photo.
Link to NASA video
As the the lem is approaching the landing site, the video circles on the Apollo video and the LRO photo corresponding craters so the viewer can follow the trajectory of the lem till the landing.
For the Apollo fan, it is certainly fascinating, but, for a doubter like me, I was sure it would reserve some surprises...and it did!
Between what the lem's camera sees and the LRO photo there are differences which can be explained by the difference of perspective.
The LRO has a vertical view of the lunar ground; all objects are homogeneous on the photo, that is they have a comparable relative size.
For the Lem, it's much different, the camera has a more horizontal view of the lunar ground, in bias; the objects which are closer to the lem, that is on the bottom of the video, appear relatively bigger than those which are farther, that is on the top of the video.
This makes that the LEM and the LRO see the lunar ground under different perspectives.
However, some hints allow to see that the perspective under which the lem's camera sees the lunar ground is incorrect, provided that the LRO photo is supposed reliable.
At the beginning of the video, the Lem is approaching the lunar ground; we can still see the horizon; when the lem comes closer to the lunar ground, the horizon becomes no more visible, for the lem is too close to the lunar ground.
We can see several holes of the lunar ground on the Apollo 11 video; one of them is circled and also on the LRO photo, so it is possible to identify on the LRO photo which hole the lem is currently above.
I have circled with corresponding colors several lunar holes.
I cannot have made any error, for these holes are successively circled along the video.
I draw a quadrilateral with four corresponding lunar holes both on the Apollo 11 video and on the LRO photo; and we can see that the quadrilaterals of the Apollo 11 video and the LRO photo are much different; it requires a great deal of imagination to find that they are the same, even taking into acount the difference of perspective.
The lem continues to progress and has come closer to the triangle of holes which was previously visible in the background.
I have circled with corresponding colors several holes on the Apollo 11 video and the LRO photo; once again, there can be no mistake, for the holes are successively circled along the video.
I have drawn a red triangle with the three important holes both on the Apollo 11 video and the LRO photo.
This triangle is isosceles on the LRO photo, but irregular on the Apollo 11 video; however, it is not necessarily abnormal, for it can come from the difference of perspective.
On the right of the right side of the triangle we can see a little hole which is a little closer to the summit of the red triangle than to the right hole of the base of the triangle on the LRO photo ; I have drawn a yellow triangle by joining this hole to the two closest holes of the red triangle.
On the Apollo 11 video, this little hole is much closer to the right hole of the base of the triangle, but it is not necessarily abnormal, for it can come from the difference of perspective.
However, there is a relationship between the two triangles, and it is in this relationship that the anomaly lies, like I am going to show on a visual example.
I have put stones on the ground and placed them so they form an isosceles triangle like on the LRO photo; the stone I have circled represents the hole which is the closest to the lem.
I have also placed a little stone on the right of the right side of the triangle, and at equal distance of the two stones of this side.
On this view, I have lowered my camera, and I take a more horizontal view of the triangle of stones; I have placed my camera on the left of the summit of the triangle.
And what can we see?
We can see that the left side of the triangle is longer that its right side; we can also see that the little stone appears slightly closer to the summit of the triangle than to the right stone of the base.
On this view, I have placed my camera on the right of the summit of the triangle.
And what can we see?
We can see that the right side of the triangle is longer that its left side; we can also see that the little stone now appears quite closer to the right stone of the base.
Let's compare the Apollo view with my first side view, with the camera on the left of the triangle's summit.
We can see that, on both views, the left side of the triangle is longer than its left side; the conclusion is that the lem's camera was on the left of the closest hole.
But we can see that the little hole is quite close to the right hole of the base, whereas, on my view, it's to the summit of the triangle that it is closer; so there is a disagreement on the position of this little hole between the Apollo view and my view.
Let's now compare the Apollo view with my second side view, with the camera on the right of the triangle's summit.
We can see that, on my view, it's the right side which is the longer one, whereas, on the Apollo photo, it's the left side; we here have a disagreement between my photo and the Apollo view.
On the other hand, we can see that, like the little hole on the Apollo photo, the little stone is now quite close to the right stone of the base of the triangle; we now have an agreement on the position of the little stone/hole relatively to the main triangle; so, if we consider the little hole, we can conclude that the lem's camera was placed on the right of the closest hole.
So, to conclude, if we consider the red triangle, the lem's camera was placed on the left of the closest hole, but, if we consider the yellow triangle, the camera was conversely placed on the right of the closest hole.
Wow, the Apollo camera has magical properties; It can both be placed on the left and the right of a lunar hole!
Then the lem continues to make progress, and we can see several holes be circled both on the Apollo video and the LRO photo which allow to follow the progression of the Lem.
At one moment, we have the view I'm showing here.
I have circled with corresponding colors three holes of the Apollo video and the LRO photo; there can be no confusion on these holes, for these holes are consecutively circled during the video.
I draw lines between the holes, and the angle I'm showing between these lines is a little greater on the Apollo video than on the LRO photo.
You might think that it comes from the difference of perspective?
That's the whole problem!
I have placed three stones on the ground which symbolize the lunar holes.
The view on the left is a view from above and represents the way the LRO visualizes the lunar ground; the view on the right is a side view and represents the way the lem visualizes the lunar ground.
And what can we see on these views?
We can see that the angle between the directions of the stones is smaller on the rigth view (the side view) than on the left view (the view from above).
That means that the perspective under which the lem's camera sees the holes should make that the angle I represent should be smaller on the Apollo view than of the LRO view, instead of being greater.
We here have a clear contradiction!
The NASA engineers were really fond of contradictions!
So, it's a nice video, but too bad that the holes don't have the same location on the Apollo video as they have on the LRO photo!
So, I'm asking a serious question: If the lunar holes have moved between Apollo's time and LRO's time...
...Is it because the moon is made of cheese???
In that case, we should not worry about the fact that the astronauts had enough to eat...
...With a moon made of cheese, the astronauts had more than enough to eat!
THE WEIGHTLESS DEMO IN THE COMMAND MODULE
In Apollo 11, there is a sequence during which Buzz (or Buzz's double?) manipulates objects which float in the air because of the supposed weightlessness.
But is "Buzz" really in a weightless environment?
There is a possibility of creating a weightless environment with planes flying along special parabolas during a period of 30 seconds maximum; the sequence could have been built by shooting several sequence of 30 seconds each and then appending them to make a longer sequence, but I don't think they used this simulation of weightless environment to create these sequences.
I initially thought that they used cinema techniques which allow to superpose different scenes.
In a weightless environment, an object only moves if it receives an initial force pushing it toward a direction, and only turns if it receives an initial rotation, and always turns in the direction of the initial rotation.
In this sequence, the pâté box turns on itself and remains in the same position in air.
Of course, you could say that the fact that the sequence could be staged does not prove that it has been staged; it could also be really happening in a weightless environment...
...But, in this sequence, Buzz was grabbing the box, and then releases it; at the moment that he releases it, he is not moving his hand, and does not visibly give an initial rotation to the box.
When he releases the box, the box should then logically remain immobile.
Yet, the box starts going up and rolling.
You could say that Buzz may have given an imperceptible force to move it up and make it turn...But, in this case, it should always turn in the same direction; instead of that its rotation direction keeps changing as the box goes up, like forces were acting on the box along its ascent to change its rotation!
This lack of coherence makes doubt that this scene is really happening in the weightless environment of space.
In fact, on earth, there is an environment in which the weightlessness can be easily simulated, at least for light objects, an environment in which the gravity is countered by another contradictory force...
Don't you see what I mean?
Have you have ever heard about the push of Archimedes?
Objects in water receive a force opposed to the gravity which is equivalent to the weight of water corresponding to their volume, a force which makes that all objects which are less dense than water can float, and that objects which have the same density of water seems suspended in water, like they were in a weightless environment!
All the objects that "Buzz" manipulates have a low density; the bread can easily float; the spoon may be made in a light matter, like plastic, and the pâté box may be filled with just the good quantity of pâté which allows it to have a global density equivalent to the one of water.
But, you are going to tell me:
1) We don't see the astronaut using a breathing system; he could be in apnea, but it would be a little long apnea.
2) The astronaut looks like Buzz, and I have always said that those who were making tricks were actors, for the astronauts themselves had to be convinced the whole thing was real, and it would not be possible if Buzz had participated to this trickery!
I am going to sweep away these arguments which what I am going to show you!
See this photo extracted from the demo showing "Buzz" in profile.
Let's concentrate on Buzz's face...
See on this profile how Buzz's head seems strange: It appears very obvious on this view that there is in fact a mask of Buzz over another man's face...and this man is not Buzz!
And now see this other photo, extracted from the demo, showing the opposite profile of "Buzz".
Let's concentrate on this profile...
We can see two white tubes near the headset.
These two white tubes are inserted between the man's face and Buzz's mask, and allow the man hiding under Buzz's mask to secretly breathe; a tube brings air to the man and the other tube evacuates the air he rejects.
When "Buzz" is seen frontally, we don't see these tubes, and we don't realize that the man who is hiding under this mask is breathing with these tubes.
And about the headset, it does not need to be wired, for the dialog is prerecorded!
So this scene is simply happening in water, and it is the "magical" push of archimedes which allows the pâté box to float in...WATER!
And when we see "Buzz" play with water bubbles, it is not really with water bubbles he is playing with....but with AIR bubbles!
Air is water, and water is air, that's the trick!
So, this sequence is not happening in a command module lost in deep space...but on earth in a submerged cabin!
Then the Apollo believers have said that, if the scene was happening in water, the water would make the rotation of the box stop when "Buzz" makes it turn.
In fact, it would if the box was turning long enough, but "Buzz" makes it turn for a relatively short time, only 6 seconds, and it is not enough for the water to stop the box's rotation.
Now, if I play the scene of the spinning box slower (three times slower), it becomes more apparent that the speed of the box's rotation decreases along the demonstration; if the fake Buzz had let it turn long enough, it would have completely stopped, but it would have ruined the demonstration.
There is another point which shows that the box does not turn in a weightless environment, which is that the rotation of the box is less regular at the end of the demo than in the beginning.
At the end of the demo, the rotation axis of the box tends to swing, which is the indication that the rotation speed of the box has decreased, because it is precisely the fast rotation of the box which helps the rotation axis to keep a steady direction (gyroscope principle).
When you make a spinning top turn, its attitude will remain steady and its rotation regular as long as the rotation is fast enough; but, when the rotation speed decreases, it will tend to swing laterally, and will finally fall when its rotation becomes too slow.
At the end of the demo, the axis of rotation of the box starts to swing, because the rotation speed of the box is not fast enough to keep it perfectly stable.
In fact, the water prevents the astronaut from making the box turn fast enough in order to have a perfectly stable rotation.
In a true air weightless environment, the astronaut could have made the box turn much faster, and the rotation of the box would have remained perfectly regular all along the demo, its rotation axis would not have swung like what we see in the demo.
But, what was the more criticized is the demonstration with the water droplets that I claim to be air bubbles instead.
The Apollo believers claim that, if it were air bubbles, they would all go in the same direction, that is the vertical direction.
Air bubbles tend to go along a vertical direction, but not always; they can be disturbed and go in various directions before taking the vertical direction, like in this example.
The demonstration is not filmed normally, you can see it by examining the decor of the cabin, it is filmed in oblique, at an angle of around 60°, so the bubbles don't move up along the vertical of the photo; but along an oblique direction which actually represents the true vertical.
I have turned the (slowed down) animation to restore the true vertical (approximately).
And, on this new animation, the bubbles move up normally; if they seem to be ascending along different directions, it is because the fake Buzz has disturbed them, by moving the spoon and pushing them with his hand.
And parallel directions may appear diverging because of perspective.
Even when directions are parallel, they don't necessarily appear parallel on the photo or video, because of perspective.
Now this demonstration contains a clue which proves that this sequence can only be filmed under water and not in a weightless environment.
See this animation I have slowed down: The fake Buzz pushes, with his forefinger, an air bubble downward, and this air bubble first starts briefly going downward before the push of Archimedes finally pushes it upward.
If the scene was happening in a weightless environment, the water droplet would have continued going downward after "Buzz" gave it an impulsion downward and not stopped its descent to go upward instead.
I have turned the animation of 60° so that the true vertical approximately coincides with the vertical of the photo.
On it, you can see Buzz give an impulsion downward to the air bubble, which one starts going downward before going upward because of the push of Archimedes, which only exists in water.
This is the definitive proof that the demonstration happens in water, and can in no way happen in a weightless environment!!!
At a given moment, the camera turns abruptly; when the fakers do that, they always do it for some reason, so I concentrated on this sequence.
The whole thing is to catch the good picture at the right moment when the camera turns.
And I caught it!
See, on the image I extracted from the sequence I show on the left of the stereoscopic view, the fake Buzz has an US badge on his forearm...But, in reality, it is on his elbow that he had this US badge and none on his forearm, as I show on the right of the stereoscopic view!
Buzz had a ring on a finger of his left hand (the right one on the photo), but the ring we see on this image extracted from the video appears bigger than the one he had.
And, on this image he has two rings on his right hand...But, in reality he did not have two rings on this right hand!
In the sequence of the ascending box, the box appears intensely lit at the end, and an intensely lit hand pushes it down...But, at the end of the sequence, when the camera sweeps on the right, we can see a wall, and the space which is between this wall and the camera does not appear lit, it appears rather dark.
And, before Buzz shifts on the right, he appears luminous, but, after he has moved on the right, he appears no more luminous, dark instead.
That means that the wall we see in the end of the sequence is not an external wall of the "command module", but an internal wall which makes a separation between two parts of the spaceship, and that, behind this wall, there is a passage which is violently lit.
But there was no separating wall in the command module to separate parts of it; the restricted space in the command module was not allowing to have such separating walls!
When Buzz moves on the right of the pillar we see on the right of the sequence, we can see his face...But it is really a strange face we see...
...A face which looks nothing like Buzz's one, with a strange ear!
