[Split]Moon hoaxes - split from: Mars Voyage too Soon?

[Southwind17]

Sorry if I missed a previous post to this effect, Southwind, but just what is your standard of "proof" in this matter? What will convince you? Obviously, a preponderance of evidence won't do it. Some here, including myself, would argue that proof beyond a reasonable doubt won't be satisfactory to you, either. So, what will it take?

I acknowledge that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence available, however, if it was to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions. It might not necessarily mean that man didn't actually walk on the Moon, but one would have to consider that as a possibility, at least initially. If some of the contradictory evidence were to be shown to have been fabricated or doctored by NASA simply in the interests of presenting such an auspicious human endeavour in the best possible light (pun intended) for the World press and public then that might be argued to be excusable, but I believe NASA has flatly denied any such action.

There are a number of aspects of the NASA records that remain anomalous, and until they're satisfactorily explained they will continue to plant some doubts in my mind. What is my 'standard of proof' you ask. Satisfactory explanations of said anomalies would do the trick.

Now, regarding Dr. David Groves...an Appeal to Authority is not necessarily fallacious if the authority really is an authority on the subject in question. So, is Dr. Groves an authority on photogrammetry? If we're talking about this Dr. David Groves, he appears to have expertise in computer-assisted interferometric measurement techniques and related technologies. That's not the same thing as photogrammetry, though.

If Dr. Groves' analysis falls outside his field of expertise, then it is a fallacious Appeal to Authority to cite his credentials in order to bolster the argument. Lacking verifiable credentials in the field, a peer-reviewed body of work in the field, citations by other recognized experts in the field, or any other credible evidence as to his expert qualifications to conduct a definitive anaylysis, it would likewise be a fallacy to cite his analysis as authoritative. Of course, this alone doesn't invalidate his analysis...it just can't benefit from the support of his reputation and will have to stand or fall on its own merits.

Unfortunately, his analysis doesn't favorably bear scrutiny on that basis, either. The Clavius website does a far better job of dissecting Dr. Groves' various arguments than I could.

Actually, thinking about it, the credibility and validity of Groves' analysis is not, I don't believe, at all dependent on his qualifications or expertise, with very limited exception. It's essentially a mathematical analysis, so should stand or fall on its merits.

The Clavius website doesn't appear to provide any sort of 'debunking' of Groves' calculation of the positioning of the camera in the famous Aldrin photo (I'm assuming it would be under the 'man on the moon' sub-section of the 'Photo Analysis' section). Have I overlooked it somehow?

 

[technoextreme]

Is it possible to relay a signal from Earth back to Earth via the Moon (with the necessary relay equipment on the Moon, of course)? Seems plausible to me, given that we can bounce lasers back to measure distance. I don't know; I'm just asking.

No. As someone pointed out in another post it's pretty dam hard. You'll get reflections bouncing off of the atmosphere.

Actually, thinking about it, the credibility and validity of Groves' analysis is not, I don't believe, at all dependent on his qualifications or expertise, with very limited exception. It's essentially a mathematical analysis, so should stand or fall on its merits.

As my electromagnetics professor said yesterday mathematical analysis sometimes fails on it's own. The problem being that it neglects the fact that even though the light is "supposedly" from a certain direction it could be just a reflection. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

 

[Southwind17]

It seems you misunderstand what "appeal to authority" is. Appeal to authority is in no way a crime; it is a logical fallacy. This means that the argument doesn't support the claim. Committing this fallacy is not evidence against the claim, and neither for the claim. The claim could be true or false for unrelated reasons; even if the claim is true, argument from authority remains a logical fallacy. As your post merely stated that an "authoritative" figure thinks otherwise, and didn't contain anything from Groves analysis to directly address the issue, as an argument it was an appeal to authority and there was nothing erroneous in stating so.

Not quite right big guy, and you take me too literally! My post didn't 'merely state that an "authoritative" figure thinks otherwise. My post clearly posited the scientific, mathematical analysis undertaken by Groves as the evidence. My adding Groves' relevant background and qualifications as a measure of 'authority' was simply to try to pre-empt the otherwise likelihood of somebody asking who the hell this unknown Groves character is! The fact that I didn't include anything from Groves' analysis neither invalidates my argument nor necessarily deems it an appeal to authority.

Do you understand why expert witnesses in court cases are invariably asked to disclose their credentials to the jury before giving evidence?

 

[technoextreme]

Not quite right big guy, and you take me too literally! My post didn't 'merely state that an "authoritative" figure thinks otherwise. My post clearly posited the scientific, mathematical analysis undertaken by Groves as the evidence. My adding Groves' relevant background and qualifications as a measure of 'authority' was simply to try to pre-empt the otherwise likelihood of somebody asking who the hell this unknown Groves character is! The fact that I didn't include anything from Groves' analysis neither invalidates my argument nor necessarily deems it an appeal to authority.

Well it sort of does. His analysis is extremely weak. It doesn't consider any more rational alternatives.

 

[Southwind17]

No. As someone pointed out in another post it's pretty dam hard. You'll get reflections bouncing off of the atmosphere.

There's no way the then technology could overcome that?

As my electromagnetics professor said yesterday mathematical analysis sometimes fails on it's own.

Does this count as an appeal to authority Thabiguy, although the electromagnetics slant might just get techno off the hook what?! Hardly a profound statement, though, which I'm sure we all agree with.

The problem being that it neglects the fact that even though the light is "supposedly" from a certain direction it could be just a reflection. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

What 'it' are you referring to here? What 'concept' is finding itself difficult to be understood, and by whom, exactly?

 

[PixyMisa]

Is it possible to relay a signal from Earth back to Earth via the Moon (with the necessary relay equipment on the Moon, of course)? Seems plausible to me, given that we can bounce lasers back to measure distance. I don't know; I'm just asking.

So instead of simply sending men to the Moon, NASA launched (with 1960s technology) fully automated radio and television repeater stations? Landed them on the Moon, prepared actors on a set that somehow accurately portrayed hard vacuum and 1/6th Earth gravity, filmed them, beamed the broadcasts to the Moon, relayed them back to Parkes and other ground stations, and then broadcast them to the world?

Is that really what you think happened?

And what does this say of Mercury and Gemini? Those were manned missions too; were they faked? And every Shuttle mission is manned, are those faked?

I don't know; I'm just asking.

 

[Southwind17]

I am confused. There are interviews with this Groves character on You Tube. Is there a question that the person in those interviews is not the Groves who did the analysis?

Barring evidence to the contrary, that seems to be the case. However, he's never been conclusively identified, and so we only has his word for that he has any relevant expertise on the matter. Regardless of that issue, however, his analysis is severely flawed - the geometry is wrong ...

Would you care to elaborate?

... the assumption of flat ground is proven wrong by the very photo he's analysing ...

I think you might have overlooked the part of the analysis where Groves examines Aldrin's distorted shadow to calculate the slope of the ground between Aldrin and the photographer!

... and so forth ...

There's more?

... so it doesn't really matter whether he has a Ph.D or not - he's still wrong.

Well he must be. How could he possibly be right, given that comprehensively thorough counter argument?!

The rest of that youtube clip is much the same - it sounds impressive enough to anyone who isn't familiar with the subject at hand, but falls flat once you start looking at the claims.

Would you care to elaborate?

 

[Belz...]

Seems there's an echo in this imagination void!

Says the guy who denies reality.

I acknowledge that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence available, however, if it was to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.

Well, you're in luck. None of it has been shown to be fake.

There are a number of aspects of the NASA records that remain anomalous, and until they're satisfactorily explained they will continue to plant some doubts in my mind. What is my 'standard of proof' you ask. Satisfactory explanations of said anomalies would do the trick.

That's not an answer, because the question is "what would be satisfactory to you ?".

I suspect that NOTHING would ever be satisfactory because you've already made up your mind.

I'm just asking.

"Just asking questions".

 

[Belz...]

There's no way the then technology could overcome that?

Yeah, and one of the ways to do it is to send people on the moon.

 

[Furi]

Cqcqcq

There's no way the then technology could overcome that?

Throw enough money at it, and maybe, a nice Coherent beam fired at a transponder, to then transmit back at expected frequencies, would negate *some* atmospheric propagation of terrestrial signals, which would reduce probable detection and analysis

just need to build the xmitter has to be a reasonably high frequency both to fox (that is to be out of reception range opposed to spoof them) the recievers that are listening or used, and also to further reduce atmospheric refraction/reflection, there would need to be multiple xmitters for the same reason as there were multiple receiving stations, (ETA In fact the would have to be An awful lot of stations you want to have a transmission angle as close to be an escape wave as possible)

we are now reching the threshold where you just would sit back and think, damn this hoax is getting over complimacated and expensive why don't we just go to the moon, I mean we've done all the prep work, we have the vehicles and launchers, engineers designers and facilities and gubbins, Tell you for a lark why don't we just go, who knows might be interesting, and that way we don't need all those crappy robots for scoop and return missions that have failed so miserably, go-on what do you say Mr big NWO elite controller let's just go even if it's just for the lulz.

=^..^=

 

[CurtC]

however, if it was to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.

There is a lot of evidence that France the country actually exists. However, if it were to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.

I think you might have overlooked the part of the analysis where Groves examines Aldrin's distorted shadow to calculate the slope of the ground between Aldrin and the photographer!

I saw the part where he said that he calculated this, however I have serious reservations about his analysis. He looked at the slope of the gound close to Aldrin (where the shadow of his legs was), but didn't appear to do any figuring about the remainder of the distance.

And I did not understand why they thought that the camera was held at Armstrong's eye-level. It was attached to his chest. The reflection in Aldrin's visor indicates that it was at Armstrong's chest-level. Did Groves actually publish his analysis, or did he just make assertions on a video?

 

[sts60]

(referring to ALSEP transmissions)

Is it possible to relay a signal from Earth back to Earth via the Moon (with the necessary relay equipment on the Moon, of course)? Seems plausible to me, given that we can bounce lasers back to measure distance. I don't know; I'm just asking.

Simply "bouncing" a radio signal off the Moon wouldn't work; the signal strength and other characteristics would be all wrong. It's rather like bouncing the laser off the Moon and expecting anyone to believe the signal came from a laser on the Moon, in fact. We can reject such a scenario immediately as physically unworkable.

But to anybody picking up just the relayed signal it wouldn't seem anything 'unusual', would it? 'Correct' time delay, no?

"Steady-state" ALSEP telemetry - the ALSEPs generated enormous amounts of telemetry over their years of operation - did not AFAIK relay clock information. What you're conjecturing is that responses to commands are simply part of the fake data relayed up to the Moon by a secret organization, and that these are relayed back, so I don't think time delays would enter into it.

But now an active transmitter in each ALSEP location is required - in fact, one with the exact characteristics of a real ALSEP transmitter and antenna. Not to mention a receiver and transponder to turn around the bogus transmissions. And a nuclear power source to run it all those years of lunar day/night cycles. Congratulations, you've just built yourself an ALSEP. Now just add a command decoder, some timing and logic, and the experiments and you're set to go. Why not build the real thing if you can do all the hard work?

In any case, as indicated in post 85, unless you can provide the following --
- specific evidence for the existence of a secret program to build fake ALSEPs
- specific evidence for a secret program to launch them to the Moon without anybody noticing
- specific evidence for a secret program to generate and transmit fake data good enough to fool not only the PIs and their teams, and the rest of the scientific community, and all the scientists in the future, or simply have all those folks be part of the conspiracy
- and don't forgot to specify exactly how you can reliably fake the space weather data from the ALSEPs in real time in response to changes monitored by many other spacecraft (not just U.S. ones)
- specific evidence for a secret program to operate stations around the world, continuously distributing this real-time-responsive fake data and pumping it up to the Moon (many stations required)
-- there is no reason to entertain such a notion as anything other than wishful thinking.

Moreover, you also have to account for what happened to the real ALSEPs, which were indisputably built and loaded aboard the spacecraft. Please provide specific evidence for their diversion in such a scenario. Keep in mind that the production of the Pu-238 oxide fuel was very tightly controlled; it wasn't as if you could simply whistle up a spare set for your fake ALSEPs and take it without anybody noticing.

I repeat: there is no reason - unless you can do the work shown above - to entertain the notion of the ALSEP data being faked.

 

[sts60]

I acknowledge that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence available, however, if it was to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.

Groves claimed that X-radiation in the lunar environment would render the film unusable. He performed an experiment as evidence, but he used the wrong camera, wrong magazine, wrong dosages (not even the right units), and wildly wrong X-ray energies to produce his "evidence".

Groves claimed that the "extreme heat of the lunar environment" would damage the film. He performed an experiment to show this, but he used film by itself in an oven - a convective environment - at a completely wrong duty cycle, set at a temperature for the lunar surface to produce his "evidence".

Does this raise "very serious questions" about his work to you?

There are a number of aspects of the NASA records that remain anomalous, and until they're satisfactorily explained they will continue to plant some doubts in my mind. What is my 'standard of proof' you ask. Satisfactory explanations of said anomalies would do the trick.

Neither of us is a photo analyst, but clearly Groves' claimed precision in resolving a "hot spot" is "anomalous" - in fact, it's flat-out absurd; it's physically meaningless.

Does this "plant some doubts in [your] mind" about his analysis?

 

[Southwind17]

There is a lot of evidence that France the country actually exists. However, if it were to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.

It all depends on the faker's motive(s). What scenario do you have in mind with the example above?

I saw the part where he said that he calculated this, however I have serious reservations about his analysis. He looked at the slope of the gound close to Aldrin (where the shadow of his legs was), but didn't appear to do any figuring about the remainder of the distance.

Actually, Groves calculates the difference in the height of the lunar surface between Aldrin and the photographer by reference to the entire length of shadow cast by Aldrin's leg from the extremety of his left boot to the point coinciding with his left hip (referring to the photo, the latter is the point approximately where the shadow begins to deviate significantly, adjacent the pronounced boot print bottom left). Because of the low sun angle Aldrin's shadow can be seen to be clearly elongated. Given that Aldrin and the photographer were standing approximately 3.8m apart (calculated by Groves) I would estimate the 'un-measured' distance from the photographer to the nearest point of the shadow measured to be under 2m. Therefore, if the difference in height over the distance of shadow measured is only 10cm at the most, as calculated by Groves, then the remainder of the difference in height, namely 50cm approximately, must be accounted for over a distance of less than 2m, that's an average gradient of around 1:4,or 25%! I don't see any such gradients in any part of the photo, so we can only conclude, if the camera was indeed chest mounted, that the photographer was standing atop something. Maybe a 50cm-high rock (similar to all the others in the photo), as you do when you're taking photos!

It clearly pays to review all of the evidence available before making judgements, don't you think!

And I did not understand why they thought that the camera was held at Armstrong's eye-level. It was attached to his chest. The reflection in Aldrin's visor indicates that it was at Armstrong's chest-level.

This is exactly the point, which, given this comment, you clearly show you're missing! According to Groves' calculations there's no way the camera could have been chest mounted - it was positioned much higher, around eye level, indicating that the beautifully composed image of everything that Armstrong could really only have dreamed of capturing in a single shot (LM, both astronauts and, of course, planted US flag) is probably superimposed over the true, revealing reflection.

Did Groves actually publish his analysis, or did he just make assertions on a video?

I don't know if he published it directly, but it appears in the Appendix to Dark Moon.

 

[Southwind17]

All solvable by throwing money at the problem.

Similar to cancer, AIDS, MS, etc.?!

 

[Southwind17]

No one thinks Jay's infallible; certainly not Jay himself. In fact, there's a running joke on BAUTforum.com about the "I corrected Jay" T-shirt (I even got one once ). But he's right a hell of a lot more often than he's wrong. ^{). But he's right a hell of a lot more often than he's wrong." target="_blank">WP}

As are most authoritative people, which is why they came to be deemed 'authoritative'! ^{" target="_blank">WP}

 

[Furi]

The version printed in Dark moon, was a reproduced shot, that had had some additional "headspace" above Aldrin, possibly used accidentally for aesthetics purposes,

not that this adjusts the location of the central reticule, but it does change dimensions if using the percieved edges of the photograph as referance distances for field of view.

why is it you accept Groves analysis, when his methods to prove enviromental effects on camera and film, were not even remotely representive of Lunar enviroment and are just irrelevant crapulence?

as these enviroment experiments represents quite a few of his claims and the moon walk photo is a single test, we now have more evidence to show that Groves was clearly mistaken in the methods he chose to analyse the facts of apollo, and by your own reasoning you therefore have to cast all of Groves work into the same low wattage range, as it seems that Groves photo work is what makes you doubt Apollo, this should have the inverse effect and increase your belief in the Apollo Missions as published.

 

[Disbelief]

It clearly pays to review all of the evidence available before making judgements, don't you think!

I do not know much about the moon hoax conpiracies, but isn't this a bit disingenuous? You are saying you should look at all the evidence, yet you are basing your skepticism off of one analysis of one photograph and discounting the preponderence of evidence.

 

[Southwind17]

I'm sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but Southwind17 are you saying that you don't have a problem with man getting to the moon, but with man walking on the moon?

Just trying to get your position properly in my head.

The contradictory evidence that casts most of the doubt in my mind pertains to anomalous lunar surface photographic records and certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe.

There as some aspects governing man's ability actually to get to the Moon in the first place that I'm skeptical of, but I haven't considered them as much as the other issues above.

 

[uruk]

There's no way the then technology could overcome that?

Well, I guess one way would be to pre-record everything. Store all the video and telemetry data on a transmitter device send it to the moon then hit play remotely and choregraph all the intereaction between ground control and the recording for one week straight.
And hope the transmiter doesn't glitch or breakdown or someone at ground control doesn't forget his lines.

Nothing would give you away faster than a tape stretch or jam.
I remember that happening to Meatloaf during a concert. They lipsynched the whole concert and during one performance the tape over heated and stretched. The playback slowed down and the pitch of the music dropped kind of giving up the jig.

That would have looked funny if the video came back "That's one small step for a man, One giant leeeeeaaaaaaaaapppp ffffffffffoooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr maaaaaaaaaaa...*****

Anyhoo, The problem is that you would need two transmiters. One for the orbiting command module and one for the lunar surface. And it would not just be video and audio information that you would have to store and transmitt. You would also have to record, store and transmit system telemetry data from the Astronauts bio-sensors, the lander's hardware telemetry, the command module's hardware telemetry, The propolsion system telemetry. The navigation system telemetry, the science package telemetry, and there is probably a few other things I am missing.
You would have to pre-record and store the info for the whole round trip so that the signals have the right delay and the right transmittion coordinates to fool all the ground tracking and telemetry stations all over the world. Not to mention the Russians.

That would be very doable with todays technology but I hink it would have been very difficult if not impossible with 1969 technology. Video was new, tape storage was new.
I don't think the technology was present to store that much information on tape in a package small enough to be practically sent to the Moon. One weeks worth of video, audio and telemetry stored on tape would have taken up several storage cabinets in a sizable room. Not to mention making sure all those miles of tape would make it past a playback head without glitches.

From a launch capability standpoint it would have been easier to just have sent the astronauts.

Computer memory maximum addressable capacity was only 64kb at the time. That is 64 thousand bytes. Not mega or giga. Woefully inadequate for the task.