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

[Southwind17]

Wow, I can't believe anybody is still stuck on the fill light question. Did you really come here to boast about your inability to figure out this most basic of conundrums? What could possibly be reflecting light up at the astronaut? What could it be that lights him up but isn't able to bounce light into the shadows on the ground? Where would you find a large reflector all the way out in space? Aargh, it's so difficult isn't it?

I just heard a bump in the basement! I checked, but there's nobody down there. Ergo it MUST be a ghost!

 

[Southwind17]

You are certifiable, man.

Filming raw footage from the moon requires astronauts with cameras. Compare outside broadcast news filming - presenter, camera man, sound man, crew, with the people needed to make a film of a staged event.

To recreate the Appollo footage, you would need people to construct an enormous, expansive a lunar landscape (which, I assure you, is not "easy"), artificially light it, edit the footage, add the special effects or otherwise doctor the film to reproduce lunar gravity. That's dozens if not hundreds of people. You'd need location filming crews, set designers, construction workers, tea ladies, editors, sound designers, script writers.

Who built this set? Where did they build it? Who filmed it? Who recorded the sound? Who cut and edited the footage? Who made those people their lunch? Why have none of those people, or their relatives or acquaintances, said anything for 4 decades?

You don't seem to get my very simple point. I'd like for you to 'get it' yourself, so I'll try only to lead you to the water by asking another slightly cryptic question that I'm sure you're capable of unravelling:

Where was the 'tea lady' on the Moon?

 

[PixyMisa]

Southwind, what is your reference to temperature gradients supposed to signify?

Remember that people have worked in space, in space suits both more primitive and more advanced than the Apollo suits, for years before and decades after Apollo. Temperature is a solved problem.

 

[PixyMisa]

You don't seem to get my very simple point. I'd like for you to 'get it' yourself, so I'll try only to lead you to the water by asking another slightly cryptic question that I'm sure you're capable of unravelling:

Where was the 'tea lady' on the Moon?

The tea lady was with the support team. Cape Canaveral, Houston, and so on. The astronauts had to supply their own tea.

 

[Southwind17]

If you could clarify how your description of temperature gradient implies a moon hoax, (feel free to show any workings), that would be great.

OK, so as to untangle your severely twisted proverbials let's just call it 'temperature difference'; keep things nice and simple for you eh.

Allow me to ask you a question:

What would the temperature difference have typically been between, say, a partially reflective metal surface exposed to full sunlight for, say, an hour, and that same surface placed in full shade for an hour?

 

[PixyMisa]

What would the temperature difference have typically been between, say, a partially reflective metal surface exposed to full sunlight for, say, an hour, and that same surface placed in full shade for an hour?

The same as it would be in Earth orbit. You know, where the Mercury and Gemini and Shuttle missions go.

 

[332nd]

You don't seem to get my very simple point. I'd like for you to 'get it' yourself, so I'll try only to lead you to the water by asking another slightly cryptic question that I'm sure you're capable of unravelling:

Where was the 'tea lady' on the Moon?

Sigh... There wasn't one. There were only two people on the moon each time and (at least once) someone operating a remote camera from Earth. Very telling you would concentrate on the "tea lady" though.

 

[Southwind17]

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

My favorite site for Apollo images, high-res. Takes a lot of the wind from the sails of the hoax believers.

These are great photos. I couldn't find the famous Aldrin shot, though, based on the descriptions. Do you know which one it is?

Meantime, I found this one interesting, particularly the tiny particles immediately beneath the descent engine bell. I'm surprised they didn't get displaced by the thrust.

 

[Southwind17]

What's the rationale for thinking the photos are fake again? Oh yes thats it... they supposedly look like the work of more than just the two astronauts. Professional lighting, expert framing... Funny how quickly you forget your own argument...

So how many people, roughly, do you estimate to do the actual shoots?

 

[Shrinker]

So how many people, roughly, do you estimate to do the actual shoots?

I won't estimate that, since you're the one making up inconsistent nonsense about the content of the photography and video. One minute you're claiming there are multiple artificial lightsources, and extra unseen photographers, the next you're claiming there's only one lightsource and the astronauts photographed themselves. You completely reverse your position depending on what points we raise.

 

[Shrinker]

I just heard a bump in the basement! I checked, but there's nobody down there. Ergo it MUST be a ghost!

You're really not good at this thinking business are you?

You haven't even looked in the 'basement'. You've jumped straight to your conclusion, despite there being a very obvious explanation. At least it's obvious to those of us with a basic understanding of light.

I'll ask again just to make sure. Can you really not think of any source of light that would illuminate the astronauts from below, but would be unable to cast light into their shadows on the ground? Come on, think!

 

[Southwind17]

Well, I was being facetious. I didn't seem to be getting any response from Southwind17; it's been a couple of days and dozens of posts from him since the last time he replied to any of my ALSEP remarks in posts 85, 192, 285, and 291.. Since he has engaged repeatedly with Corsair 115 and Von Neumann regarding ALSEP, I thought he would like to discuss it in more detail and back up his apparent opinion that ALSEP was (or may have been) faked.

I dunno; maybe he's busy reading some of the references I gave him, or looking at ALSEP data online, or hasn't noticed my posts, or maybe I've offended him?

I'm not ignoring you sts - it's just that there have been so many posts on this thread pooh-poohing the things I've written I've been tending to address the 'easy meat'.

The debate with Corsair was not regarding ALSEP per se (well, not from my point of view, at least). Corsair seemed to claim that ALSEP alone provided proof beyond all reasonable doubt that man has walked on the Moon. When challenged on this he/she retreated on the pretext of frustration. How convenient - it would have been far easier to provide the one-word answer I was constantly asking for, although that would have left him/her in somewhat of a predicament, so I can kind of see why he's/she's decided to bow out.

I realize why one might suggest that I should focus on the 'more substantive' aspects, such as ALSEP, but part of my posting here originally was to demonstrate just how superficial many people's positions against any CT allegations can and often is. I'm not suggesting that that necessarily adds weight to any CTs, just that people ought to be a little more objective and critical when presented with contradictory information. What many people posting on here tend to do is offer up hypotheses and theories of their own, or regurgitate those of others, as counter-arguments to any CTs without even realizing that hypothesis and theory achieves very little, if anything. To claim, for example, that the Moon's reflective surface accounts for the fill light in many of the suspect photos is fundamentally flawed. Yes, I agree that sunlight is clearly reflected off the Moon's surface, to a small degree, but that fact alone cannot categorically account for the amount of fill light that's apparent, without being scientifically tested.

I've never been one for taking my ball home, slamming doors or ignoring people. People can call me whatever names they wish and I won't be offended. To my mind name calling by adults has a certain association, but we needn't go there. Did you write something that you feel could have offended me, in any case - I don't recall?

I'm sincerely hoping to getting around to reading up on ALSEP, but I was genuinely (honestly!) hoping that Corsair would help me short-circuit it. Whilst I'm interested in this debate I don't relish the thought of reading up on an aspect that I don't believe has been disputed before only to find that it still leaves the door open. So, maybe you'd care to direct me to the specific aspects of ALSEP that you believe affords the necessary proof beyond reasonable doubt that man has walked on the Moon. If you feel you've tried to do that already please accept my apologies, but if you could just direct me to the relevant post(s) and part(s) thereof and/or links therefrom I would appreciate that. Thanks

 

[Mashuna]

A VERY telling response. I figured my last 'challenge' would draw out the truth and bring this to a head in my favour, which now leaves me to focus on the more considered responses that derive from sensibility and logic, which, I seem to detect are diminishing fast, but I could be wrong.

He's already answered your question, and asked others that you've ignored. I'm amazed you've got the nerve to claim this is a result in your favour.

 

[Mashuna]

OK, so as to untangle your severely twisted proverbials let's just call it 'temperature difference'; keep things nice and simple for you eh.

Allow me to ask you a question:

What would the temperature difference have typically been between, say, a partially reflective metal surface exposed to full sunlight for, say, an hour, and that same surface placed in full shade for an hour?

Full sunlight with the sun directly overhead, or the sun at a lower angle?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

These are great photos. I couldn't find the famous Aldrin shot, though, based on the descriptions. Do you know which one it is?

It's this one: AS11-40-5903

Meantime, I found this one interesting, particularly the tiny particles immediately beneath the descent engine bell. I'm surprised they didn't get displaced by the thrust.

Assuming that you found it interesting rather than suspicious, it's not so surprising:

1) The thrust from the DPS is actually pretty gentle per unit area, more like a very wide leaf blower. In vacuum, it doesn't matter how narrow or wide the exhaust is, as long as the sum total is enough to balance the weight of the LM.
2) The lunar regolith is a mixture of particulates of varying sizes, from gravel to dust, compacted over millions of years by vibrations from moonquakes and meteor impacts. Further, the lack of wind means that the particles still have sharp edges which make them stick together more than terrestrial sand would.
3) The LM was only over this specific area for a few seconds. Simply put, there wasn't enough time for larger particles like these to be blown away. And some of those are probably protruding edges from larger rocks buried in the soil.

Besides, do you also see the radial pattern in the soil? Best seen between one and two fiducial marks from the centre of the picture, and slightly down. The shadow direction is almost directly towards the right, so those lines aren't shadows.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

I'll note that any problem with temperature extremes would be the exact same in Earth orbit. Having a big ol' rock under your feet doesn't change the situation, though a surrounding atmosphere would. The Shuttle astronauts seem to cope.

 

[Mashuna]

I realize why one might suggest that I should focus on the 'more substantive' aspects, such as ALSEP, but part of my posting here originally was to demonstrate just how superficial many people's positions against any CT allegations can and often is. I'm not suggesting that that necessarily adds weight to any CTs, just that people ought to be a little more objective and critical when presented with contradictory information. What many people posting on here tend to do is offer up hypotheses and theories of their own, or regurgitate those of others, as counter-arguments to any CTs without even realizing that hypothesis and theory achieves very little, if anything. To claim, for example, that the Moon's reflective surface accounts for the fill light in many of the suspect photos is fundamentally flawed. Yes, I agree that sunlight is clearly reflected off the Moon's surface, to a small degree, but that fact alone cannot categorically account for the amount of fill light that's apparent, without being scientifically tested.

The claim that the CTs make with regard to fill lights etc, is that their answer is the only possible way events could have occurred. Therefore the landings were faked.

The point of the hypothesis and theories on, for example, the moon's reflective surface, is that they provide an explanation that is consistent with the moon landings actually happening. Once you've got this plausible alternative, you can discard the CT. Of course, it has to be accepted that the alternative is plausible.

 

[Southwind17]

No.

No, it does not.

It does not offer an alternative explanation that fits with the totality of the evidence. It offers an ad hoc explanation to explain a few possible anomolies. Your alternative explanation has a few relevent data points and 99%+ anomolies. The current explanation has 99%+ relevent data and less than 1% anamolous data.

So, if one piece of evidence in the OJ trial had happened to have been a cop observing OJ sticking the knife into his victims, taking account of all of the other evidence that served to clear him, what would your verdict have been?

Imagine (if you can!), just for a moment, that the Aldrin photo were shown beyond all reasonable doubt to be a fake (or at best 'doctored' for more than mere 'presentation'), what would your reaction be?

... your insistence that Corsair should commit to basing the entirety of her belief on nothng but the ALSEP info is simply another exampel of your myopathy on this subject.

I suggest you pay more attention. I never 'insisted' that Corsair do any such thing. Corsair strongly indicated a belief that ALSEP affords proof, on its own, beyond all reasonable doubt that man walked on the Moon. When I sought clarification he/she persisted to avoid the question because he/she realized where it would lead (either that or he/she really is lacking in comprehension to the extent he/she seemed to display). All your comment here shows is that you have no idea what it is that I'm arguing.

 

[Southwind17]

The claim that the CTs make with regard to fill lights etc, is that their answer is the only possible way events could have occurred. Therefore the landings were faked.

The point of the hypothesis and theories on, for example, the moon's reflective surface, is that they provide an explanation that is consistent with the moon landings actually happening. Once you've got this plausible alternative, you can discard the CT. Of course, it has to be accepted that the alternative is plausible.

Gee, sense at last. Of course, if it were to be shown that the 'consistent' plausible explanation does not account for the observed effects, then a further possible consistent plausible explanation would become necessary.

 

[Southwind17]

I'll note that any problem with temperature extremes would be the exact same in Earth orbit. Having a big ol' rock under your feet doesn't change the situation, though a surrounding atmosphere would. The Shuttle astronauts seem to cope.

Yes, I considered this too. 'Cope' with what?, I suppose is the question.