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

[PixyMisa]

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.

Your dishonesty doesn't serve you well in a forum where everything you write is permanently recorded.

And here you go YET AGAIN! THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE! I will ask you again. Please answer with only one word, EITHER 'yes' or 'no': Do you consider that ALSEP alone, on its own, nothing else, PROOVES BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that man has walked on the Moon?

I've said as much multiple times. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Here, I'll answer again in such a way that there is no possibility of you missing it: YES.

What part of "YES" did you not understand?

 

[PixyMisa]

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

You brought up the question of temperature. We assumed that there was a point to this, and noted that Shuttle astronauts cope with the same temperatures as the lunar astronauts. That's what they cope with.

Clear?

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Yes, subjunctives are fun. But as you've made exactly zero progress towards that, it remains a subjunctive.

 

[Shrinker]

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.

This is where your game is breaking down. The CTists raise the fill light question and ignore the moon's surface. They draw diagrams, and do figures and trigonometry and all kinds of simple misdirection but they completely and IMO deliberately ignore the reflectivity of the moon and the fact that it is the most obvious answer to the problem. When rational people raise this answer, suddenly the CTists cry for scientific proof! They want measurement, analysis, science. Do you not see the problem with this?

If you want to show the picture is fake, you have to do all the work, not just raise suspicions, then flip the burden of proof. When raising the bounce light issue, or any other issue we are not proving the photo is 100% genuine (you can never do that) we are highlighting the flaws in the methodology of the CTists. We don't have to prove anything. It is simply quite self-evident that CTists analysis is flawed because they do not account for the basic properties of light, or any number of basic factors, let alone do the analysis with numbers.

 

[Shrinker]

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?

"Gosh, why did they do that when they had men on the moon with cameras?"

Is there a more sensible answer?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

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?

"Congratulations. Now... what about all of the other images?"

Because, you know... if even one photograph is genuine, it's proof that men landed on the Moon.

 

[Shrinker]

magine (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?

Southwind, please cast your analysis skills over this image. Some aspect has been doctored. When you tell me what it is, tell us what this proves.

(Try to do it without referring to the original - it's more fun that way)

 

[332nd]

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?

Oooooo! "The magic what if!" What if that same cop had been recorded saying he hated OJ so much that he would lie his butt off to get him put in jail?

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?

My reaction would be " They needed a poster that bad?"

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.

He/she said yes and you whined about the rest of the post.

 

[volatile]

Builders need tea. There was no need to build a landscape on the moon.

 

[Southwind17]

It's this one: AS11-40-5903

Thank you for that.

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.

Wikipedia has the Descent Module DPS thrust specified as 45.04kN, throttleable to 4.56kN (the DM mass was 10,334kg). It has the Ascent Module APS thrust specified as 15.6kN (the AM mass was 4,670kg). Clearly, 15.6kN is necessary to overcome the Moon's gravitational pull and 4.56kN is the minimum thrust applied during the descent stage. 15.6/4.56=3.42. Unless I'm mistaken (could be!), you're saying that 3.42 (let's call it 4!) 'very wide' leaf blowers would provide sufficient thrust to lift the 4,670kg ascent-stage module + two astronauts + rock samples into Moon orbit. Is that right?!

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.

Is this just a hypothesis, or have you actually seen completely dry sharp Moon particles 'stick together'? Either way, It seems pretty obvious to me from looking at the photo that many of the small 'objects' beneath the thruster are indeed small granular-type particles and not protrusions. There seems to be a veritable scattering of small grit, to me!

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.

Is this a hypothesis? I note your uncertainty as to whether what we see are particles or protruding edges from larger rocks.

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.

I think I know which you mean - towards the bottom left?

The shadow direction is almost directly towards the right, so those lines aren't shadows.

You're suggesting these are 'striations' or the like, presumably, caused by particle dispersion during descent, yes, i.e. caused by the power of a 'very wide leaf blower'? I don't see any towards the bottom right. Do you know what the hardness of the exposed surface that we see would be?

 

[Southwind17]

I'm getting the same feeling.

Southwind, in addition to sts60's questions, I have some pending with you, in posts #245 & #292. Are these in your "queue"?

Yes, I reckon I'll get around to these at some point.

 

[Southwind17]

The answer to your question is yes, Wind. What Corsair is saying is that there are many, many other pieces of evidence for which the answer would ALSO be yes. Add those up together, and you've got an airtight case. [emphasis added]

See, even you're at it! Do you even understand why I was hoping for an unequivocal 'yes' and nothing more to my question of Corsair?!

You're funny, Wind. Why don't you take a qualified yes as an answer, I wonder? [emphasis added - again!]

Could it be that a qualified 'yes' doesn't necessarily mean 'yes', I wonder!

Q. Have you ever been to Europe?
A. Yes, provided that by 'Europe' you mean ... and assuming you don't mean ... and ...

That's one of the most transparent cop-outs I've seen in a long time.

Well you would think that, wouldn't you, if you hadn't taken the time to read all of the relevant words carefully!

I must've missed it.

Yes, you must!

Which evidence are we talking about ? I don't remember you providing an analysis of that picture other than "how the hell could this be!! ?? 11"

I don't remember you requesting a copy, when I offered!

Argument from incredulity. Name one mile-long studio that can simulate 1/6th gravity and lack of an atmosphere.

Your complete lack of imagination explains why you clearly wouldn't cut it as a movie maker!

Where exactly, on Earth, do you find a place with no atmosphere ?

I could be sarcastic and suggest your place, but I won't. I guess you're alluding to the differences in observable effects that an atmosphere and lack of display. Has anybody located and posted links to any speeded up Moon footage yet on the internet that clearly looks different from normal movements on Earth?

Yes, exactly. Moving in a vaccum does not slow down your movements. But, hey! I'll bite. Exactly HOW WOULD IT slow down your movements ?

OK, try bunny or kangaroo hopping across the ground and time your hops. Now, find some footage of astronauts on the Moon bunny or kangaroo hopping and time their hops. Hey presto - me thinks their's will take longer than yours! Taking longer = slowing down, in my little book of physics!

They didn't have to build a soundstage on the moon, Wind.

Exactly, Belz!

 

[Southwind17]

I put myself through my Senior year of Engineering school with a camera. One of the things I loved doing was concerts, becuse of the lighting.
See-the subject was put in bright light--either a single spot, or a multitude thereof. The surroundings were unlighted. The reflections off the floor filled in the shadows cast by the overhead spots. Under those conditions, anybody could get professional results, including the ijits using Instamatics--without a flash. And they were self framing. Put the bright stuff in the middle of the viewfinder, or just point it at the stage...
And our faviorite demonstrator of extreme ignorance forgets: Space has no temperature.
Spacecraft in orbit, or on thir way to the moon, or relay stations sitting on the moon have the same problem: The sunlight side is absorbing energy, the dark side shedding it. Temperature extremes are on of the thing we have to deal with, everywhere. The advantage the moon has is that a rock absorbs energy on the sunlight side, and emits it on all sides--it gets warmer all over--not just one side.
The moon is a big heat sink...

This is nicely coherent and compelling. Thanks for coming!

 

[Southwind17]

I hear transport to and from the set was quite involved though.

One could imagine so, couldn't one!

 

[Southwind17]

When CT's talk about slowing the video down to simulate 1/6g, they uniformly fail to consider how the nonballistic motions would look unnatural...or just handwave them away.

For instance, record yourself bunny hopping over to a board, to hammer a nail. Now view it in slow motion. You may argue that your hopping looks somewhat Moon-like but could you also successfully argue that hitting the nail in slow motion would drive it into the board? If you did, I'd ask you to demonstrate it live.

So, to make that video look more convincing you'd have to speed up the nonballistic motion to compensate for the reduction in the video playback rate. But how does one speed up a hammer swing already delivered at full tempo? How does one maintain that tempo with hundreds of other movements performed over a long period?

Seems to me the slo-mo theory is no-mo.

Can you post us some links please that demonstrate this. Thanks.

 

[Southwind17]

So only two people (off the top of my head) helped the astronauts simulate 1/6th gravity, handled the com chatter, set up the LEM, operated the light source, filmed Armstrong coming down the ladder, and reset the "stage" whenever they had to do a new take?

I never claimed that only two would suffice, but it certainly wouldn't be as big as Ben-Hur (1959)! Speaking of which, how on Earth(!) did they get those landscapes to look just like the first century AD? Beats me!

However you are close. To film the actual landing it took three. Armstrong, Aldrin, and the guy who operated the remote cam for the first step.

Was ther actual landing filmed, other than from the LM?!

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind needs to ask Buzz Aldrin about these things. I think he'd get a pretty definitive answer.

I wouldn't bet on that, not if he's anything like Armstrong!

 

[Southwind17]

Certainly there is more complication.

Yes, 'more', there's an interesting word!

But the physics is the same.

Never change!

If you can send,land and return a probe you can do the same with a man. The only difference are the life support systems.

Yep, can almost ignore this difference, for what it's worth!

So your statement is a contradiction. Or at least a double standard.

Now how come I'm still not inclined to agree?!

The Russians soft landed a probe on the moon that took pictures and a small sample of lunar soil and returned it to earth.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=1972-007A

Now you're talking!

Apollo 8 sent men around the moon and back. Apollo 11 had the lander with a crew dto within 50,000 feet of the lunar surface.

Mmm ...

Everything was done step by step in increments testing the hardware and techniques.

Yes, that sounds sensible.

 

[Shrinker]

Can you post us some links please that demonstrate this. Thanks.

I posted a link immediately after. It shows an astronaut working at normal speed, while objects in the shot swing and wobble with a period much slower than you'd expect on earth.

The flaw in the slo-mo claims is that the claimants do not speed up a representative selection of videos, they cherry-pick the videos with lots of ballistic or gravity-driven harmonic motion which can only happen at half speed on the moon. Human activity, especially upper body activity would be relatively normal in low gravity... as the video shows.

 

[PixyMisa]

See, even you're at it! Do you even understand why I was hoping for an unequivocal 'yes' and nothing more to my question of Corsair?!

You got your unequivocal yes. Corsair also pointed out that there is a lot of other evidence that by itself is also conclusive. You don't get to complain about that.

Q. Have you ever been to Europe?
A. Yes, provided that by 'Europe' you mean ... and assuming you don't mean ... and ...

Remember, Southwind, we can actually see what you wrote and what Corsair wrote.

This would be a more accurate picture:

Windsock: I don't believe Europe exists! Have you ever been to Europe? Well, have you? Huh? Huh? Well?!

Cursor: As I have told you five times already, YES, I have been to Europe. More than once, in fact. I was married in Europe. My parents come from Europe. I work for a company with its headquarters in Europe. I have, right here in my house, over three hundred books written or printed (or both!) in Europe. My TV picks up BBC News (which comes from Europe), and at least a dozen channels in various European languages.

And if you had ever in your life read a book or a newspaper you would be aware of all of this.

Well you would think that, wouldn't you, if you hadn't taken the time to read all of the relevant words carefully!

Unfortunately for you, Southwind, we did read the words.

Your complete lack of imagination explains why you clearly wouldn't cut it as a movie maker!

Ah, the argument from credulity. How cute.

I could be sarcastic and suggest your place, but I won't. I guess you're alluding to the differences in observable effects that an atmosphere and lack of display.

Do you understand yet that vacuum and low gravity are two different things? The first is merely utterly impractical to implement for a movie set on Earth; the latter is impossible. Both are required to reproduce the Apollo videos.

Has anybody located and posted links to any speeded up Moon footage yet on the internet that clearly looks different from normal movements on Earth?

Yes.

OK, try bunny or kangaroo hopping across the ground and time your hops. Now, find some footage of astronauts on the Moon bunny or kangaroo hopping and time their hops. Hey presto - me thinks their's will take longer than yours! Taking longer = slowing down, in my little book of physics!

And if you speed up the gross movements, the fine movements are all wrong, demonstrating that the videos were indeed taken in a low-gravity environment, which is (one more time) IMPOSSIBLE to reproduce on Earth.