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

[volatile]

are you trying to claim that since only 2 people were required "on-location" to film the scenes on the moon, only 2 people would be required to fake the whole thing?

Yes. Or at least, it seems that way from his responses to my posts.

 

[Southwind17]

I won't estimate that, since you're the one making up inconsistent nonsense about the content of the photography and video.

Embarrassingly small number is it, on reflection?!

One minute you're claiming there are multiple artificial lightsources ...

Did I claim this?!

... and extra unseen photographers ...

... and this?!

... the next you're claiming there's only one lightsource ...

That's better.

... and the astronauts photographed themselves.

Did I claim this?

You completely reverse your position depending on what points we raise.

Did I do this?

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.

So stating the 'obvious' is not jumping to a conclusion? By 'obvious' you mean like people thinking the Earth was flat (because that was pretty obvious, wasn't it!)?!

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!

I've already acknowledged this secondary light source. The difference between you and me, though, is that I tend to think beyond the 'obvious'. It's what good scientists, investigators, forensic accountants, etc. do, for example, to further our thinking and understanding. It distinguishes the wheat from the chaff. You can do it too, I'm sure. It's just a matter of applying yourself!

This is where your game is breaking down.

Really?

The CTists raise the fill light question and ignore the moon's surface.

'They' might; I don't.

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.

'They might; I don't. What happens when we always assume the 'obvious'? See above!

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?

That's probably because 'this answer' isn't really an 'answer'; it's just a theory. It needs to be tested scientifically before it can be shown to the 'the answer', and not just a possible answer.

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.

Who's rules are these then? What does 'showing the picture is fake' require?

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.

And if the counter-argument is equally flawed?

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

Is there a more sensible answer?

Don't you mean 'question'?! How long have you got?! I see your imagination is limiting (the Earth is round, you know, really!).

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.

I had to watch this twice to be sure that it really doesn't demonstrate anything meaningful!

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.

Is there no speeded up footage available, anywhere?! If the CTists cherry pick than surely the anti-CTists can too!

It was the gloves thing wasn't it? Gloves don't work in space. They must have been gutted.

Nothing to do with gloves. Come on Shrinker, apply yourself, you can do it!

Not true. Get concave and convex right first.

Depends which side you're looking from! No, seriously, apologies, I meant convex. Slight blonde moment!

Second maybe the boot has anisotropic reflectivity. In fact, given the shape of the highlight it almost certainly does.

You mean you aren't sure, but you're going to draw a conclusion anyhow?!

Read up on the subject here. With an anisotropic reflection like this it is difficult if not impossible to tell if the lightsource is higher or lower than the camera.

Sounds interesting; I will. Thanks

Rewrite your analysis to rule out anisotropic reflections.

I will, if it can be shown to be the case.

How shiny are the boots? they look brand new.

No, army surplus, surely?!

How have you ruled out the reflection of the white suit without working out how shiny the boots are? Look at this picture here. You can see painted white steps reflected in the boots. And the steps aren't even lit by raw lunar sunlight.

I don't think even a mirror would display a 'hotspot' by a reflection from a spacesuit!

The moons surface is not angled the wrong way - it provides light from a complete hemisphere below the astronaut.

What direction was the light travelling when it struck the lunar surface? Have you ever driven directly into the Sun when it's very low in the evening sky, then felt relieved when you turn a bend, by any chance? Why is that, I wonder?!

Regarding exposure on the moon there are only two possible lighting conditions - full sunlight or shadow filled in from below. Is it hard to imagine they pre set these exposures before launch?

Yes, 'on the Moon'!

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

What I see as a more plausible possibility derives from an attempt by NASA to fulfil the Apollo objective as planned, but then, on the discovery and realization that certain technological obstacles are far greater than envisaged, recognizing the need to be seen to have succeeded, particularly in the context of the political race possibly hovering on the verge of being lost. I don't doubt for one milli-second that the Apollo program was absolutely genuine, except for the very last part.

Well, if you believe that there were some technological aspects which prevented a Moon landing from becoming reality, how do you rationalize the fact that the team or teams of scientists and engineers that would have undoubtedly run up against such insurmountable obstacles... didn't said anything when their "impossible" Moon landing was actually happening? And still haven't said anything 40 years later...

 

[technoextreme]

Well, if you believe that there were some technological aspects which prevented a Moon landing from becoming reality, how do you rationalize the fact that the team or teams of scientists and engineers that would have undoubtedly run up against such insurmountable obstacles... didn't said anything when their "impossible" Moon landing was actually happening? And still haven't said anything 40 years later...

We don't even know what he's talking about. If we did I'm pretty sure we'd figure out that he has no idea what he is talking about.

 

[332nd]

Very telling my reason for 'concentrating on the tea lady' is lost on you, more like!

Ah of course.

You can dance if you want to

You can leave your friends behind...

 

[Furi]

the 80's called

Ah of course.

You can dance if you want to

You can leave your friends behind...

'coz your friends don't dance and if they don't dance

Well they're no friends of mine

 

[Shrinker]

Thanks for the detailed response.

Embarrassingly small number is it, on reflection?!

No. It's between 2 and 2000 depending the the theory-du-jour. None of these numbers are embarrasing for me.

Did I claim this?!
... and this?!
That's better.
Did I claim this?
Did I do this?

I'm sorry no, you don't claim, you 'allude'. Just like good scientists, investigators and forensic accountants.

So stating the 'obvious' is not jumping to a conclusion? By 'obvious' you mean like people thinking the Earth was flat (because that was pretty obvious, wasn't it!)?!

I've already acknowledged this secondary light source. The difference between you and me, though, is that I tend to think beyond the 'obvious'. It's what good scientists, investigators, forensic accountants, etc. do, for example, to further our thinking and understanding. It distinguishes the wheat from the chaff. You can do it too, I'm sure. It's just a matter of applying yourself!

I think you've misunderstood what jumping to conclusions means. If something is obvious, then you're not jumping to conclusions if you believe it. It doesn't mean you can't be shown wrong though...

That's probably because 'this answer' isn't really an 'answer'; it's just a theory. It needs to be tested scientifically before it can be shown to the 'the answer', and not just a possible answer.

Who's rules are these then? What does 'showing the picture is fake' require?

You can play by whatever rules you like, but don't blame me if you never get anywhere. It's impossible to prove a picture is genuine, therefore in order to progress in an enquiry somebody needs to show it's fake. If they can't, well that proves nothing.

And if the counter-argument is equally flawed?

Then you're left with a photo that's not shown to be fake.

I had to watch this twice to be sure that it really doesn't demonstrate anything meaningful!

Is there no speeded up footage available, anywhere?! If the CTists cherry pick than surely the anti-CTists can too!

It doesn't surprise me that you can't see it. Look at the thing swinging thing under the astronauts arm. It's swinging at about half the speed it would on earth. Look at the aerial type thing after he puts it down. It wobbles around at half the speed it would on earth. But you can tell this film has not been slowed down because the astronaut is moving at normal speed. How on earth did they do that? Claymation?

Nothing to do with gloves. Come on Shrinker, apply yourself, you can do it!

Alluding again?

You mean you aren't sure, but you're going to draw a conclusion anyhow?!

Nope I gave an estimate of probability, which actually was a little high. It's more likely the curvature of the surface causing the elongated highlight. Note, that's as estimate of probability too.

I don't think even a mirror would display a 'hotspot' by a reflection from a spacesuit!

Yes, it would show a spacesuit-shaped hotspot. Perhaps you need to learn a little more about specular reflection.

What direction was the light travelling when it struck the lunar surface? Have you ever driven directly into the Sun when it's very low in the evening sky, then felt relieved when you turn a bend, by any chance? Why is that, I wonder?!

Don't know what you're talking about here. I'm guessing you're talking about the glare you get off the road. Why did you choose a road? Why not talk about the glare you get off sand dunes or dry mud flats? Oh right, there is none. They reflect diffusely. Another word for you to look-up.

See, while you talk big about expanding knowledge, you still seem to have a long way to go. Good luck with it. I'm happy to answer questions.

 

[uruk]

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.

That last statement shows yet again, your ignorance.

Apparently you didn't consider all the material that covered those particles was removed by the exhaust before the engine was shut off 6 feet above the surface. Notice the long foil covered "stick" that was attached to the bottom of one of the lander's pad?
That is the surface contact probe. When that probe touched the surface, it turned on a light on the cotrol panel to tlet the astronauts know that they were within 6 feet of the surface. At that height, the pilot would sut off the engine and drift the remaining height at 1/6 gravity to the surface.

You really need to look these things up.

 

[uruk]

{snip}. 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.{snip}

I thought you said you understood about film exposure?

 

[Shrinker]

That last statement shows yet again, your ignorance.

It's not igorance, it's called 'looking beyond the obvious'.

Apparently.

 

[uruk]

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?

All that would mean is that the photograph was faked. You would still have to explain why it was faked and how it relates to the Apollo mission. And provide supporting evidence.

Just likie in a court case

 

[twinstead]

What most HB's don't understand is that all it takes to prove the landings were real is ONE image that is unquestionably taken on the surface of the moon.

Just one.

They can argue until they are blue in the face about fake photographs and whatnot but either we were there or we were not.

 

[rwguinn]

...
It doesn't surprise me that you can't see it. Look at the thing swinging thing under the astronauts arm. It's swinging at about half the speed it would on earth. Look at the aerial type thing after he puts it down. It wobbles around at half the speed it would on earth. But you can tell this film has not been slowed down because the astronaut is moving at normal speed. How on earth did they do that? Claymation?
....

not entirely true, unfortunately.
It is true for the swinging thingie--it is a pendulum, and the frequency of a pendulum is a function of local gravitational acceleration and length.
For the aerial (and the flag pole!), however, there is no difference in frequency on Earth and on the Moon.
In that case, frequency is a function only of Mass and Stiffness.
Mass does not change between here and the Moon, or anywhere in the universe.
Damping, however, is a function of velocity, and on Earth, the atmosphere acts as a very effective damper on things like flags and such. So, on the Moon, they keep on shaking for a lot longer than they would on Earth.

 

[uruk]

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

And apparently not insurmountable.

Never change!

Do you know an incident where the laws of physics have changed?

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

Yep, the only difference is the nature of the payload. Extra wieght of people and life support systems and provisions, and the G-forces. Sounds difficult?

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

Hubris? I don't know. You'll have to answer that for yourself.

Now you're talking!

Wouldn't that be one of the many reasons the Russians aren't crying hoax? Because they know it is possible

Mmm ...

Are you questioning those missions also?


[/quote]Yes, that sounds sensible.[/QUOTE]

 

[uruk]

I'm not alluding to the space suits; they were, I assume, designed from basics specifically with the missions in mind. Many other aspects weren't, though.

Such as?

 

[VonNeumann]

As a former acountant and auditor, and current mechanical engineering student, I was going to comment on Southwind17's Enron analogy, but you've quite eloquently said most of what I wanted to say.

Two additional points: First, the insiders at Enron were only able to maintain their deception for a few years. Second, the only reason they were able to get away with such gross accounting fraud for so long is that their auditors, Arthur Andersen^WP LLP, basically turned a blind eye to evidence of major irrigularities that should have occasioned a deeper investigation into the company's financial affairs.

Jay Windley's essay "The Problem of Scale" deals with the issue of the size of any potential conspiracy:

Thanks, even though what I said and what you said were wasted on him.

It is difficult for me to believe that Southwind genuinely doubts manned moon missions were real. I think he is studying human behavior by probing people's patience and by behaving silly-like.

Maybe he is gathering material for a paper he is writing (or maybe I give him too much credit).

 

[twinstead]

Maybe he is gathering material for a paper he is writing (or maybe I give him too much credit).

You know, I've never considered that. Actually, I have renewed confidence in mankind if this is simply some college assignment instead of another idiot who thinks the moon landings were a hoax...

 

[PhantomWolf]

I will admit to cherry picking a little bit in what I'm replying too, mostly because it's taken from various posts over 4 pages and if I replied to them all, I'd be typing all day.

You seem to be conveniently completely overlooking the effects of phase angle, as you yourself kindly introduced into the debate above, notwithstanding your erroneous belief that it governs light drop-off. Indeed, the two photos that you posted earlier serve to contradict entirely what you're now offering as the explanation here!

They don't contradict what we see in AS11-40-5903 at all. The texture and shading in the footprints close to Aldrin stand out quite clearly, just like the tracks in the up-sun image I posted. Further away in the distance behind Aldrin we see the ground appear to get dimmer as the shadows of the rocks and craters begin to merge due to foreshorting. Perhaps the issue you have is the area directly behind Aldrin that appears bright. This area was where the LM flew over shortly before landing. You can see that the surface dust has been blown clear resulting in a "shiny" appearance. It also has an effect on a secondary property of Lunar dust. The secondary reason that looking down-sun is brighter on the moon is that lunar dust has the property of reflecting more light directly back at its source than scattering onwards, like a catseye reflector. We can tell this from Earth by comparing the light received from the moon during Quarter Moon and Full Moon. Even though the lit surface area of the Quarter Moon is half that of the Full Moon, the light that is being reflected onto the Earth is less than a 1/4 of the Full Moon (Full Moon is magnitude –12.7, Quarter Moon is only –11.0, resulting in the Full Moon being 4.78x as bright as the Quarter Moon.) The full moon is a full 30% brighter than it should be, while the quarter moon is slightly dimmer. This is because the lunar surface prefers to direct light back at the source. So why does this affect the picture AS11-40-5903? The strip directly behind Aldrin has been swept clear of dust by the LM engine. This means it is not reflecting the light directly back at the sun like the unaffected areas, so it is reflecting more light to the camera, and thus appears brighter. The removeal of the dust also affects the cratering and shadows cast as the surface is a lot smoother and less textured with the dust gone, so this is also in effect.

Just take another look at the up-sun shot you posted and answer this: Why do we see dark shadows, and why are the undulations striking those shadows not 'backfilled' with light such that they don't appear black?!

Because the backfill is coming up from the ground, the shadows of the undulations and craters are at ground level or in some cases below. Light reflected up by the ground cannot fill shadows on the ground.

How come?

Trigonometry. The Opposite (Aldrin's Height) = The Adjacent (The distance to Aldrin) x the Tangent of θ (the angle in the image that Aldrin occupies)

How come?

More trigonometry.

The shadow length does not feature in Groves' calculation, so everything you've written above is, well, let's be polite and just say irrelevant!

What I wrote had nothing to do with Groves, it was directly responding to the shadow analysis you did.

You calculated this just from looking at a photo! Cool!

I determined it by comparing Aldrin's boots and the crater rim. Of course if you don't think it is possible to do such a simple thing, then how are you determining that Groves can do a far more difficult calculation with less?

And, 'funnily enough' the famous Aldrin shot is looking essentially up-sun, but doesn't display the characteristics that your up-sun example shows, so far as the image of Aldrin is concerned!

I disagree, the ground in the image does display the characteristics shown in the up-sun image.

(Contrast Aldrin's left inner knee and right shoulder before you erroneously suggest that great reflecting lump of cheese as the light source!)

The inside of Aldrin's left knee and his right shoulder are directly being lit by the sun, there, as with another parts of the suit in direct sunlight, the suit is clearly overexposed. The rest of the suit is being lit by light reflecting off various objects, mostly the ground, but some additional light from the LM, Armstrong's suit, and a few places (most obviously the inside of Aldrin's right leg, and the right upper part of the PLSS) from sunlight reflecting off Aldrin's own suit.

The ground is noticeably darker at the bottom of the photo, i.e. near the photographer, than the apparent 'pool of light' around Aldrin.

Explained up the top. This is an effect of the dust properties and of the texture in the dust casting shadows, both missing in the "swept" area behind Aldrin.

It is completely unnecessary, and would be a fundamental mistake, to try to assess drop-off by reference to an image reflected from a concave visor facing the opposite direction. Now if anything's stretching incredulity that is!

Why? The visor acts as a mirror and allows us to see the lunar surface that Aldrin can see as effectively as a mirror. All the convex nature does is distort the image from being straight to being curved, it doesn't change the amount of light reflecting from the surface to the camera and make the surface brighter. It is quite clear that the drop-off seen in the up-sun direction is not there in the down-sun, and that the surface looks far less textured than the up-sun surface, exactly what we expect to see.

There are only rocks and craters in the up-sun distance, and that accounts for the drop off? How do you reach that conclusion? The terrain looks pretty uniform on average to me. You posted photo earlier does not display any drop off whatsoever!

No there arte not only craters and rocks in the up-sun direction, they are just more obvious because their shadows define them in the up-sun direction, while in the down-sun direction their shadows are hidden so they blend into the similar colour surface and are harder to see. This makes the down-sun direction appear brighter and less textured than the up-sun direction.

I'm saying that cropping and adding, even if there were some, is completely irrelevant. Groves analysed the image with complete disregard to the perimeter of the photo. Any reference to the centre cross-hair is only in respect of assessing part of the image, and the relationship between any part of the image and the centre cross-hairs is fixed!

Who said the cropping had anything to do with Groves? The cropping is an issue with Dark Moon and is put forward by David Percy and the others at Aulis. Not everything in my posts is a reference to Groves. This claim by them is found on pg 68 of Dark Moon.

Accepting your 90% assertion, yes I am, especially given that we're only talking about Armstrong's shoulder, which is pretty small in area and can hardly be described as an effective reflecting surface (take a look at how 'well' Aldrin's left outer shoulder seems to be acting as a meaningful light source for comparison).

You still seem to be of the assumption that Armstrong's suit is responsible for the entire backlighting. I'm not claiming that, I'm saying that the hotspot seen in Aldrin's boot is a reflection of Armstrong's suit created in the shiny silica protective coating on the brand new boot. The fill lighting is a totally different story.

Do you mean the area close to the LM that's completely in shadow, or the lunar surface way beyond the LM shadow?!

I mean any part of the lit lunar surface that Aldrin can see. You do understand that to see the lit surface it must be reflecting enough light that the eye can detect it, right? You realise that if it is reflecting light that the eye can see that any light that doesn't hit the eye must hit objects about the eye, correct? You understand that when reflected light hits an object that that object is able to reflect that light as well, correct? You do realise that the lunar surface is a very bright object and is reflecting copious amounts of light back towards the light's source (the sun) at a rate of 30% more than expected right, that it is the equivalent of having a 60w light bulb every square metre of ground? Why would this reflected light not be enough to backfill the LM and a guy in a bright white suit?

Temperature gradients.

What exactly do you mean?

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?

Assuming that the original could be shown to be faked, I'd have to wonder why they needed too, however the preponderance of evidence would still point towards the landings being real, even if the roll of photos was faked for some reason.

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

Meaning?

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.

Actually for Apollo 11 there was no remote control on the camera. To take the video of the first step Aldrin activated a circuit breaker in the LM while Armstrong pulled a string that released the MESA. The Camera was positioned on the MESA so that when it opened up, the camera was automatically pointing at the ladder.

The remote controlled cameras weren't used until the J-Missions, when the cameras were put on the LRV, starting with Apollo 15. The controller at that point and for the following two missions was Ed Fendell.

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?

What type of metal? What coatings are on the metal? What angle is the metal to sun? Is the metal touching the ground? What temperature was the metal at prior to being placed? These are all factors in determining the answer. Otherwise you might as well ask how long is a piece of string. The better question is, why is this relevant? How about you just state your issues.

I'm not alluding to the space suits; they were, I assume, designed from basics specifically with the missions in mind. Many other aspects weren't, though.

What aspects?

This typifies the misconceived views of many anti-Apollo CTs, namely that the alleged conspiracy was perpetrated from the get go. What I see as a more plausible possibility derives from an attempt by NASA to fulfil the Apollo objective as planned, but then, on the discovery and realization that certain technological obstacles are far greater than envisaged, recognizing the need to be seen to have succeeded, particularly in the context of the political race possibly hovering on the verge of being lost. I don't doubt for one milli-second that the Apollo program was absolutely genuine, except for the very last part.

Exactly what technological obstacles?

What direction was the light travelling when it struck the lunar surface? Have you ever driven directly into the Sun when it's very low in the evening sky, then felt relieved when you turn a bend, by any chance? Why is that, I wonder?!

As I noted at the being, the lunar dust is predisposed to directing the majority of the light it reflects back at the source so the surface is actually darker looking up-sun than it is down-sun due to the ground reflecting 30% more light back at you when you're looking down-sun. This means that there is 30% more light than expected being reflected back that can backfill shadows on objects above the surface.

 

[VonNeumann]

You know, I've never considered that. Actually, I have renewed confidence in mankind if this is simply some college assignment instead of another idiot who thinks the moon landings were a hoax...

Yes, my observation is that he is a skilled debater and not scientifically savvy. Perhaps a law student? Psychology? It is interesting how many here enjoy taking the challenge that they might convert him. I think he is inconvertible for reasons other than objection to the reasonable technical arguments put forward here. But what are those reasons? Perhaps he merely enjoys being at the center of attention. Or perhaps he is a writer.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Yes, my observation is that he is a skilled debater and not scientifically savvy. Perhaps a law student? Psychology? It is interesting how many here enjoy taking the challenge that they might convert him. I think he is inconvertible for reasons other than objection to the reasonable technical arguments put forward here. But what are those reasons? Perhaps he merely enjoys being at the center of attention. Or perhaps he is a writer.

I've noticed that he's often more interested in attacking the symantics of the post rather then the ideas put forward, perhaps also a sign that he's more comfortable with language rather than science.