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

[Shrinker]

not really, at least not by any of the techniques I know of, at least not without knowing the height of the objects on the horizon. In theory a mountain on the horizon could be a thousand feet high and far away, or ten feet high and quite close. What we can determine is that the mountains are in fact 3D as they change with parallax as the camera moves.

It may be possible to determine their distance if you can locate a stereo-pair of images, but I think that you'd still need to know how far apart the images were taken to get results.

Having said that, it would likely be able to determine things like how far away the rover or LM is in some photos since we know their height, and it could be possible to determine how tall a mountain is based on that information and the change in hieght of the moutain with the change in distance over several photos, though I wouldn't be totally sure of the math.

Actually it is possible to reconstruct a 3D model using two or more photos taken from different vantage points. So long as they show some common features and there's at least one known dimension. Software like Realviz Imagemodeller will do it. The problem with modelling all the way to the horizon though is that parallax will reduce to almost nothing and so accuracy will be a big problem. I think you'll most likely find it working in favour of the hoaxists, since they could do an analysis, ignore any pesky accuracy issues and find a horizon that is only say ten miles away instead of 20 (made up figures here). They'd have no problem thus declaring the photos fakes, but completely disown any notion that their soundstage would still have to be ten miles wide.

 

[Shrinker]

This is getting so silly...thousands of photos...moon rocks that have been confirmed to be older than any on planet earth...obvious 1/6th gravity...the laser ranger from apollo 11 still giving data...etc.

...for the defence. And for the prosecution...


In two Apollo photos the light reflected onto the astronauts from the moon's surface may be more than it should be, although no analysis has yet been done.
A tiny reflection in an astronaut's boot may not be a reflection of objects known to be in the right place to reflect there.
The photo widely chosen as the best photo from the Apollo 11 collection, is correctly exposed, and has the subject almost completely in frame.

Was there anything else?

 

[Mashuna]

I disagree entirely. I think that just because something is plausible doesn't mean you can then necessarily rule out other possibilities. If those other possibilities are also plausible then which takes prescedence? The one that's most plausible, I suppose, but it still thend remains a question of degree.

It's plausible that England will win the 2010 soccer World Cup. As unlikely as that is, you cannot rule it out. Actually, that's a terrible example, let's substitute Italy for England!

The only way to determine for sure is to eliminate plausibility and move towards scientific proof.

Although in this case it's more like my claim is that Italy won the 2006 World Cup, but you're claiming to have found some discrepancies in the video footage that mean the tournament must have been faked.

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course not, but I don't believe it would take many people to produce the quality of monochrome video that was produced! I could imagine the Apollo 11 'shoot' involving no more than a dozen people, including actors (but excluding the all-important tea lady!). For good 'effect' the actors would also be the cameramen (no soundmen needed!). All that's needed then is a little direction, oh, and artificial lighting, of course, albeit only two lighting rigs, at most, one permanently fixed! Remember that Armstrong & Aldrin spent less than 3 hours on the lunar surface!

A couple guys (possibly from the location team) in post-production doing the slo-mo, adding some voice sound and maybe a little editing should finish the job nicely!

The cast and crew of the movie Apollo 13.

Over 600 people, to reproduce on film a mission which never actually reached the moon. A movie that was filmed publicly, with no need for secrecy, using all sorts of external resources. Using 1995 technology, not 1970.

 

[volatile]

The cast and crew of the movie Apollo 13.

Over 600 people, to reproduce on film a mission which never actually reached the moon. A movie that was filmed publicly, with no need for secrecy, using all sorts of external resources. Using 1995 technology, not 1970.

I also pointed out that Blair Witch Project, filmed by the actors on extant sets, still took nearly 100 people to produce.

 

[Southwind17]

The cast and crew of the movie Apollo 13.

Over 600 people, to reproduce on film a mission which never actually reached the moon. A movie that was filmed publicly, with no need for secrecy, using all sorts of external resources. Using 1995 technology, not 1970.

Oh yes, a Box Office blockbuster production's a fair comparison! I can just about hear the rest of the Forum's laughter above mine at this point!!!

 

[Southwind17]

I also pointed out that Blair Witch Project, filmed by the actors on extant sets, still took nearly 100 people to produce.

Ditto. You guys just DO NOT get it, do you!!!

 

[Southwind17]

Although in this case it's more like my claim is that Italy won the 2006 World Cup, but you're claiming to have found some discrepancies in the video footage that mean the tournament must have been faked.

So who, exactly, are you suggesting would be reasonably placed to fake the World Cup tournament, and under what motive (we'd like to win it!)? And how many people actually witnessed with their own eyes the Apollo 11 moon walk, for example, compared to all who personally witnessed the World Cup matches? I'd like to hear your theory as to how, exactly, this could be perpetrated!

I could go on. Do I need to?!

 

[Damien Evans]

Oh yes, a Box Office blockbuster production's a fair comparison! I can just about hear the rest of the Forum's laughter above mine at this point!!!

Problem is, we're laughing at you, not with you.

 

[Brainache]

Ditto. You guys just DO NOT get it, do you!!!

So basically you think those photos and videos could have been faked by one or two people? What?

You said before that they shot them on location somewhere. How much prep would that be? Have you ever been on a location photo shoot?

 

[Shrinker]

So basically you think those photos and videos could have been faked by one or two people? What?

You said before that they shot them on location somewhere. How much prep would that be? Have you ever been on a location photo shoot?

I'm wondering how one or two people got the moon lander there. Did they fly it in? That would have displaced a lot of dust...

 

[Belz...]

All that's needed then is a little direction, oh, and artificial lighting, of course, albeit only two lighting rigs, at most, one permanently fixed!

You DO understand that two light sources will double the number of shadows, right ?

 

[Belz...]

Ditto. You guys just DO NOT get it, do you!!!

No, we don't, because you are being intentionally vague and obtuse.

 

[Southwind17]

...for the defence. And for the prosecution...

Allow me to 'set the scene' a little more accurately:

In two Apollo photos the [anomolous] light reflected onto the astronauts from the moon's surface may be more [appears brighter] than it should be, although no analysis has yet been done. [If an analysis were to be done that showed the anomaly to be explainable only by an artificial light source that would raise some very serious questions.]

A[n] anomalous tiny ['hot-spot' light] reflection in an astronaut's boot may not be a reflection of objects known to be in the right place to reflect there [appears not to be accounted for by reflected sunlight. If an analysis were to be done that showed the anomaly to be explainable only by an artificial light source that would raise some very serious questions.]

The [anomalous] photo widely chosen as the best photo from the Apollo 11 collection, is correctly exposed [in all areas, notwithstanding the extremely contrasting lighting conditions], and has the subject almost completely in frame [notwithstanding that the camera was chest-mounted with no view-finder. If an analysis were to be done that showed the anomalies to be explainable only by an artificial light source and maybe a different cameraman that would raise some very serious questions.]

Was there anything else?

I think that's plenty to be going on with, don't you?!

 

[Southwind17]

I have a question for the technical types here: Is there any way to measure the distance to the horizon in those moon pics? Trigonometry or some such? If we know the camera settings and lens size, focal length etc as well as the astronaut's height above the mean, can it be worked out?

If so something like that would put the idea of them being shot on location on Earth to rest, wouldn't it? (Even if all the other factors haven't already buried that notion)

not really, at least not by any of the techniques I know of, at least not without knowing the height of the objects on the horizon. In theory a mountain on the horizon could be a thousand feet high and far away, or ten feet high and quite close. What we can determine is that the mountains are in fact 3D as they change with parallax as the camera moves.

It may be possible to determine their distance if you can locate a stereo-pair of images, but I think that you'd still need to know how far apart the images were taken to get results.

Having said that, it would likely be able to determine things like how far away the rover or LM is in some photos since we know their height, and it could be possible to determine how tall a mountain is based on that information and the change in hieght of the moutain with the change in distance over several photos, though I wouldn't be totally sure of the math.

Actually it is possible to reconstruct a 3D model using two or more photos taken from different vantage points. So long as they show some common features and there's at least one known dimension. Software like Realviz Imagemodeller will do it. The problem with modelling all the way to the horizon though is that parallax will reduce to almost nothing and so accuracy will be a big problem. I think you'll most likely find it working in favour of the hoaxists, since they could do an analysis, ignore any pesky accuracy issues and find a horizon that is only say ten miles away instead of 20 (made up figures here). They'd have no problem thus declaring the photos fakes, but completely disown any notion that their soundstage would still have to be ten miles wide.

This whole 'horizon' question has a passing relevance to the anomalies regarding the angle of Earth above the horizon in some of the shots. I'm intending to come onto that aspect soon!

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh yes, a Box Office blockbuster production's a fair comparison! I can just about hear the rest of the Forum's laughter above mine at this point!!!

You're right. It's not a fair comparison.

If NASA had faked the Apollo missions, their job would have been vastly more difficult.

• They would not have had to produce just one movie, but, at a minimum, six. That's assuming that Apollo missions 8, 9, 10 and 13 were real fakes, rather than fake fakes, and that all the other missions were real.
• They would not have had to produce just the movies, but 10,000 still photos, hundreds of kilograms of moon rocks, and vast amounts of telemetry and scientific data.
• They would not have had an easy distribution into cinemas, but would have had to bounce the radio and television signals off the moon. Indeed, they would have had to send and rebroadcast signals from both the Command Module and Lunar Module, in flight, in orbit, and from the lunar surface.
• They would not have the luxury of focusing on this project, since they would have had to do this while at the same time running the Apollo missions exactly as planned, except that now they'd have to fit additional computers to all the systems to control them automatically.
• They would not have had merely to entertain an audience, but to fool millions of scientists worldwide.
• They would not have had merely to film scenes on the ground and in one small capsule, but large-scale scenes under low gravity and in a vacuum.
• They would not have had the luxury of 1995 technology, but would have had to make do with 1970 tech, when 64 kilobytes of memory was a luxury (and a fragile one!)
• They would not have attended any awards ceremonies. Instead, they would have had to do this entirely in secret. The Apollo program involved 34,000 employees and 375,000 contractors. Nearly 40 years later, somehow none of them have mentioned their excursion to the Arizona desert to construct a mile-wide airtight sound stage.

So yes, Southwind, yes, that's laughter you hear.

 

[Southwind17]

Yes, subsequently. Kind of the point, isn't it? Throw out an unsupported assertion, wait for responses, and then say "oh, I wasn't talking about that!"

At the risk of getting modded, you're just so dumb! Although I didn't say straight away what I was alluding to (essentially because I was being generic anyhow, at that stage!), I CERTAINLY made it clear that it WASN'T spacesuits! If that leaves you guessing what it could be, you can certainly rule one thing out. Here's a clue: SPACESUITS!

Yes, if you never bother to say what you are talking about, we have to guess.

BUT DON'T GO GUESSING SPACESUITS! ALREADY PRECLUDED!!!

You said, after I made those points, that you were referring to... cameras:

Yes, after I went from being generic to specific. So what?

But first, you dodged the question ...

And what 'question', exactly, do you recall being 'dodged'?!

So now, apparently, your sole objection to the Apollo program is the use of cameras that you assert were "Uninsulated, essentially standard stock".

'Sole objection'? And how, exactly, do you reach this most bizarre conclusion?!

Hasselblad cameras were used during the Mercury and Gemini programs. John Glenn used a cheap Minolta camera purchased at a drug store. Were those programs faked too?

Well that might depend on the temperature differences that those cameras were exposed to compared to cameras on the lunar surface. Would they be different, by any chance?!

What relevance does any of this have?

It demonstrates which category you fit into, and helps explain why you act so dumb, that's all!

Yes, you did eventually answer the question. The answer makes little sense, but you did answer it.

What part are you having trouble with? Maybe I can dumb it down a little for you!

 

[Southwind17]

You're right. It's not a fair comparison.

If NASA had faked the Apollo missions, their job would have been vastly more difficult.

• They would not have had to produce just one movie, but, at a minimum, six. That's assuming that Apollo missions 8, 9, 10 and 13 were real fakes, rather than fake fakes, and that all the other missions were real.
• They would not have had to produce just the movies, but 10,000 still photos, hundreds of kilograms of moon rocks, and vast amounts of telemetry and scientific data.
• They would not have had an easy distribution into cinemas, but would have had to bounce the radio and television signals off the moon. Indeed, they would have had to send and rebroadcast signals from both the Command Module and Lunar Module, in flight, in orbit, and from the lunar surface.
• They would not have the luxury of focusing on this project, since they would have had to do this while at the same time running the Apollo missions exactly as planned, except that now they'd have to fit additional computers to all the systems to control them automatically.
• They would not have had merely to entertain an audience, but to fool millions of scientists worldwide.
• They would not have had merely to film scenes on the ground and in one small capsule, but large-scale scenes under low gravity and in a vacuum.
• They would not have had the luxury of 1995 technology, but would have had to make do with 1970 tech, when 64 kilobytes of memory was a luxury (and a fragile one!)
• They would not have attended any awards ceremonies. Instead, they would have had to do this entirely in secret. The Apollo program involved 34,000 employees and 375,000 contractors. Nearly 40 years later, somehow none of them have mentioned their excursion to the Arizona desert to construct a mile-wide airtight sound stage.

So yes, Southwind, yes, that's laughter you hear.

I'll pull this one apart, like your others, if I get REALLY bored later! Suffice to say, when you refer to '1970 tech', do you mean the tech that got men repeatedly to the Moon and back?! And when you refer to 34,000 employees and 375,000 contractors, which of the dozen or so that jollied off into the Arizona Desert to make a 3-hour rudimentarily lit, monochrome, silent home movie with only one major prop that already existed on a sound(?)stage that could, indeed, contain air, might you be referring to?!

Oh yes, that's certainly laughter I still hear, only much louder now!!!

 

[Shrinker]

Allow me to 'set the scene' a little more accurately:

I think that's plenty to be going on with, don't you?!

Guesswork backed up by the results of a hypothetical analysis? That's a weak case for the prosecution. Come back when the analysis has ruled out mundane explanations.

 

[sts60]

You're right. It's not a fair comparison.

If NASA had faked the Apollo missions, their job would have been vastly more difficult.

• They would not have had to produce just one movie, but, at a minimum, six. That's assuming that Apollo missions 8, 9, 10 and 13 were real fakes, rather than fake fakes, and that all the other missions were real.

It's still not clear to me exactly what Southwind17 believes really happened and what he believes was faked. I was hoping that he would clarify his position by responding (just "yes" or "no" is all we need) to the list in post 524.

He's alluded to poor quality video, which may indicate he only has a problem with A11 and believes later missions (with much higher quality video, not to mention film movies) are real. But we won't know for sure until he answers the questions. Just a few minutes to type "yes" or "no" to each is all we need, and we can discuss his specific objections rather than guessing.

• They would not have had to produce just the movies, but 10,000 still photos, hundreds of kilograms of moon rocks, and vast amounts of telemetry and scientific data.
• They would not have had an easy distribution into cinemas, but would have had to bounce the radio and television signals off the moon. Indeed, they would have had to send and rebroadcast signals from both the Command Module and Lunar Module, in flight, in orbit, and from the lunar surface.

In post 401, I summarized (with links to more details) some of the issues with generating proper radio signals, let alone telemetry, for the ALSEP project alone. Southwind17 has asked for and received an extension on answering these comments in order to address others. But he keeps raising new issues without settling existing ones, so I'm not inclined to let this go much longer: indeed, I'm afraid I will consider Southwind17's apparent claims that ALSEP was faked to be abandoned if he does not start defending these claims by... say, tomorrow.