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

[ArmillarySphere]

Southwind doesn't doubt that men went to the moon, or have traveled in space.
What he cannot believe is that they actually exited the lander and walked around out there...

Would you believe they came all that way, and then the door handle got stuck?
Six times?

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Yes. He's been very reluctant - not surprisingly, given the absurdity of his position - to state with any specificity what he believes did and didn't happen.

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.

Yep. My list is just an executive summary, as it were.

Hey, did Southwind ever answer the question on how they created the low-gravity field for the filming? Or does he still think they just slowed it down in post-production?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

I really ought to ignore him, but this is fish in a barrel...

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!!!

It's not a fair comparison. Faking Apollo would have been far more difficult.

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

... If an analysis were to be done ...

... If an analysis were to be done ...

... If an analysis were to be done ...

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

Yup, that's three straightforward cases of begging the question.

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?!

As a matter of fact, no. Minor differences at the most - black-body temperatures for the Earth and Moon are much the same.

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?!

The thing that you're consistently failing to get is that faking something is vastly more difficult than producing the real thing, if you want it to stand up to scrutiny. And as long as you're doubting 1970's tech, you do realise that this includes things like the Blackbird? There's no particular difficulty in getting people to the Moon if you have the funds to send a big enough booster into orbit. And the Saturn V's were good enough for Skylab, after all, so that's the hard part done. Or is that fake too?

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?!

None of them, obviously, since it didn't happen. The conjectural shoot would have required quite a few people, by the way - covertly transporting the LM out to location and back, setting it up, covering for its absence during shooting, cleaning it up afterwards (oh, you thought they had spares?), handling lighting, power to lighting (a non-trivial issue)... and this still requires the astronauts themselves to do all the supposedly-impossible photography that you're doubting, only now they also have to be careful so they don't catch the film crew in one of the frames. Difficult to avoid when wearing highly-reflective visors. Then there's all the other fakery that you need to do, since the equipment wasn't designed to work inside an atmosphere, such as designing and building fake PLSS units that contain air conditioners... I could go on for a bit when you produce a scenario instead of just innuendo, but there's not much point until you do.

Oh, and monochrome? Methinks you are ignoring the 16mm footage (which, by the way, is glorious). I'll add poor research to your list of fallacies.

 

[Belz...]

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

Nope.

 

[Belz...]

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!!!

You're not very smart, Southwind. Although you claim that only a very few people would be needed to shoot the fake film, you forget two very important points that make those 34,000 employees in on the conspiracy:

1) They have to build that soundstage and prepare it for the conditions necessary for the shooting, some of which cannot be reproduced on Earth.

2) You have to FOOL those 34,000 employees who THINK they are building real ships and monitoring real missions on their monitors. How many MORE people are needed for that, in fact ?

 

[CurtC]

"If an analysis were to be done..." ???

Yes, if someone did a proper analysis and showed these pictures to be faked, that would be a significant thing. Of course, we'd still have thousands of other unquestioned photos of men on the Moon, but I agree that IF some were faked it would raise questions.

Now - is there a proper analysis showing that any are faked? So far we have the question of the reflection in the boot heel, which seems to be properly explained by Armstrong's bright white suit in direct sun reflecting in the heel.

So Southwind, do you have anything at all? I notice that you like to respond to fluffy questions like whether faking Apollo would be more difficult than making the Apollo 13 movie, but you are consistently dodging the substantive questions.

 

[volatile]

"If an analysis were to be done..." ???

Yes, if someone did a proper analysis and showed these pictures to be faked, that would be a significant thing. Of course, we'd still have thousands of other unquestioned photos of men on the Moon, but I agree that IF some were faked it would raise questions.

Now - is there a proper analysis showing that any are faked? So far we have the question of the reflection in the boot heel, which seems to be properly explained by Armstrong's bright white suit in direct sun reflecting in the heel.

So Southwind, do you have anything at all? I notice that you like to respond to fluffy questions like whether faking Apollo would be more difficult than making the Apollo 13 movie, but you are consistently dodging the substantive questions.

That's not a fluffy question at all. The size and complexity of this apparent conspiracy underpins, and undermines, everything else. It *is* the substantive question.

You can bicker all day about reflections, but unless you can explain how an enormously complex and vast conspiracy involving at least dozens and potentially thousands of people could have gone unnoticed for 40 years, you don't have a case.

 

[Southwind17]

It seems Southwind isn't too interested in discussing facts and evidence. I think he's just trolling, trying to get the board riled up, so he just pokes his head in every once in a while to disagree about whether his request for a one-word answer was fulfilled properly, or who said what when.

Come on, SW, you started talking about anomalies. The ones you mentioned have been shown to be not anomalous. Are we finished with the boot-shine discussion? Do you have anything else?

Define 'shown' please.

 

[Southwind17]

I'll reserve judgement on ALSEP, but I've neither read nor seen anything posted in this thread, either directly or linked, that serves as proof that the anomalies that have been discussed (albeit not exhaustively yet), mentioned or alluded to are false. It's ALL theory and/or hypothesis, admittedly like many of the anomalies, but I find that comparison interesting!

 

[CurtC]

Define 'shown' please.

If you imagine being at Aldrin's boot and looking back to the camera, what would you see? A black sky, the Moon's surface lit up by the Sun (but not the brightest direct down-Sun part because you're in shadow), and one very bright white astronaut standing there in full Sun. From that point of view, you could see black, gray, and one part that's brilliant white. That seems to explain the reflection on the heel quite well.

Now remember that we have thousands of these, plus lots of other clear evidence than men walked on the Moon. If you want to show that this picture is faked, the burden of proof rests solely on you. All we have to do is to provide a plausibility. You need proof. So far you've presented only weak conjecture based upon obviously faulty analyses.

ETA: weren't you the one who said early on that you're 95% sure we walked on the Moon, but only 5% uncertain? Do you still stand by that?

 

[PetersCreek]

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!

I, sts60, and others have had several questions pending for quite some time now. To introduce addtional points while ignoring those questions is bad form. So is tapdancing around your points.

 

[Mashuna]

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?!

Well, the pictures were obviously faked. The opening ceremonies contained hypnotic suggestions, which worked alongside the gas that was released under cover of the fireworks.

I mean look at the anomolies. They expect us to believe that Zidane, once the best player in the world would end his career by headbutting an ex-Everton player? It's clearly a faked shot, you can tell by the lighting of his bald spot.

No, France actually won 2-1.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Why? Apollo 11 didn't happen in a vacuum . . .

Erm, actually, Apollo 11 did happen in a vacuum--at least all of the parts between liftoff and reentry.

 

[uruk]

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?!

Bad argument. Chalk and Cheese, as you say mate. We could send men to the moon back in 1969 but you couldn't do computer graphics. Data storage was hardware was huge and the capacity was small. There are alot of things we can do now that we could not do because of the level of certain technology at the time.

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?!. Well there are the guys who had to build the sets and props. Then the guys who carted the cast and crew to the site not to mention the set and props. I mean you don't think that the sets and props were built and got themselves out there by themselves do you? Then there are the technicians to run the lighting, the wire rig to simulate the 1/6th gravity and generators.
How many people do you think are needed for all that?

Oh and you will need a way to prevent dust that is essentialy the consistance of talcum powder to keep from billowing in the air as the astronauts kicked it up. Watch the video and films. Look at how the dust reacts to being kicked up or throuwn in the air


Oh and there were three cameras. Two video and one film camera shooting one frame per second. If you are so inclined. you can purchase the entire video and film footage from Spacecraftfilms.com. They are presented uncut and unedited.

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

Are you serious? "Oh no!! My laughter is louder...OOOOh no MY laughter is louder!!!"

 

[uruk]

I'll reserve judgement on ALSEP, but I've neither read nor seen anything posted in this thread, either directly or linked, that serves as proof that the anomalies that have been discussed (albeit not exhaustively yet), mentioned or alluded to are false. It's ALL theory and/or hypothesis, admittedly like many of the anomalies, but I find that comparison interesting!

Need help moving that goal post?

 

[sts60]

I'll reserve judgement on ALSEP, but I've neither read nor seen anything posted in this thread, either directly or linked, that serves as proof that the anomalies that have been discussed (albeit not exhaustively yet), mentioned or alluded to are false. It's ALL theory and/or hypothesis, admittedly like many of the anomalies, but I find that comparison interesting!

Southwind17, does this mean that you are not going to defend your claims about ALSEP?

Oh, and could you answer the questions ("yes" or "no" for each will do fine) in post 524? It will only take a minute, and will really help clarify exactly which parts of the record you dispute.

 

[Southwind17]

If you imagine being at Aldrin's boot and looking back to the camera, what would you see? A black sky, the Moon's surface lit up by the Sun (but not the brightest direct down-Sun part because you're in shadow), and one very bright white astronaut standing there in full Sun.

'Full Sun'?

From that point of view, you could see black, gray, and one part that's brilliant white.

'One part'? What part, exactly?

That seems to explain the reflection on the heel quite well.

I don't think you appreciate the difference between a simple reflection and a 'hot-spot'. Do you realize what it meant by 'hot-spot'?

Now remember that we have thousands of these ...

'We'? 'these'? Oh, you mean photos that don't contain anomalies. What's the relevance of thousands of photos that don't contain anomalies? If I were to take 1,000 selected still frames from, say, the film Easy Rider (1969) and show them to you, how many do you think you could identify as anomalous compared to 'real life' photos?

... plus lots of other clear evidence ...

Circumstantial.

... than men walked on the Moon.

If you want to show that this picture is faked, the burden of proof rests solely on you.

Of course.

All we have to do is to provide a plausibility.

All you have to do to do what?

You need proof.

I need proof to do what? The same thing as what you also need proof for, to prove something? You don't really believe the maxim: "innocent until proven guilty", do you? You don't really believe that, in reality, a defence lawyer has to set out to prove his client's innocence in order even to stand a chance of winning the case, do you?

So far you've presented only weak conjecture based upon obviously faulty analyses.

Which analyses are these, exactly, and what's so 'obviously faulty' about them?

ETA: weren't you the one who said early on that you're 95% sure we walked on the Moon, but only 5% uncertain? Do you still stand by that?

Why would I not? Have I missed something that you think should cause me to change my mind (other than the views and opinions of a few highly emotional stalwarts who believe that theory and hypothesis (albeit it loads of it!) carries more weight than, well, theory and hypothesis)?!

 

[Southwind17]

Who built the prop hammer and feather that land at the same time in earth air?

I dare you to challenge the great Mr Randi that he cannot convincingly replicate this highly complex 'demonstration' on Earth to 'prove' that we, too, live in a vacuum!

It does seem like an odd thing to do to me. To take a heavy hammer and a feather all the way to the Moon just for the sake of proving to 'the kids back home' that it really is the case that everything falls at the same speed in a vacuum (or was the hammer part of the LM puncture repair kit, and the feather for dusting off the Moon dust from the shiny surfaces to enhance the photos?!). Seems to me like the motive was a little similar to why all those photos have 'Taken on the Moon' rubber stamped on the back! Why couldn't they just rely on all those physics teachers around the World to demonstrate the effect to the kids, like I remember my physics teacher doing (oh, hang on a second, that would have been around 1976. 'Technology' had obviously moved on by then - we'd learned how to insert a feather into a glass tube and suck most of the air out before sealing it!).

 

[Vincent Vega]

I dare you to challenge the great Mr Randi that he cannot convincingly replicate this highly complex 'demonstration' on Earth to 'prove' that we, too, live in a vacuum!

It does seem like an odd thing to do to me. To take a heavy hammer and a feather all the way to the Moon just for the sake of proving to 'the kids back home' that it really is the case that everything falls at the same speed in a vacuum (or was the hammer part of the LM puncture repair kit, and the feather for dusting off the Moon dust from the shiny surfaces to enhance the photos?!). Seems to me like the motive was a little similar to why all those photos have 'Taken on the Moon' rubber stamped on the back! Why couldn't they just rely on all those physics teachers around the World to demonstrate the effect to the kids, like I remember my physics teacher doing (oh, hang on a second, that would have been around 1976. 'Technology' had obviously moved on by then - we'd learned how to insert a feather into a glass tube and suck most of the air out before sealing it!).

Heck Alan Sheppard brought a 9-Iron and, golf ball to the moon!

 

[Undesired Walrus]

This looks really like a ghost. Does that mean it is SouthWind?