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

[Southwind17]

You need to study photography. Lack of experience on your part makes you question the moon landings? Get more knowledge and try again. …or…

Funny stuff, a tin foil hat idea implying man has not walked on the moon veiled in the unconvinced stand of a weak bet you know you will loose. You have weakly covered both sides of this argument.

At least you will have fun trying to explain your own inability to believe the moon landings took place to yourself while teasing others with your lack of knowledge to understand the moon program, from walking, to pictures and more. Reminds me of the faint of the phony fake moon landing faint.

Does this translate into meaningful English, or would that be expecting too much?!

 

[Southwind17]

I find this thread immensely entertaining. Rest assured I'm reading, and will continue to read, your posts with great care. In fact, I've been slowly cataloging your claims for my own amusement (and perhaps, eventually, for everyone's edification).

Any chance you could publish your catalogue now, for the benefit of the vast majority who don't know their own arses from their elbows?!

 

[Southwind17]

I've just been reading back a little. Hands up please all those who know how long a lunar day is, and the implications it has on trying to measure the movement of shadows over short periods? Not so fast PhantomWolf, uruk and PixyMisa!

Pretty basic senior school physics, really! Detentions all round!

 

[Shrinker]

What part of '29 days' and '40 minutes' don't YOU understand?!

You really are dumb, aren't you!

Yet, if you watch the video, you can see the shadows move. How can this be?

Perhaps you could show us your calculations? Mine show that the shadow of the LM will move visibly over 40 minutes on the moon. To help you out, the LM is a little over 6m tall, and the shadows appear to be about twice as long and the height of the casting object. How far will the LM shadow move?

 

[Brainache]

You have absolutely NO imagination, do you?!



It's probably the same one that caused the obvious hot-spot on this famous one!

Well I have spent about twenty years working in TV studios and on location. If you can show me a lighting rig capable of reproducing what we see in that Lunar Rover footage I'd be very interested.

Have you ever been to a night time sporting event? Cricket day/night match perhaps? Or midweek footy match? If so, did you notice the number of lights they need to illuminate a football field? Now look at that Moon footage again. How many football fields would you say that looks like? And you want to say that it was a small job to light it?

You sir, are talking total bollocks.

 

[Southwind17]

Yet, if you watch the video, you can see the shadows move. How can this be?

Perhaps you could show us your calculations? Mine show that the shadow of the LM will move visibly over 40 minutes on the moon. To help you out, the LM is a little over 6m tall, and the shadows appear to be about twice as long and the height of the casting object. How far will the LM shadow move?

Actually, I originally stuck a Post-it note on my computer screen to track the shadow's movement (silly me!).

I did notice some apparent shake(!!!) from the video camera during the speed-up portion (you can see the ground move slightly), occasionally, but I'm not sure whether it settled back into the same position each time or became displaced slightly. Could that be the explanation?

 

[Southwind17]

Well I have spent about twenty years working in TV studios and on location. If you can show me a lighting rig capable of reproducing what we see in that Lunar Rover footage I'd be very interested.

Have you ever been to a night time sporting event? Cricket day/night match perhaps? Or midweek footy match? If so, did you notice the number of lights they need to illuminate a football field? Now look at that Moon footage again. How many football fields would you say that looks like? And you want to say that it was a small job to light it?

You sir, are talking total bollocks.

Oh yes, the lux levels on the lunar surface photos look JUST LIKE the lux levels you see on TV during a night match. OH YES!

How many bollocks was that?!

 

[PixyMisa]

I've just been reading back a little. Hands up please all those who know how long a lunar day is, and the implications it has on trying to measure the movement of shadows over short periods? Not so fast PhantomWolf, uruk and PixyMisa!

Shadows move, here on Earth, in the space of 90 seconds. You don't normally notice this, because it's quite slow. But you can indeed see it if you have a long, sharp-edged shadow (the exact sort of shadow you'd get in a vacuum!) and a clear reference point. Filming it and then speeding up the film makes it that much easier to detect.

And look, that's exactly what we do see in this sped up film. How about that!

 

[Brainache]

Oh yes, the lux levels on the lunar surface photos look JUST LIKE the lux levels you see on TV during a night match. OH YES!

How many bollocks was that?!

You know the aperture settings for those cameras? Basically I'd say that your post was near 100% bollocks.

 

[Belz...]

Gee, you're actually acknowledging that that's ALL that mattered. You'll be defecting over to my side soon! What better scenario for the US Govt. to try pulling off a fake EVA stunt.

Gosh, you really are dense. Do you have anything except motive and misunderstanding of photography ?

And all that's needed to do it is a pile of photos, mostly of a baron landscape, and a couple hours video footage, also mostly of a baron landscape with a couple guys tripping around on it!

Yeah, don't forget to make those in 1/6th gravity with no air around!

No, the space race had to be won, and quickly!

Yeah, that's not evidence, Wind.

Sorry, 'when' pre-supposes, which is why we use 'if'.

So "if" wasn't good, and now "when" is not good because he should use "if" instead ?

We can all 'if' and 'but', when it suits, but if people claim that I can't 'if' and 'but' without diluting my argument then neither, I'm afraid, can you!

Aren't you the one saying "if they wanted to beat the russians" ?

 

[Shrinker]

Actually, I originally stuck a Post-it note on my computer screen to track the shadow's movement (silly me!).

I did notice some apparent shake(!!!) from the video camera during the speed-up portion (you can see the ground move slightly), occasionally, but I'm not sure whether it settled back into the same position each time or became displaced slightly. Could that be the explanation?

Perhaps doing the calculations would make things clearer for you? Give it a go...

 

[Tolls]

Perhaps doing the calculations would make things clearer for you? Give it a go...

Now you're asking him to come up with something concrete...that's just so unfair!

 

[Belz...]

You're not suggesting that NASA and the US Govt. are one and the same with a common agenda, are you?!

Uh oh! The monolithic government boogeyman is back!

You're an amateur. Back of the queue buddy!

Translation: "**** ! He has a point. I better ignore him, quick!"

Pretty basic senior school physics, really! Detentions all round!

Sheesh, Wind. Get over yourself.

 

[CurtC]

Yet, if you watch the video, you can see the shadows move. How can this be?

Perhaps you could show us your calculations? Mine show that the shadow of the LM will move visibly over 40 minutes on the moon. To help you out, the LM is a little over 6m tall, and the shadows appear to be about twice as long and the height of the casting object. How far will the LM shadow move?

Ooh! ooh! ohh! Can I answer?

I get about 18 cm.

 

[CurtC]

Anybody care to have a go at debunking this famous shot then (obvious too-low Earth image insertion aside!)? Now who do you figure are the two guys who took that photo (one on camera the other on fill-lighting?!)?!?

If you want to talk about actual anomalies, I see four in that photo:

• Reseau marks on the left half and right half of the photo don't line up.
• The landscape in the background is obviously duplicated - both right behind the astronaut(s) and in the distance.
• In the reflections in the visors, the heilingenschein (bright spot near the shadow) appears around the same astronaut's head's shadow, where each guy should have it appear around is own head's shadow.
• There is no photographer or even a camera visible in the reflection.

So even with that lo-res photo and a well-done photoshop job, it's quickly obvious that there was manipulation. But in the case of the Apollo 11 photos, we have super hi-res versions and no anomalies are detected.

 

[Hindmost]

One last attempt:

Southwind: Explain the following

1) How do you explain the lunar rover's wheels throwing moon dust consistant with 1/6th gravity and no atmosphere?

2) The laser rangers on the moon are still operating providing distance data. How is this possible?

3) How is it possible that moon rocks have been dated older than any rocks on earth?

Please provide something besides rhetoric.

glenn

I could also ask how did we get surveyor's camera back and on display in the Air and Space museum...but I am sure you wouldn't believe its the original camera.

 

[Shrinker]

Ooh! ooh! ohh! Can I answer?

I get about 18 cm.

Gosh interesting. I wonder what Southwind will come up with?

 

[slyjoe]

...snip...
So even with that lo-res photo and a well-done photoshop job, it's quickly obvious that there was manipulation. But in the case of the Apollo 11 photos, we have super hi-res versions and no anomalies are detected.

Don't forget the signature in the lower left

 

[Sunstealer]

This discussion is akin to someone fighting a tank whilst suited in armour carrying a shield and sword.

Hack, slash, parry, parry, hack, deflect, retreat! repeat ad infinitum.

Southwind. You claim that the moon landings were faked due to some claimed small anomalies with regard to photography. What I am interested is a detailed plan of how this fakery was or could have been performed.

This plan would have to encompass a large and varied selection of people and organisations, right from the people who funded and planned the event to the moon studio room sweeper upperer. Explain to us IN DETAIL how it could have been done. Name the organisations and people, show their methods and technical details of how you fake a zero gravity moon environment with 1960's technology, give us the paper trail etc etc.

 

[sts60]

Any chance you could publish your catalogue now, for the benefit of the vast majority who don't know their own arses from their elbows?!

Sorry, I'm still compiling it. You've expressed and implied a large number of Apollo-related claims in this thread. If I can catch up to you, I'll post it.

Now, to move on: I hereby consider your ALSEP-related claims to be abandoned. I think I've been fair in giving you time to address them, but you kept raising new issues and found plenty of time to post on other topics - something like 30 posts since I pressed you for an answer, and many more since your claims were originally challenged. For purposes of this thread - as in real life - the ALSEP record unambiguously supports the contention that men did walk on the Moon, and among other things, set up and activated the five ALSEP stations which operated beginning in 1969 and ending in 1977.

I still would appreciate you taking a minute - really, a minute should be about all that's needed - to answer these clarifying questions (originally posed in post 524) as to what exactly you believe and what exactly you disbelieve. That would aid cogent discussion greatly, and I am sure you want everybody to understand exactly what your claims are, and that it is merely an oversight that you haven't addressed them in the three dozen or so posts you've made since they were originally posed.

For your convenience, I have reorganized and simplified the questions. All we need is "yes" or "no" answers for each. Thanks!

1. Do you believe the Mercury and Gemini programs happened pretty much as stated?

2. Do you believe the Surveyor program happened pretty much as stated?

3. Do you believe that various U.S., Soviet, and other spacecraft studied the space environment in the period before and during Apollo?

Note: questions 4-6 are understood to mean "with men aboard, who returned safely to Earth"

4. Do you believe Apollo 8 and Apollo 10 circumnavigated the Moon?

5. Do you believe that during Apollo 10, the LM with crew aboard descended towards the lunar surface, then returned to the CM?

6. Do you believe any Apollo mission landed on the Moon?

6a. If so, which ones? (Or, alternately, which ones which were supposed to land on the Moon, but really didn't?)

7. Do you believe professional geologists can distinguish rock/soil samples retrieved from the Moon from samples found (or fabricated) on Earth?

8. Do you believe that Shuttle and ISS missions happen pretty much as advertised (i.e., humans living and working aboard)?

9. Do you believe in telecommunications, weather, and surveillance satellites?