• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

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

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.

And this is exactly the point I was getting to.

The accepted story (we went, walked on the moon, came back) explains all of the evidence adequately except for a few anomolies in a few photographs. Even those have explanations well within reason (even if those specific anomolies can't be proven to be caused by A or B, due to a lack of omniscience).

The alternative (it was faked!) is being supported by argument from ignorance and argument from personal incredulity (we don't know 100% about these few picturres, so a fake is possible!), but it then requires an entire host of additional assumptions and thoeries (edited videos, hoaxed emnployees, fake hardware, vacuumed sound stage, etc, etc, etc) for which we have no evidence at all, that must also be true to support the idea. The picture anomolies do not prove all these addiitonal assumptions, nor support them in any way. In fact, even showing that a few photos could not have been taken on the moon only disproves those photos (it might throw others in doubt, depending on the nature of how they were disproven...were the photos actual fakes, implying the existence of a soundstage...or were they real images that were manipulated to make better PR shots, for example).

Wihtout evidence, it's a lot of baseless speculation.
 
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?!)?!? :D

Came linked to this site

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/frame.html

Where it clearly states that the photos are altered...but is a composite with this

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/ap11ann/kippsphotos/5903.jpg

Try posting something of substance...

glenn
 
Southwind, keep it civil. Stop insulting other posters and address the arguments. If you can't say anything nice, don't say it at all.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
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! :rolleyes: Detentions all round!


Well, I understand how long a Lunar day is. I also understand that shadows cast upon a rotating sphere, by objects fixed upon that sphere, do not move at a linear rate when the light source is fixed in space. When the Sun is low on the horizon, shadows are longer and move faster as the Sun rises, than they do at when the Sun is more directly overhead.

Simply prorating the rotation period will not give you a fair approximation at low Sun angles. It's a circular function...not linear.

Pretty basic senior school physics trigonometry, really.
 
What part of '29 days' and '40 minutes' don't YOU understand?!
In fact I did make a mistake here; I thought the original film was longer than that, but -

You really are dumb, aren't you!
Do the calculation, Southwind. The point stands. The shadow will move, visibly, by a distance consistent with the video.
 
Last edited:
Gee, you're actually acknowledging that that's ALL that mattered.
Uh. I said that all the public cared about. Science, on the other hand, cared about much more. Science made the mistake of hitching a ride on a political prestiege stunt, but that's all it had. It has suffered ever since.
You'll be defecting over to my side soon!
It's going to take alot more than a book written by idiots and incredible feats of non-sequitor and logical leaps to do that.
What better scenario for the US Govt. to try pulling off a fake EVA stunt. 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! Jeez - if ever there was a makings of a scenario whereby the political downside of losing is simply NOT an option and the upside was inversely proportional to the 'difficulties' posed by the technical and logistical practicalities, plus the risk of failure, THIS would be that scenario!!!
And speaking of non-sequitor and logical leaps.

You know, maybe a government might be willing to do all this and fake a Moon landing. But not the scientists or the engineers. The average scientist and engineer have a tad bit more integrity than a politician. And the politicians could not carry out a faked Moon landing on thier own. They would have needed a multitude of scientists and engineers. Yea, you could have had them all busy working on all the proceeders and hardware necessary. But you would not have been able to fool them on the actual mission itself. They are the ones who would have been able to tell if the telemetry was off. They would have been able to tell if the Lunar samples were faked, They would have been able to look at the film and video and tell if it has been faked. And sofar the only "scientists" and "engineers" who have come forth to claim the landing was faked have no experiance in space science and are trying to sell a book. Some have even a poor understanding of the nature of light and photography.

The government may gain something from faking the landing but science does not. And science will not sit still for that.

Oh, that's right, I forgot about that. It wasn't only interest that was turned away, though, was it. Cash was also needed. BIG CASH! How could the US Govt. possibly justify pumping money into the Apollo program when the Vietnam War was in full flow. No, the space race had to be won, and quickly!
And yet NASA had a blank check to get to the Moon. It was not about the availability of cash, but about the willingness of what to spend that cash on.

Again, time was of the essence!
NASA was hard pressed to get there in the time limit that Kennedy had set down. Moreso after he was assasinated, again for public relations. But NASA was prepared if the program had to go beyond the deadline Kennedy had announced.

But the real deadline was to get there before the Russians did.

Again, it has been documented that the russians had spies within NASA. If NASA had faked it the Russians would have had first hand knowledge and they would not have thought twice about exposing us right in the middle of a space race, in the middle of a cold war, while Vietnam was going on.

To those who say that we bribed the Russians with grain to keep quite: What happend with the U2/Gary Powers incident? It was an embarrasment for us. Why didn't we bribe them with grain to keep them quite then? How about the Bay of Pigs incident?



I'm sorry. I'll deploy another :rolleyes: then next time so it's clear what I mean and what I don't mean! I am, however, desperately trying to limit the use of :rolleyes: but the trash that 90% of respondents are posting here virtually demands them!
How does that bible quote go about not noticing the beam in one's own eye?
 
Yeah, I felt that the book lost it's way somewhat after Chapter 4, if not Chapter 3, but Chapters 1 and 2 alone (114 pages) wouldn't be enough material for a book, I suppose.
Then again it may be an indication to the quatlity of thinking of the authors.

If by your line of thinking; The questionable validity of one or two photographs throws the whole event into question (one bad apple spoils the whole bushel, if you will) then so should you question the validity of the whole book based on the other questionable chapters.

I mean, that is if you do not want to be seen as a hypocrite or holding a double standard.
 
Any chance you can bake it a little longer? Alternatively, you could PM all the idiots in town and ask them to hang fire while the bright people out there have a proper shot! I think you know who they are! ;)


Well...no. Firstly, I will not play any kind of guessing game about who you may consider an idiot and I certainly won't be suckered into validating your puerile ad hominem by PMing anyone on your behalf. Further, I don't need to PM anyone. You're the one who's prioritizing your responses...and you're then one introducing numerous additional "what-abouts". No one else is responsible for that.
 
You're seeing the same things that PhantomWolf is! Pair of clowns, the two of you!
What? you didn't see the flag move as the astronaut passed by? I though you would have jumped on that like stink on rice.

And I suppose you see it as impossible that someone can brush up against something.

I'm sure you have a book where some scientist worked out that the angles are wrong based on a hip and a shadow.


'A good explination (sic)'? Would this be the same 'static electricity' that prevented James Hydrick from performing his amazing psychic page-turning feat when Randi debunked him, by any chance?! :rolleyes:
Hey, I though it was more plausible that the astronaut just brushed against it as he passed by. But I thought that such a mundane explination would not be sciencey and techy enough for you hence the static electric hypothesis.

How about a scientific explanation for this 'static electricity'! Any chance uruk?!
Ask and you shall recieve.:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/05/static_moon/
http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/static.asp
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/10aug_crackling.htm
http://astrobio.net/news/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=2303
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cach...tricity+on+the+moon&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=27&gl=us

Is that enough or do you need more?
 
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?!)?!? :D

I hope you are not serious. That is one crappy photoshop job.


If you are serious, then I am very sorry for you.
 
{snip}
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. {snip}
And in almost all of his post he does not say anything substantive or supported. His only responses have been to remain ambiguous and to berate people.

Intellectual cowardice at it's finest.
 
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?!:rolleyes:
How about the multiple shadows from multiple directional light sources?
 
I am back after a forum break, and I tried to go through all the pages written in the meantime. I hope I didn't overlook anything important.

Good luck to those trying to convince Southwind17.

Southwind17, I am not interested in the general debate, but I made a commitment here and I do not mean to back out of it. Can you send me the Groves analysis, so that I can point out specific errors in it as I promised?
 
Oh and i just remembered this. Nixon has a speech prepared incase the astronauts died duing the mission.
You can see it here:
http://eddriscoll.com/archives/007338.php

Odd that Nixon wrote a speech if the faked mission was a failure. Maybe it was incased the light rig fell on an astronaut.
Or could Nixon have been duped? But if Nixon was not in on the deception, then who was incharge? Maybe NASA is the rouge element. But then why does thier budget and influence suck so bad today? Why didn't the fake moon mission continue or evolve into a moon base? I mean Space 1999 was a sucessful Tv show. (sorta)

Or maybe it is all part of the deception. A piece of created evidence that noone would have ever thought about especially if the fake mission itself was gauranteed to go off with out a hitch. Oh but wait! They did fake Apollo 13's failure. Yea, gotta make it look real. you know. can't have every mission go perfectly.

Wow, thinking like this is fun. Just spewing out copious amounts of mental diarreha without providing any proof or supporting evidence other than "it's a possibility".
 
I am back after a forum break, and I tried to go through all the pages written in the meantime. I hope I didn't overlook anything important.

Good luck to those trying to convince Southwind17.

Southwind17, I am not interested in the general debate, but I made a commitment here and I do not mean to back out of it. Can you send me the Groves analysis, so that I can point out specific errors in it as I promised?

This is the closest I could get to finding Groves work. But the majority of the appendix is not viewable.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Di...WQC&sig=p2dzhaRAHdYl-IIhxUeFOLeZ66E#PPA533,M1

It starts on page 533
 
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?

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!

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!

Ooh! ooh! ohh! Can I answer?

I get about 18 cm.

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

Well, I understand how long a Lunar day is. I also understand that shadows cast upon a rotating sphere, by objects fixed upon that sphere, do not move at a linear rate when the light source is fixed in space. When the Sun is low on the horizon, shadows are longer and move faster as the Sun rises, than they do at when the Sun is more directly overhead.

Simply prorating the rotation period will not give you a fair approximation at low Sun angles. It's a circular function...not linear.

Pretty basic senior school physics trigonometry, really.

In fact I did make a mistake here; I thought the original film was longer than that, but -

Do the calculation, Southwind. The point stands. The shadow will move, visibly, by a distance consistent with the video.


Well this might not be the most elegant of calculations, but here goes:

Assumptions:

Sun angle above horizon = 30 degrees (this itself, I think, presents an anomaly that might be worth looking into separately!). This has been calculated approximately by comparing the relative height of the flagpole and length of shadow cast by it as measured on the computer monitor (Tan-1 Sun angle = 49mm / 28mm). It can only be approximate because the video camera is not positioned perpendicular to the direction of the shadow. The shadow lengths can be clearly seen to be longer than the objects casting them, so the sun angle must be well under 45 degrees (the exact sun angle is not critical to the calculation, within reason, although it should be noted that the lower the Sun angle the more pronounced the shadow movements will be. I believe that the 30 degrees calculated is lower than actual!).

Flagpole is approximately 2,200mm tall. This has been assessed by comparing it to the height of the astronauts during placement at the start of the video.

Flagpole is planted vertically (this is not critical to the calculation, within reason).

Axis of Moon's rotation is perpendicular to the direction of the shadow, i.e. the shadows will simply elongate and shorten.

Calculations:

First, using trogonometry, let's calculate the length of the flagpole shadow; call it 'X':

X = 2200mm / Tan 30 degrees = 3,811mm

Now, using triangulation, let's calculate the angle formed by the flagpole and an imaginary line running from the tip of the flagpole to the tip of the shadow on the lunar surface; call it 'Y':

Y = 180 degrees - 90 degrees - 30 degrees = 60 degrees

Now, let's calculate the angle of rotation of the Moon over the duration of the video, namely 40 minutes:

40 minutes / (29.5 Earth days x 24 hours x 60 minutes) x 360 degrees = 0.34 degrees

So, after 40 minutes the Moon will have rotated about its axis by 0.34 degrees. In other words, the flagpole will have rotated from the vertical 90-degree position to either 89.66 degrees or 90.34 degrees, depending on which direction the Moon is rotating in relation to the Sun (think of it like a hand on a clock moving away from the 12 o'clock position by 0.34 degrees in either direction).

This rotation or 'tilting' from the 'vertical' results in an apparent reduction in the height of the flagpole from the lunar surface, which will manifest itself as a shortening or lengthening of the shadow. If the flagpole 'tilts' towards the Sun the shadow length will tend towards zero as the 'tilt angle' approaches 30 degrees (i.e. the one o'clock position, with the flagpole pointing directly at the Sun). If the flagpole 'tilts' away from the Sun the Shadow length will initially lengthen as the flagpole tend towards a 60-degree tilt (i.e. the 10 o'clock position, at which point the flagpole will be perpendicular to the 30-degree Sun angle). Thereafter, the shadow length will shorten as the flagpole angle tends towards 0 degrees, i.e. is laying flat on the ground (the 9 o'clock position), at which point there is no shadow!

So, the question is, what does a rotation of the Moon, or 'tilting' of the flagpole, by 0.34 degrees equate to in a shortening or lengthening of the shadow length? Let's calculate it (we need only calculate one and not both as we're only interested in the change in length from the original, so let's assume a shortening, i.e. the flagpole rotates or 'tilts' towards the Sun):

As the light from the Sun can be considered to be travelling in parallel 'rays' the shortening of the shadow length will equate to the horizontal distance that the tip of the flagpole moves from its original position; call it 'Z'. This can be calculated thus:

Z = Tan 0.34 degrees x 2200mm = 13mm.

Now, we could assume that instead of rotating perpendicular to the direction of the shadow the Moon is rotating parallel to it (in reality it is somewhere between the two). I do not believe that this will derive a movement of the shadow across the ground significantly more than the 13mm calculated above, but I'd be happy to have a go, just to test it.

So, 13mm appears to be the maximum 'movement' of the shadow across the lunar surface, which is supported by the Post-it note test.

CurtC - I think you need to check your calculation to identify where you've gone wrong, but may I suggest that you try the Post-it note test first, which will demonstrate that the shadow movement is nothing like 18cm! Everybody else, I think you need to get your eyes tested!

Now, which of you are going to try to convince me that you can detect a 13mm movement (that's about the width of an average finger nail!) of the tip of the shadow across the lunar surface from watching the linked video?! Who's going first?!
 
And speaking of non-sequitor and logical leaps.

You know, maybe a government might be willing to do all this and fake a Moon landing. But not the scientists or the engineers. The average scientist and engineer have a tad bit more integrity than a politician. And the politicians could not carry out a faked Moon landing on thier own. They would have needed a multitude of scientists and engineers. Yea, you could have had them all busy working on all the proceeders and hardware necessary. But you would not have been able to fool them on the actual mission itself. They are the ones who would have been able to tell if the telemetry was off. They would have been able to tell if the Lunar samples were faked, They would have been able to look at the film and video and tell if it has been faked. And sofar the only "scientists" and "engineers" who have come forth to claim the landing was faked have no experiance in space science and are trying to sell a book. Some have even a poor understanding of the nature of light and photography.

The government may gain something from faking the landing but science does not. And science will not sit still for that.
We also have China to thank about how fast a CT would be found out. Of course in China's case it was a mistake.
 
<snip>

Now, even assuming that it would have been possible for the rover to have achieved that sort of braking on the magic dust, please explain, if you could, Southwind17, why the astronaut, who is not restrained at all, does not even jerk forward during the stop.


Southwind17, you haven't even acknowleged my post, let alone attempted to answer my question. Kindly respond.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom