Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

theprestige said:
I know you guys are just joking around, but seriously, the parentheses-thing is an anti-semitic meme. You may want to reconsider whether it's a good look for your posts. To me it comes across about the same as putting the big-nosed International Jew caricature up as your avataor, "ironically".
Click to expand...

I learned something new today. I thought it was just part of the conspiracy theorist shibboleth of using weird personalized punctuation - like ending every sentence fragment with multiple periods....and starting new sentences without punctuation..
 
abaddon said:
Have you happened upon the demand for a link to the "original" "undoctored" photographs?

How they think it is possible to link to physical film is puzzling to say the least.
Click to expand...

I did point out to one troll that any "C" photos he could find had higher contrast than the subtle gradations of this non-C photo: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/AS16-107-17446HR.jpg and that contrast is the entropy of photographs; later generation copies only ever increase in contrast.

So unless he could bring evidence that wasn't obviously a later generation than the clean version, he had nothing.

Ah, you made me go back and re-read that thread. It's probably bad form to laugh at stuff you wrote yourself but I'd forgotten and badscience.net allows swearing and it got a bit Malcolm Tucker.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
[C]ontrast is the entropy of photographs; later generation copies only ever increase in contrast.
Click to expand...

That depends on the processing workflow. In many cases you lose midtones. I'm astounded how much better (in terms of tonal range) the Apollo color photos appear the closer you get to original transparencies. This is definitely a problem for color reversal stocks and various ad hoc printmaking processes that NASA's photo distribution contractor has used.

However, one of the big problems we had in the blue-screen traveling matte days was loss of contrast. As you went through more generations (and later processes that allowed for partial transparency had many generations) you lost contrast and this would be evident in a contrast disparity among elements of the final composite. Mostly you lost the deep darks, especially in the foreground elements. Eastman tried to help this with the 529x stocks, which were experimental fast high-contrast color negative stocks. The first feature to use them for VFX work was The Neverending Story. There was visible improvement.

ETA: These stocks migrated to the Kodak side in 35mm format as various incarnations of Kodacolor VR, VR-G, Gold, etc.
 
Last edited:
dudalb said:
Yup, the Moon Hoax nuts are defiantly building up to July 20th....
Click to expand...

Yes, according to a newer member of the fraternity,
1. It is rumored that one of the Lunar astronauts is going to break ranks an spills the beans about the Apollo hoax.
2. There will be individual(s) that will post on the internet copies of documents that will prove the hoax/conspiracy.

IMO neither will occur.
 
bknight said:
Yes, according to a newer member of the fraternity,
1. It is rumored that one of the Lunar astronauts is going to break ranks an spills the beans about the Apollo hoax.
2. There will be individual(s) that will post on the internet copies of documents that will prove the hoax/conspiracy.

IMO neither will occur.
Click to expand...

I predict that from now on, every sad passing of another one of these heroes will be declared an assassination because he was about to spill the beans.
 
JayUtah said:
I'm just laughing at the irony that all the Lisp programmers I know are Jewish. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Gah. I hate LISP with a passion. Though funnily enough because of learning MUSHcode later on, I have a lot more respect and understanding of LISP than when I first had to learn it. Much like learning C derivative scripts such as ASP gave me a greater respect for C.
 
Here is one of the rare conspiracy videos that actually raises an interesting question. Not that I think he has the right answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_66cqMQsW4&t

My suspicion is that we are seeing some sort of compression artifact, either from the original compression used, or from subsequent copies of original video. If you look closely at the right edge of the frame, you can see a line of compression artifacts.

I have to admit that I don't know what is causing the apparent movements, and I figured this would be a good place to ask.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Here is one of the rare conspiracy videos that actually raises an interesting question. Not that I think he has the right answer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_66cqMQsW4&t

My suspicion is that we are seeing some sort of compression artifact, either from the original compression used, or from subsequent copies of original video. If you look closely at the right edge of the frame, you can see a line of compression artifacts.

I have to admit that I don't know what is causing the apparent movements, and I figured this would be a good place to ask.
Click to expand...

This is presumably the flag just coming into sight on the edge of the picture. However, note that the picture is not quite stable: The aim of the camera is is shifting slightly several times. I have no idea of the reason for that (is it remote controlled?) Whatever the reason, this will explain the flag coming in and out of sight at the edge.

Hans
 
Foster Zygote said:
Here is one of the rare conspiracy videos that actually raises an interesting question....
Click to expand...
Looks like more of the conspiracy theory stupidity about flags on the Moon.

We do not see any flag! The flag on the Moon was a normal flag and did not have a ragged edge. If it moved measurably into frame we would see the edge of the flag. The blurry discrete blobs at the edge of the frames could be artefacts from the filmmakers processing or maybe light flares from the flag as the camera moved.

The comments from NASA Jet Propulsion scientist Stephen Edberg was not about this crank's film. It was about previous crank claims that wind moved the flag as if NASA were so abysmally stupid to fake a flag in vacuum and not shield it from wind! Stephen Edberg pointed out the obvious - the flag moved when handled and in the "wind" from the ascent module launch. That suggests a remote possibility - the flag was still moving from the last time that the astronauts handed it if they did this just before the close of EVA 2.
 
MRC_Hans said:
This is presumably the flag just coming into sight on the edge of the picture. However, note that the picture is not quite stable: The aim of the camera is is shifting slightly several times. I have no idea of the reason for that (is it remote controlled?) Whatever the reason, this will explain the flag coming in and out of sight at the edge.

Hans
Click to expand...

This is Apollo 14, so no remote control yet. It's the Westinghouse color TV camera, and now that I think about it, compression wasn't used until Apollo 16 or 17. So it's probably a compression artifact from whatever copies he's showing.
 
Foster Zygote said:
This is Apollo 14, so no remote control yet. It's the Westinghouse color TV camera, and now that I think about it, compression wasn't used until Apollo 16 or 17. So it's probably a compression artifact from whatever copies he's showing.
Click to expand...

It is more likely outgassing affecting the flag from opening the valve to depressurize the LM. Jet Wintzer, if you watch his videos, takes happenings an "builds" a case of hoax, but he does little to n research nor apply physics to anything he does concerning Apollo. I remember one where he claimed that Apollo 16 crews "spilled" orange juice that had spilled from Charlie Duke's LCG while on the Moon, not in the LM but on the Moon. And thereby showed "orange juice" smudges on one of the magazines. How could this happed in a vacuum? Well it was more likely regolith that had been trapped in one of the magazine changes and rubbed of a little as the film was advancing, no conspiracy, just a small error in a very complex program.
 
Isn't the camera attached to the LM? And the astronauts are inside the LM.

Is it possible that as they moved inside that some vibrations reached the camera and in some cases shifted it's field of view just slightly?
 
The flag moves post-EVA have been recorded elsewhere but U can't remember where. Certainly if you look at Apollo 14's surface photos taken from inside the LM you can see that it changes position. Wetzner has found nothing new, and the fact that it occurs during the final stages of the surface phase should tell him the likely cause if only he had applied some thought to it.
 
bknight said:
I remember one where he claimed that Apollo 16 crews "spilled" orange juice that had spilled from Charlie Duke's LCG while on the Moon...
Click to expand...

I remember that. I didn't realize this was Orange Juice Guy. Yeah, Duke had disassembled the Hasselblad inside the LM while attempting to clean the dust off of it. He'd used a damp cloth to try to wipe some away and he got a little on the interior. You can see that all the photos from that magazine are clear up to the end of the previous EVA, and dirty from the start of the next.
 
OK I've now watched the entirety of this miserable little video. Wetzner's claim is that the flag moves "8 times", ie it appears 4 times and disappears 4 times at the edge of the frame, and can only have done this as a result of a breeze from somewhere.

He includes some mission audio where Bruce McCandless says:

"Okay, Antares. Could you verify Suit Relief in Auto, please?"

but not the crew before this saying that they are starting the process of depressurising the cabin prior to dumping all the surplus equipment.

What he then does is spend a lot of time claiming that NASA have only ever provided two explanations for the flag moving (when touched, or during the LM ascent initiation), then dismisses the perfectly reasonable explanations that have been given for other instances when the flag has moved because a NASA expert on on a FAQ didn't mention it (and probably wasn't aware of it). He doesn't bother giving any kind of justification for handwaving them away, he just does.

He completely fails to understand an article explaining the difference between Earth's atmosphere and the Moon's very sparse one, and seems to think that because there are very few molecules in the natural lunar atmosphere this somehow explains the behaviour of gases exiting the lunar module.

He tries to claim that the gas pressure exerted is very small and thus not capable of moving the flag, but forgets that there is no other gas to get in the way, and uses an instrument located quite some distance from the LM as the proof. That's right, he uses an instrument on the moon, put there by astronauts, to try and prove that they weren't on the moon.

He also doesn't understand how a rod inserted in a tube can rotate freely, and it obviously doesn't occur to him that these could actually be a series of rotations caused by a single event and not slowed by an actual atmosphere.

He also hasn't found the part of the ALSJ that explains another movement of the flag as a result of hot firing the LM RCS thrusters, so there's yet another source of gas to move it.

He's happy to quote experts, but only the bits that suit him. Everything else is all "smoking gun" and "NASA admit" and "alibis" and all the other stock phrases that people like him like to use to poison the well. It's all "A-HAA" but without any actual rabbit from the hat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom