Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion - continuation thread

[JayUtah]

As with his 9/11 looniness, he claims to offer a 1 million Euro prize for anyone proving Apollo is real.

Specifically in one case, he offers the prize for someone who can prove that Apollo carried enough fuel to perform the advertised orbital maneuvers. Of course that was done, but Anders objects because it wasn't figured according to his broken model of physics.

Even leaving aside the fact that he probably doesn't have the money...

Is there really any question? He constantly brings up the million-euro prize and thumps his chest over the fact that no one has won it, but steadfastly refuses to demonstrate via any of the customary means (e.g., authenticated escrow) that the money exists. Naturally no one takes the prize seriously; they correct him simply to put the corrects on the record. But Anders is the one who keeps taunting people with the money.

...it's unwinnable as he is unwilling to correct his errors.

That's the ultimate joke in his approach. Anders is the sole judge of whether or not he has been corrected, and therefore the sole judge of whether anyone is owed a million euros. He corrects his errors (see below) but he simply refuses to admit that he was ever wrong.

He did take on board one correction from this discussion: a spacecraft performing a burn changes mass. He still used that in the not-even-wrong calculation of energy requirement via KE.)

Clearly he doesn't understand the mechanical energy of orbits, but the fact remains that he originally computed the delta-v problem one way, omitting the variable-mass term of the Tsiolkovsky ideal-rocket equation, but agreed that he should be computing it a different way and refused to admit that he had been corrected.

Not only did he refuse to acknowledge the error he corrected, he blatantly libeled a member of Apollohoax in the process. It's an epic ad hominem that would be appropriate only in the Stundie thread, if even there.

 

[FatFreddy88]

What do you pro-Apollo posters think of this?
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

 

[JayUtah]

What do you pro-Apollo posters think of this?
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

The photographers in question used the wrong type of film, a lower ISO, the wrong lens, and did not give us basic information such as exposure settings.

They purport to have duplicated the Mythbusters results and, by extension, the Apollo results. But they have deliberately withheld important information that they know would be crucial in letting others judge the fidelity of their results, and have shown in the information that they did reveal that they have changed important parameters in their favor to affect the outcome.

As with most of what you see at Aulis, impressive looking at first glance but ultimately highly dishonest.

 

[Mudcat]

What do you pro-Apollo posters think of this?
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

I think the person is trying too hard to confirm a conspiracy took place when it didn't.

But when verification of this conclusion was undertaken by two Russian cinematographers Yuri Elkhov and Leonid Konovalov by recreating the shooting conditions as on the “Moon”, but in a studio, they reached a completely different result. The model astronaut standing in the shadow was very dark, not as in the NASA photo of Aldrin. Moreover, two cinematographers found that the mythbusters [must have] resorted to fraud. Initially the "mythbusters" got a negative result, but they then [allegedly] falsified the actual shooting conditions, and re-shot everything.

Of course these nut jobs would claim that, the MythBusters came up with a result the nuts didn't want. I'm sure that they got the 'proper' results, the nuts would have no qualms even if the MythBusters obviously cheated (like the nuts did) to do so.

The Moon has light areas, which are called highlands, where albedo of the lunar surface is 12-13%, and there are dark areas, the so-called maria.

According to the Apollo 11 record astronauts landed at the Sea of Tranquility, where the albedo is 7-8%.

This is all information that the MythBusters had on hand, and since they're not idiots they took it into account.

So why such a difference when the nuts did it?

I'm no expert in photography or filmography, but I'd wager its the lighting source used in place of the sun. Too dim, too far away, wrong angle.

It could be something different about the camera as well, wrong lens, wrong film, wrong exposure, or a dozen other things.

 

[FatFreddy88]

To the viewers-

When reading Jay Windley's posts, take into consideration this response of his...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

to this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

 

[threadworm]

I think the person is trying too hard to confirm a conspiracy took place when it didn't.



Of course these nut jobs would claim that, the MythBusters came up with a result the nuts didn't want. I'm sure that they got the 'proper' results, the nuts would have no qualms even if the MythBusters obviously cheated (like the nuts did) to do so.



This is all information that the MythBusters had on hand, and since they're not idiots they took it into account.

[qimg]http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters/MythBusters18.jpg[/qimg]

So why such a difference when the nuts did it?

I'm no expert in photography or filmography, but I'd wager its the lighting source used in place of the sun. Too dim, too far away, wrong angle. Something simple like that.

I'm going to go with the additional factors of the model photo having a ridiculously low f-stop (see how the astronaut is about the only thing in focus), and spot metering on the brightly lit area of the photograph making the shutter speed very fast. This means that the background is lit normally, but the astronaut is in the dark. Even with that, the model is still visible. The depth of field in the Apollo image is suggestive of a higher f-stop.which would have required a slightly longer exposure, which is would explain why it is less sharp.

Broad daylight on the moon and you can see stuff. Who'd have thunk it.

 

[Mudcat]

I'm going to go with the additional factors of the model photo having a ridiculously low f-stop (see how the astronaut is about the only thing in focus), and spot metering on the brightly lit area of the photograph making the shutter speed very fast. This means that the background is lit normally, but the astronaut is in the dark. Even with that, the model is still visible. The depth of field in the Apollo image is suggestive of a higher f-stop.which would have required a slightly longer exposure, which is would explain why it is less sharp.

You see I didn't think about that, you can tell I'm not an expert in photography. But even I can tell the Aulis shots weren't exactly Kosher.

 

[X]

To the viewers-

When reading Jay Windley's posts, take into consideration this response of his...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

to this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

He showed you were wrong, and explained why.
Unless you care to explain otherwise?

 

[FatFreddy88]

He showed you were wrong, and explained why.

What he did was try to control the damage. This issue is too basic. Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.

I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

So why such a difference when the nuts did it?

I'm no expert in photography or filmography, but I'd wager its the lighting source used in place of the sun.

My first thought is that we can't see how much light is cast between the model and the camera.

The astronaut is brightly lit by diffuse light scattered from the forground and from the whole landscape behind the camera. It's anyone's guess how much light was allowed to fall to the nearside of the model. Likely very little.

 

[threadworm]

What he did was try to control the damage. This issue is too basic. Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.

I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.

You mean a science teacher like me who explained to you how it would be impossible to sieve an entire set's worth of sand?

 

[JayUtah]

This is all information that the MythBusters had on hand, and since they're not idiots they took it into account.

The Mythbuster producers consulted an astrophysicist, an astronomer, an engineer, and a lighting director -- all professionals -- to determine how to establish a properly reflective lunar surface and to confirm that they had done so. These people are all named in the credits.

So why such a difference when the nuts did it?

It could be attributed to any of things we know they did wrong plus any of the things they might have done wrong and hidden behind their sloppy disclosure of method.

I'm no expert in photography or filmography...

I think you mean "cinematography." Filmography is the cinema version of a bibliography.

I'm enough of an expert in photography and photo analysis to see most of their mistakes and deliberate misrepresentations. Another error is blacking out their photographer. It makes sense in a way because the scale of their model would lead you to interpret that as a confounding variable. In their case it may be an innocent mistake. However in this case ironically it leads to a less faithful reproduction. Armstrong was standing in full sunlight when he took that picture, and was actually quite close to Aldrin. (Don't be fooled by the wide-angle lens; it tends to amplify distance along the line of sight.) The space suit has a non-geometric albedo of something like 0.8, so it's going to be highly reflective. It's meant to be. And that contributes to the lighting environment of the Aldrin egress photos. They needed to have accounted for that in their reproduction.

 

[X]

What he did was try to control the damage. This issue is too basic. Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.

Again: would you care to explain exactly what you are referring to, and why Jay is, in your view, wrong?

I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.

A funny thing to say, since rhetoric seems to be all you provide, while Jay frequently provides information which supports his arguments.

 

[Erock]

What he did was try to control the damage.

It wasn't damage it was a badly constructed strawman that you couldn't even knock down.

This issue is too basic.

It is irrelevant in the extreme, just like your habitual forum spamming. Even were you to prove that a small set could be created, with perfect dust free particles, you would then be required to show how that surface takes a footprint and exhibits visible signs of fine particle motion all in the same scene.

Your standard response to this is that you haven't seen such an example. When given the examples, your standard follow up is that the print isn't sharp enough. You are as predictable as you are persistently wrong.

Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.

None of them doubt the Apollo landings. I've also consulted with some very clever physicists and scientists on many issues, who also have no doubts. I doubt very much whether you have EVER encountered a science teacher!

I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.

That basically discounts anything you have to say. You are like the comedy interlude, with your portfolio of copy paste spam.

 

[sts60]

FatFreddy88/DavidC/rocky/cosmored/etc., please don't think that you can continue to dodge

your dishonesty in your Magic Sand claims, and avoiding the rebuttals thereto, and

the fact that according to your criteria, you are only pretending to mean what you say, you hypocrite.

You can hide from it like any other anonymous coward, but you will continue to be called in it.

 

[Garrison]

And of course even if by some miracle F88 could come up with evidence such sand sifting was possible, which despite his claims to the contrary he has yet to do, that would in no way demonstrate that any part of the Apollo record was false.

 

[abaddon]

What do you pro-Apollo posters think of this?
http://www.aulis.com/mythbusters.htm

1. No aperature or speed data.
2. Wrong film stock.
3. Omission or reflection from Armstrong.

and

4. It's from Aulis.

Oh yeah, the DOF in the Aulis shots also raises an eyebrow.

 

[Krikkiter]

What he did was try to control the damage. This issue is too basic. Anyone who actually doubts it should go ask a science teacher.

I urge the viewers not to be swayed by rhetoric of you don't have time to read the info.

I read this thread from time to time and am never swayed by the rhetoric you present.

May I also say that the Magic Sand episode was great entertainment. I thank you FF88. It couldn't be easy to come up with such brilliant sources of comedy.

 

[SpitfireIX]

To the viewers-

When reading Jay Windley's posts, take into consideration this response of his...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8144391&postcount=7990

to this.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8135606&postcount=7907

As Jay was expanding on a question I posed to you, which you ignored, I'll re-pose my question, and I request that you answer. What part of "this is an engineering question, rather than a science question" did you not understand?

And as for the "viewers," I think, as this thread has been split, that it's time we asked the lurkers to weigh in again. So, lurkers, please tell us, do you accept Freddy's claims about Apollo, or do you reject them?

 

[Mudcat]

The Mythbuster producers consulted an astrophysicist, an astronomer, an engineer, and a lighting director -- all professionals -- to determine how to establish a properly reflective lunar surface and to confirm that they had done so. These people are all named in the credits.

I did not know that, thanks for sharing it. I should point out that it doesn't negate what I posted. If anything it amplifies it.

It could be attributed to any of things we know they did wrong plus any of the things they might have done wrong and hidden behind their sloppy disclosure of method.

Indeed, there are too many variables. And since they don't share all that information, we might never know what exactly they did wrong.

I think you mean "cinematography." Filmography is the cinema version of a bibliography.

Thanks for the correction.

I'm enough of an expert in photography and photo analysis to see most of their mistakes and deliberate misrepresentations. Another error is blacking out their photographer. It makes sense in a way because the scale of their model would lead you to interpret that as a confounding variable. In their case it may be an innocent mistake. However in this case ironically it leads to a less faithful reproduction. Armstrong was standing in full sunlight when he took that picture, and was actually quite close to Aldrin. (Don't be fooled by the wide-angle lens; it tends to amplify distance along the line of sight.) The space suit has a non-geometric albedo of something like 0.8, so it's going to be highly reflective. It's meant to be. And that contributes to the lighting environment of the Aldrin egress photos. They needed to have accounted for that in their reproduction.

There is that, although I don't know why they had the guy in there at all. If they were really that concerned about the camera man contaminating the results, they could have had the camera rigged on a tripod or an arm. Something, anything.