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

Merged Apollo "hoax" discussion / Lick observatory laser saga

Status
Not open for further replies.
R.A.F. said:
Why the delay?...don't you know if you agree or not with the hoax claims YOU have been posting?
Click to expand...

Well the problem is that it is Friday night here in Stockholm. I am listening to David Bowie. I just had a wonderful meal, and am trying to deal with a couple of bottles of indifferent Claret. OK
By the way have some of your comments been removed. I can't find this one, But I kept a copy.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Do not repost moderated content.


Best regards
Peter
 
Last edited by a moderator:
abaddon said:
In all due fairness let the meal be eaten.

For all any of us know, there may be romance in the mists of Stockholm.

The various questions can wait.

Your caveat, Peter, is that they will still be here when you return.
Click to expand...

It's interesting how an indifferent Claret mellows as the evening progresses

I'm listning to BeeGees, we can burn the bridges tommorow.
 
Oh, just have your own time.

Edited by jhunter1163: 
Edited for Rules 0 and 10. Do not attempt to bypass the autocensor.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
abaddon said:
No offence, but the sockery is on some other site, and does not fall under the MA. Unless you propose the JREF MA applies to other sites? Yes, No?

Not being bolshy, but I thought critical examination of claims elsewhere was fair game?

Feel free to give me a slapping if I am utterly wrong.
Click to expand...


Hi abaddon,

The critical examination of claims both here and elsewhere are certainly fine. The problem that led to the moving of some recent posts was that the sockery accusations relating to Patrick1000 on another site were overlapping with sock accusations relating to a member here, with posts quoted or multi-quoted, etc., or responses to multiple posts being answered in one, etc. You are free to speculate about Patrick1000's antics elsewhere all you like, but if they get caught up with sock accusations against a member here by such quoting/responding, they are apt to get moved.

Of course, the simplest way to avoid this is just to make sure that there are no sock accusations made here against members of this forum. I hope that helps.
 
Last edited:
So Peter May has the time to make four posts to explain why he doesn't have the time to post an answer to the question right now?:confused:
 
Peter May said:
Transcript of the Youtube video Lunar rover on the moon. Is it an RC model (Extended Edition)
Reproduced here verbatim by Peter May
Posted by moon fakery. Length 2min 22secs
Information about the subject
Vsevolod Yakubovich is a director of photography of the Mosfilm Studios. He teaches "Technology of the shooting process". He graduated from the All-Union State Cinema Institute (VGIK) in 1968. Currently he is an Associate Professor of VGIK Camera Department. As a special effects cinematographer he was involved in shooting of more than 200 movies.

I, as a trick photography cameraman think it was a doll on a radio controlled model it looks like a movie production in a big pavilion with front projection using a radio controlled model which mimics a rover running on the lunar surface What is cause for doubt? The camera is dangling on the rover It shows At the same time, there is no reaction from the person sitting on the rover He works as if his wrist and elbow are fixed either to the body or to the rover The camera is moving but the arm is not moving at all The notebook is moving although it’s not clear why the notebook should move But still it is moving and the arm is not It raises questions In addition there are areas where differences between the foreground soil and the soil located in the background is very noticeable They are different both in color and texture from one another These very doubts arose when we watched Kubrick’s movie 2001: A Space Odyssey In the movie as well there where differences between foreground and background and some inconsistency Most likely this footage was taken here on Earth under Earth’s gravity Changing the shooting speed accurately imitates conditions on the moon
Click to expand...

The guy can think what he likes; when he comes up with some proof then his views might have some merit. Since no ones managed that in 40+ years I won't hold my breath.
 
Garrison said:
So Peter May has the time to make four posts to explain why he doesn't have the time to post an answer to the question right now?:confused:
Click to expand...

...and don't "forget"...he only has one finger...

...or something like that...wasn't really paying attention....
 
Garrison said:
The guy can think what he likes; when he comes up with some proof then his views might have some merit. Since no ones managed that in 40+ years I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...
One of the standard problems that all Apollo hoax believers have is that even though they think they have identified some "anomaly" in the record - and it's usually the imagery, because everybody thinks they know how things should look - they still have no coherent alternative to the reality of Apollo. For example, consider the evidently incompetent and possibly nonexistent Russian "cinematographer" and his story about the LRV. It's bad enough that he is clueless about basics like how the LRV was steered. But the deeper problem is that his fantasy does nothing to address the rest of the imagery record, the telemetry, the coordinated sample collection, the engineering behind the LRV, the tracks of the LRV imaged from orbit, and of course the actual interferometric tracking of the LRV on Apollo 16 and 17.

And that's without addressing the broader and deeper context of Apollo - the overall programmatic, technical, and scientific body of work spanning over two decades of active development, building, test, and operations.

Hoax believers have a very cartoon-like notion of how things actually work. What's more, they don't understand how little of the program of which they are even aware. But it's a moot point, because their individual claims are at best "if I ran the zoo" handwaving and at worst (and usually) gross failures to grasp even the basic principles involved. So they rarely advance to where consideration of the broader contexst even matters.
 
Just to move the thread along without straying afoul of MA, here is a quick summary of the problems with the video presented above:

1. The Russian "special effects expert" has no web presence outside of Hoax sites.

2. He is claimed to have a suspiciously large number of films under his belt for someone with no web presence. (Any special effects director with that many films, even a Russian one, would have made it into the IMDB.)

3. He offers only vague opinion, not quantitative measurements or technical observations.

4. He proffers the opinion that the LRV sequences were filmed in a large pavilion, using front projection. A large pavilion would impose lighting requirements that would render front projection completely impossible.

5. Front projection cannot be used to project a dark background anyway. Even under the best circumstances, the foreground lighting would wash out the background. (Note: the video actually contains photographs of "The Dawn of Man" sequence that illustrate this!)

6. He claims that the relative lack of movement on the part of the astronaut "looks like" it is a dummy. He does not take the necessary posture of an astronaut driving the LRV into account, nor the general rigidity of the space suits.

7. He claims that the lack of uniformity in the landscape is suggestive of a mismatched foreground and background, ignoring the fact that all natural landscapes have variations in color and texture.

8. Curiously, the video contains motion stabilized footage from the 16mm DAC aboard the LRV in motion. This footage clearly shows the landscape passing with a continuously variable parallax. Such an effect would require CGI capacities beyond the technology of the time.

9. There is no evidence that the foreground in these shots were added to the CGI background using any SFX technique available at the time. A blue screen would cause the background to seep into highlights on the reflective white space suits. A hand drawn matte would probably leave a visible outline.

10. The above sequence was digitally stabilized from a very shaky original. The technology to matte such a randomly moving set of components together so perfectly simply did not exist at the time.

Now: why was this video presented for discussion?
 
Last edited:
Garrison said:
So Peter May has the time to make four posts to explain why he doesn't have the time to post an answer to the question right now?:confused:
Click to expand...

Reminds me of my previous job's projects' manager, who, instead of answering questions for clarification about projects, took a lot of time to explain to us, in writing, that he didn't have time to answer our silly questions and to leave him alone, etc. Funny thing is, the most blatant examples were questions that could be answered with a single word.
 
DJW001 said:
6. He claims that the relative lack of movement on the part of the astronaut "looks like" it is a dummy. He does not take the necessary posture of an astronaut driving the LRV into account, nor the general rigidity of the space suits.
Click to expand...

It's almost like he expects the Astronauts to be steering the LRV with a great big old '50's steering wheel.

It certainly seems that he was unaware of the hand controller.

Such a basic misunderstanding about how the LRV "worked" is typical of Moon hoax believers...they use their uneducated "experience" as if it was somehow related...

Someone who can't take the time to investigate to get the essentials right, is someone who can be ignored as ignorant.
 
Belz... said:
Reminds me of my previous job's projects' manager, who, instead of answering questions for clarification about projects, took a lot of time to explain to us, in writing, that he didn't have time to answer our silly questions and to leave him alone, etc. Funny thing is, the most blatant examples were questions that could be answered with a single word.
Click to expand...

Indeed, two of my questions were yes-or-no answers. The third, should he have answered the first question in a specific way, could be answered effectively in one sentence.

For example, "I posted the paragraph because even though I don't endorse the claims, I wasn't sure how an expert would respond to the specific argument."

I require answers to my questions, not Swedish wine-tasting commentary.
 
Peter May said:
Well the problem is that it is Friday night here in Stockholm.
Click to expand...

...and now it is Saturday night (6PM) in Stockholm.

It was an irrelevant "dodge" yesterday, and it remains an irrelevant "dodge" today.


Stop playing games, Peter, and please answer the questions put to you...
 
DJW001 said:
Just to move the thread along without straying afoul of MA, here is a quick summary of the problems with the video presented above:

6. He claims that the relative lack of movement on the part of the astronaut "looks like" it is a dummy. He does not take the necessary posture of an astronaut driving the LRV into account, nor the general rigidity of the space suits.

7. He claims that the lack of uniformity in the landscape is suggestive of a mismatched foreground and background, ignoring the fact that all natural landscapes have variations in color and texture.
Click to expand...

#6 = Why on Earth would "Teh Conspiracy" use a dummy and not a real person in their faked LRV footage in the first place? Was hiring the stunt-model too expensive? :confused:

#7 = Typical of CT. Find something incongruous and declare it "evidence" even though it's completely and predictably normal.
 
Robrob said:
#6 = Why on Earth would "Teh Conspiracy" use a dummy and not a real person in their faked LRV footage in the first place? Was hiring the stunt-model too expensive? :confused:

#7 = Typical of CT. Find something incongruous and declare it "evidence" even though it's completely and predictably normal.
Click to expand...

It is symptomatic of the CT that the conspiracists demon du jour must simultaneously be like gods, yet incompetent.
 
abaddon said:
It is symptomatic of the CT that the conspiracists demon du jour must simultaneously be like gods, yet incompetent.
Click to expand...

To be fair, they can't have it any other way. They have to explain why them, as otherwise ignorant laymen, are able to spot the conspiracy while everybody else in the world is clueless about it. The only other option is that everybody is in on it.
 
It's a Groucho Marx conditional:

"Here are the figures, sir. I hope you will find them clear."

"Clear? A five-year-old child could make sense of these! Run out and find me a five-year-old child; I can't make head nor tails out of them."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

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