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

[DavidJames]

The contradictory evidence that casts most of the doubt in my mind pertains to anomalous lunar surface photographic records and certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe.

There as some aspects governing man's ability actually to get to the Moon in the first place that I'm skeptical of, but I haven't considered them as much as the other issues above.

Regarding the parts I've bolded above. Can you tell me what in your education and/or work experience you are drawing on to reach those conclusions.

 

[rwguinn]

Regarding the parts I've bolded above. Can you tell me what in your education and/or work experience you are drawing on to reach those conclusions.

And how would we know the "certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe" if we didn't go out there and collect som samples, and try doing the "impossible" (or, more likely his opinion, improbable)?

 

[Southwind17]

Most people seem to have already guessed it. My point is that because Groves is impossible to track down, there is no accounting for his work. We only have Aulis' statement that he actually is qualified to do what was claimed, that he actually did what was claimed, and that the results they present us are what were actually obtained. Without Groves standing up and being counted and having his work examined, he is an anonymous authority, i.e. worthless.

The fact that a number of people, including those predominate in the Hoax debunking community, have tried to track him down and keep running into dead ends and ghosts doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but it certainly means he's not publicly accountable for his supposed claims. Since he apparently isn't willing to stand by his work, show that he was indeed qualified to make the assessments he had and support his conclusions, why should he be accepted as an authority? He shouldn't.

As I wrote earlier:

... the credibility and validity of Groves' analysis is not, I don't believe, at all dependent on his qualifications or expertise, with very limited exception. It's essentially a mathematical analysis, so should stand or fall on its merits.

You can, therefore, call off the dogs, and put aside whatever the logical fallacy of the converse of 'appeal to authority' is (appeal to unauthority?!).

As to the image, not being sure which it was comes from not wanting to reading form a dozen rambling posts.

Oh no, no point wasting time checking out what the debate's about before wading in with consequential erroneous views, is there! That a boy!

I make the mistake of assuming it was Groves "hotspot on the boot" claims with the Aldrin egress image that were in discussion.

Yes, making wild assumptions can have a tendency to cause problems!

Since it seems it's the "Man on the Moon" image ...

'Seems'? Oh no, it actually is the 'Man on the Moon' image we're talking about, believe me, it's reality! (Jeez, who's the skeptic here?!)

... then all I can say ...

Yes, I didn't expect it to extend to more than a few words, but let's see:

... is Aulis' work on this is even worse. They use a poor publicity image rather than getting an original scan and things get worse from there.

'Get worse from there'? What do you mean? Let's see:

The reason that Armstrong is "above" Aldrin is two fold. Aldirn is standing in a depression (you can see it in the photograph) ...

I commented on this earlier. He's hardly 'in a depression' - towards the lip of of it, if you ask me. But it doesn't matter, Groves takes account of the surface height difference.

... while the ground Armstrong is on is higher ...

Er, yes, that would be a logical conclusion to draw - Aldrin's lower, so Armstrong must be higher. 10/10 on that part!

... and second, Aldrin is leaning towards the camera. The centre of mass of the suits caused the Astronauts to lean forwards. Good shots of this are the "Aldrin Flag Salute" images were the lean forwards is showed very clearly.

How does that put Armstrong 'above' Aldrin? Did Armstrong have a unique spacesuit that prevented the same thing happening to him?! In fact, the photographer is also leaning forward (or looking down), hence the position of the centre cross-hair over Aldrin's right ankle.

As to my assessment of the book "Dark Moon", I stand by it, it is a muddled, incoherent, poorly thought out, self debunking, load of trash that isn't worth being used as toilet paper.

And this coming from somebody predisposed to writing what we read above!

 

[CurtC]

Actually, Groves calculates the difference in the height of the lunar surface between Aldrin and the photographer by reference to the entire length of shadow cast by Aldrin's leg from the extremety of his left boot to the point coinciding with his left hip (referring to the photo, the latter is the point approximately where the shadow begins to deviate significantly, adjacent the pronounced boot print bottom left).

So can you explain how looking at the slope of the ground where Aldrin's legs cast a shadow tells you about the slope of the ground between Armstrong and that shadow?

Therefore, if the difference in height over the distance of shadow measured is only 10cm at the most, as calculated by Groves, then the remainder of the difference in height, namely 50cm approximately, must be accounted for over a distance of less than 2m, that's an average gradient of around 1:4,or 25%! I don't see any such gradients in any part of the photo, so we can only conclude, if the camera was indeed chest mounted, that the photographer was standing atop something.

Why could the ground near Armstrong not have been sloped down? You can measure the overall drop in elevation quite easily - it's the distance on Aldrin's suit between his chest (where Armstrong's camera was mounted) and the horizon. It looks to me to be about 30 cm. It's basically the distance from your sternum to your eyes. That ain't 60 cm.

This is exactly the point, which, given this comment, you clearly show you're missing! According to Groves' calculations there's no way the camera could have been chest mounted - it was positioned much higher, around eye level

Yes, I'm missing the logic of that. If Armstrong was standing sufficiently higher than Aldrin (30 cm), then the chest-mounted camera would catch exactly the shot shown, including the reflection in Aldrin's visor clearly showing that the shot was taken from Armstrong's chest level.

Given that Armstrong was standing 30 cm higher than Aldrin, everything in the photo seems to line up. Can you say where it doesn't specifically?

 

[Belz...]

The contradictory evidence that casts most of the doubt in my mind pertains to anomalous lunar surface photographic records

People who think those pictures are anomalous either don't understand photography or don't understand the particular conditions on the moon.

and certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe

For instance ?

There as some aspects governing man's ability actually to get to the Moon in the first place that I'm skeptical of, but I haven't considered them as much as the other issues above.

"It clearly pays to review all of the evidence available before making judgements, don't you think!"

 

[rwguinn]

[troofer mode on]

So can you explain how looking at the slope of the ground where Aldrin's legs cast a shadow tells you about the slope of the ground between Armstrong and that shadow?

Duh! because once ground starts loping downhill, it will continue downhill? Basic laws of fizicks!

Why could the ground near Armstrong not have been sloped down? You can measure the overall drop in elevation quite easily - it's the distance on Aldrin's suit between his chest (where Armstrong's camera was mounted) and the horizon. It looks to me to be about 30 cm. It's basically the distance from your sternum to your eyes. That ain't 60 cm.

So you're not an NBAsuperstar!

Yes, I'm missing the logic of that. If Armstrong was standing sufficiently higher than Aldrin (30 cm), then the chest-mounted camera would catch exactly the shot shown, including the reflection in Aldrin's visor clearly showing that the shot was taken from Armstrong's chest level.

Duh! Cameras are carried on a strap around your neck so you can whip them into action quickly. You don't glue them to your chest so that you have to point your whole body at stuff just to take a picher!

Given that Armstrong was standing 30 cm higher than Aldrin, everything in the photo seems to line up. Can you say where it doesn't specifically?

[/troofer mode]
do I pass as a troofer?

 

[Southwind17]

So can you explain how looking at the slope of the ground where Aldrin's legs cast a shadow tells you about the slope of the ground between Armstrong and that shadow?

Have you noticed that Aldrin's left leg outer is essentially straight, but the the shadow is curved? There's a clue!

Why could the ground near Armstrong not have been sloped down? You can measure the overall drop in elevation quite easily - it's the distance on Aldrin's suit between his chest (where Armstrong's camera was mounted) and the horizon. It looks to me to be about 30 cm. It's basically the distance from your sternum to your eyes. That ain't 60 cm.

Still missing the point! This explanation relies on the assumption that the camera is chest mounted. Groves' analysis shows that it could not be.

Yes, I'm missing the logic of that. If Armstrong was standing sufficiently higher than Aldrin (30 cm), then the chest-mounted camera would catch exactly the shot shown, including the reflection in Aldrin's visor clearly showing that the shot was taken from Armstrong's chest level.

Now why didn't Groves think of this, and save all the time and effort to calculate the height of the camera, incidentally at mugh greater than 30cm!

Given ...

Assuming ...

... that Armstrong was standing 30 cm higher than Aldrin ...

Shown not to be the case!

... everything in the photo seems to line up.

Well that's that little anomaly explained away then, I suppose!

Can you say where it doesn't specifically?

Have you studies Groves' analysis?

I'm beginning to think your avatar image is actually no avatar!

 

[technoextreme]

Does this count as an appeal to authority Thabiguy, although the electromagnetics slant might just get techno off the hook what?! Hardly a profound statement, though, which I'm sure we all agree with.

No it's just laziness. Quite honestly I had no desire to show why the solution to a square route is - and not +. And it's quite profound. YOU CAN"T INFER ANY INFORMATION FROM PICTURES ALONE. You can get a mathematical solution but in the end you can't infer anything.

 

[twinstead]

No it's just laziness. And it's quite profound. YOU CAN"T INFER ANY INFORMATION FROM PICTURES ALONE.

This is important. To the eyes of a rational person, southwind is ignoring a HUGE amount of corroborating evidence and the opinion of countless experts in space-related fields based on some dubious photo analysis.

Is this some kind of way to rationalize and hand wave away one of the most documented events in world history? Will photographic evidence of Apollo by other landings and orbiters by Japan, China, India, the US, Russia, whoever, be declared as fake too?

How much evidence does one need to prove something?

 

[technoextreme]

This is important. To the eyes of a rational person, southwind is ignoring a HUGE amount of corroborating evidence and the opinion of countless experts in space-related fields based on some dubious photo analysis.

Is this some kind of way to rationalize and hand wave away one of the most documented events in world history? Will photographic evidence of Apollo by other landings and orbiters by Japan, China, India, the US, Russia, whoever, be declared as fake too?

How much evidence does one need to prove something?

Ehhh.. Im trying to think of a way to show him optics/electromagnetics can be very confusing. The problem is that I need access to a pool of water, a penny, and a camera.

 

[Belz...]

How much evidence does one need to prove something?

Southwind said it himself. It has to be "satisfactory".

 

[Southwind17]

How much evidence does one need to prove something?

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[e^n]

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

Forgive me if this has been asked, but it would seem that you are reliant on a relatively poor source of evidence when there seems to be much stronger and more reliable evidence available. What exactly would change your mind about this topic?

 

[Disbelief]

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

So, like I said earlier (and others have noted) you have a preponderence of evidence that you disregard because of something you can't satisfactorily explain in one photograph. That is not beyond reasonable doubt?

 

[Furi]

Oh we are all done in this thread, all REASONABLE doubt has been answered, tiem for fluffeh k1ttunz

 

[CurtC]

Have you noticed that Aldrin's left leg outer is essentially straight, but the the shadow is curved? There's a clue!

It's a clue to the slope of the ground next to Aldrin, but provides no info about the ground between there and Armstrong.

Still missing the point! This explanation relies on the assumption that the camera is chest mounted. Groves' analysis shows that it could not be.

Now why didn't Groves think of this, and save all the time and effort to calculate the height of the camera, incidentally at mugh greater than 30cm!

If he didn't think of it, then he has no business doing photogrammetry. He's getting into fine details of angles to the ten-thousandths of a degree of precision, but fails to recognize simple geometry?

He's apparently an educated idiot.

Here's the deal: the cameras were mounted high on the chest, somewhat above the nipple-line. You can see in that photo that the camera level on Armstrong's chest was at the same height as eye-level on Aldrin, based on the Moon's horizon. The distance from a man's eyes to a point somewhat above his nipples is around 30 cm.

No fancy shadow interpretation required.

 

[uruk]

The contradictory evidence that casts most of the doubt in my mind pertains to anomalous lunar surface photographic records and certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe.

So far the photographic anomolies appear to be due to the observers's lack of understanding or ignorance of all the conditions in the photographs. For instance. no one in the video you posted seem to have noticed where the shadows were on Aldrin. If you looked close you would notice the shadows were on top of his helmet and shoulder and the lower sides of the wrinkels are illuminated, the top sides are in shadow. That would mean the the illumination was coming from below or the surface of the Moon. Oddly the "physicists" claimed that it was impossible. Well if Aldrin is standing on the surface of the Moon how could there be an artificial light source set below him?
Check out the picture and see for your self. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

One of Aldrin's first tasks is to test out different methonds of locomotion on the 1/6th gravity of the Moon. If you look at the video and film from the acent stage cabin you will notice Aldrin moving back and forth trying out different ways of walking on the moon. if you read his debrifing, he states that the best way to move around on the moon was by taking short loping hops known afterward as the "lunar lope"

There as some aspects governing man's ability actually to get to the Moon in the first place that I'm skeptical of, but I haven't considered them as much as the other issues above.

Well if you accept that we can send probes and successfully land them accurately on the moon, why would it be different for a manned craft? What would the differences be other than the life support systems and the g-forces?

 

[technoextreme]

So far the photographic anomolies appear

That's it. Im going to show that it's possible to take a camera point it at a penny in water and not have the penny who up in the picture. There is no way to prove that I am not lying.

 

[uruk]

Still missing the point! This explanation relies on the assumption that the camera is chest mounted. Groves' analysis shows that it could not be.

I do not think that Groves is correct in this case. According to the diagram in the video he shows the camera at a particular angle and he does not show any information as to how he arrives at that angle. Is he assuming it?

He bases this on the fact the the center reticle is positioned down toward Aldrin's leg. There are many heights and angles at which you could hold the camera and still have the center reticle aimed at Aldrin's leg.

 

[Southwind17]

Ehhh.. Im trying to think of a way to show him optics/electromagnetics can be very confusing. The problem is that I need access to a pool of water, a penny, and a camera.

Only one of which, allegedly, was present on the Moon!