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

[SpitfireIX]

No thanks for your biased opinion:


On what basis, exactly, do you draw this conclusion?

I'll second that conclusion, based merely on your apparent lack of understanding of "temperature gradient."

 

[Southwind17]

Your vague explanation of "temperature gradient" aside, you didn't answer the second part of my question: how does this relate to a potential moon hoax?

What's 'vague' about what I've just written? Would you like for me to clarify any of it?

 

[volatile]

Let's take Blair Witch Project as an example.

They filmed in pre-extant landscapes, with the three actors shooting nearly all the footage themselves. Even without set construction, there are nearly one hundred people on the crew of that film... your Apollo hoaxers wouldn't need marketing or music, but I think it's a fair estimation that the number of people involved in building the expansive lunar set would balance out, at least, the number of people listed in the Blair Witch credits as marketers and music makers. Bear in mind, Blair Witch also didn't have special effects, as such, nor lighting, nor the expansive props used in the Appollo hoax (see: lunar lander, space suits etc.)...

So, to make a comparable film, with 40 years of improved technology, requires at least, let's generously say, 70 people, not counting location staff such as caterers nor truck drivers etc. delivering bits for the set.

Why have none of those 70 we can safely assume were involve in this hoax, nor their relatives or associates, spoken out?

 

[Mashuna]

I'm referring to the extreme difference in temperature of an object exposed to and heated by direct sunlight and an object, or the same object, shaded from direct sunlight.

What's 'vague' about what I've just written? Would you like for me to clarify any of it?

If you could clarify how your description of temperature gradient implies a moon hoax, (feel free to show any workings), that would be great.

 

[SpitfireIX]

What's 'vague' about what I've just written? Would you like for me to clarify any of it?

Perhaps the word I was actually after was "inaccurate." I initially assumed that you were trying to refer to the difference in temperature across an object on the surface of the moon from its sunlit side to its shaded side; however, upon rereading, that doesn't seem to be what you meant at all.


From the American Heritage Science Dictionary:

Temperature Gradient

The rate of change of temperature with displacement in a given direction from a given reference point.

What you actually wrote has nothing to do with temperature gradients; a better term for what you are trying to express might be "temperature extremes."

 

[WildCat]

http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_gallery.html

My favorite site for Apollo images, high-res. Takes a lot of the wind from the sails of the hoax believers.

 

[Shrinker]

Me insane?! Think about what you just wrote:

Putting aside 'set design/construction' for a moment (i.e. a baron landscape resembling the lunar surface illuminated 'at night' with a single, intensive raw light source!), how many hundreds of gaffers, grips, post-production assistants, camera men, sound designers, sound recordists, lighting technicians, editors, roboteers, special effects designers etc. recorded, edited and produced the actual footage that you claim was broadcast from the lunar surface?

I don't think any credits rolled when the broadcast of the first Apollo lunar landings ended, but if they had, the totality of the 'team' that you list out above would have been, I guess(!), somewhere in the order of, er, two?!

What's the rationale for thinking the photos are fake again? Oh yes thats it... they supposedly look like the work of more than just the two astronauts. Professional lighting, expert framing... Funny how quickly you forget your own argument...

 

[sts60]

(Re: "temperature gradients")

I'm referring to the extreme difference in temperature of an object exposed to and heated by direct sunlight and an object, or the same object, shaded from direct sunlight.

Thermal control of spacecraft is a fascinating subject. For instance, thermal control of the ALSEP systems. In addition to the ALSEP Flight System Familiarization Manual, revision B to which I previously referred you, you may also be interested in ALSEP Central Station Thermal Design which discusses exactly such issues.

You've indicated you believe the ALSEP program was a hoax (or at least may have been a hoax). I'm still interested in discussing this opinion in detail, following up my remarks in posts 85, 192, 285, and 291.

 

[sts60]

By the way, does anyone see my posts? At all? I'm wondering if I "cloaked" without realizing it...

 

[volatile]

By the way, does anyone see my posts? At all? I'm wondering if I "cloaked" without realizing it...

It's not possible to cloak your own posts... why would such a "feature" even exist?

 

[Vincent Vega]

I suggest you watch the entire box set...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000A0GYD2/ref=s9_asin_title_2?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0RSH1G2Z8QE99HYG5NPT&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=278240701&pf_rd_i=507846

It would be worth the time and money.

 

[WildCat]

By the way, does anyone see my posts? At all? I'm wondering if I "cloaked" without realizing it...

All posts containing facts and evidence are automatically made invisible by the woo filter all conspiracy theorists, paranormal researchers, bigfoot hunters, ET abductees, etc. use on the internet.

 

[sts60]

It's not possible to cloak your own posts... why would such a "feature" even exist?

Well, I was being facetious. I didn't seem to be getting any response from Southwind17; it's been a couple of days and dozens of posts from him since the last time he replied to any of my ALSEP remarks in posts 85, 192, 285, and 291.. Since he has engaged repeatedly with Corsair 115 and Von Neumann regarding ALSEP, I thought he would like to discuss it in more detail and back up his apparent opinion that ALSEP was (or may have been) faked.

I dunno; maybe he's busy reading some of the references I gave him, or looking at ALSEP data online, or hasn't noticed my posts, or maybe I've offended him?

 

[Hellbound]

Delete-double.

 

[Hellbound]

Consequently, it does not 'only negatively question a portion of the affirmative evidence', as you erroneously believe, it offers an alternative explanation.

No.

No, it does not.

It does not offer an alternative explanation that fits with the totality of the evidence. It offers an ad hoc explanation to explain a few possible anomolies. Your alternative explanation has a few relevent data points and 99%+ anomolies. The current explanation has 99%+ relevent data and less than 1% anamolous data.

You're focus on this one photograph, and your insistence that Corsair should commit to basing the entirety of her belief on nothng but the ALSEP info is simply another exampel of your myopathy on this subject. The evidence cannot be considered individually, only in toto. Your tactic of taking a single photogrpah, and ignoring the thousands of other photographs, the hours and hours of video, the radiometry and telemtry data, the tracking by external sources, the avaialability of technology, the actual technical capabilities of the equipment, phsyical material returned from the surface, the documentation, the testimony of the hundreds involved with the project, and numerous other bits of data, both circumstancial and physical, shows nothing more than your desire to try and hand-wave away the entire thing.

Your alternative explanation explains anomolies in a single photograph; by doing so it introduces anomolies that have to be explained in every other piece of evidence. How were they faked convincingly? Who was involved? Why? Which sounds more reasonable to you, a single anomolous picture in thousands, or thousands of anomlous pictures and one "correct"?

The only way your theory supports itself is by assuming it was a hoax, and using that assumption to prove it was a hoax. It's a classic circular argument...there's no proof for hoax unless you assume hoax to begin with.

And you still have not yet posted even the relevent portions of the supposed analysis of the photo, so that's pretty much the definition of argument from authority. The analysis is in a non-peer reviewed source, done by a person that is not particularly known or regarded in the field, and there are no rationales or explanations for the choice of method, no comparisons to similar methods producing accurate results, etc. I'm not going to purchase the book to see the argument...you can post the relevent portions without violating copyright (covered by fair use in regards to critique). Until you have something to back this up, you're arguing circular logic using appeal to ignorance and appeal to authority to support it, and ad hoc reasoning to explain away the literally thousands of data points that contradict your "theory".

 

[PetersCreek]

Well, I was being facetious. I didn't seem to be getting any response from Southwind17; it's been a couple of days and dozens of posts from him since the last time he replied to any of my ALSEP remarks in posts.

I'm getting the same feeling.

Southwind, in addition to sts60's questions, I have some pending with you, in posts #245 & #292. Are these in your "queue"?

 

[Belz...]

You seem completely incapable of answering very simple, unambiguous questions Corsair. I asked for a one-word answer; you gave me 105 words! Don't get me wrong, I can see the word 'YES' in your response, but it's the other 104 words (well, most of them) that concern me, as they introduce a complete myriad of additional evidence.

The answer to your question is yes, Wind. What Corsair is saying is that there are many, many other pieces of evidence for which the answer would ALSO be yes. Add those up together, and you've got an airtight case.

If you answer 'yes' again and add other words that introduce additional evidence I'll take that to mean 'no', and this particular debate, so far as I'm concerned, will be over.

You're funny, Wind. Why don't you take a qualified yes as an answer, I wonder ?

I'll also interpret it as evidence of a severe lack of comprehension on your part

which will serve to negate in my mind any views that you might have regarding the significance of ALSEP and all the other information regarding the Apollo program, and it will, consequently, be futile debating with you any further.

That's one of the most transparent cop-outs I've seen in a long time.

You just don't get it do you, I am re-presenting some of the evidence that has been publicized before; evidence that I don't believe has been satisfactorily debunked. I've admitted earlier that the burden of proof is on me. You really should pay attention Corsair!

I must've missed it. Which evidence are we talking about ? I don't remember you providing an analysis of that picture other than "how the hell could this be!! ?? 11"

 

[Belz...]

Sure is. We can land men on the moon and get them back to Earth (and it took how long to do it?), but over the same period we're incapable of faking a lunar surface on Earth. Yup, that sure reconciles!

Argument from incredulity. Name one mile-long studio that can simulate 1/6th gravity and lack of an atmosphere.

... or 'on location' elsewhere!

Where exactly, on Earth, do you find a place with no atmosphere ?

 

[rwguinn]

What's the rationale for thinking the photos are fake again? Oh yes thats it... they supposedly look like the work of more than just the two astronauts. Professional lighting, expert framing... Funny how quickly you forget your own argument...

I put myself through my Senior year of Engineering school with a camera. One of the things I loved doing was concerts, becuse of the lighting.
See-the subject was put in bright light--either a single spot, or a multitude thereof. The surroundings were unlighted. The reflections off the floor filled in the shadows cast by the overhead spots. Under those conditions, anybody could get professional results, including the ijits using Instamatics--without a flash. And they were self framing. Put the bright stuff in the middle of the viewfinder, or just point it at the stage...
And our faviorite demonstrator of extreme ignorance forgets: Space has no temperature.
Spacecraft in orbit, or on thir way to the moon, or relay stations sitting on the moon have the same problem: The sunlight side is absorbing energy, the dark side shedding it. Temperature extremes are on of the thing we have to deal with, everywhere. The advantage the moon has is that a rock absorbs energy on the sunlight side, and emits it on all sides--it gets warmer all over--not just one side.
The moon is a big heat sink...

 

[Belz...]

Would this include bunny hopping, and the like, by any chance?!

Yes, exactly. Moving in a vaccum does not slow down your movements. But, hey! I'll bite. Exactly HOW WOULD IT slow down your movements ?

Me insane?! Think about what you just wrote:

Putting aside 'set design/construction' for a moment (i.e. a baron landscape resembling the lunar surface illuminated 'at night' with a single, intensive raw light source!), how many hundreds of gaffers, grips, post-production assistants, camera men, sound designers, sound recordists, lighting technicians, editors, roboteers, special effects designers etc. recorded, edited and produced the actual footage that you claim was broadcast from the lunar surface?

They didn't have to build a soundstage on the moon, Wind.