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

[Southwind17]

OK, let me reword it to better reflect the emotion I was (apparently poorly) attempting to convey - "Well DUH! He was standing on higher ground!'

Oh good, that clears that up then (another simplistic assumption with absolutely no scientific basis!)

Why do you need someone to concoct an unnecessarily complex explanation for something which is easily explicable. You think that the complexity of a explanation has some direct relevance to it's veracity?

And you think that because something has a plausible, simplistic, possible explanation that that's good grounds for stating that possible explanation as fact? And if it's shown to be wrong you just move along to the next plausible, simplistic, possible explanation and offer that as fact. Yes, that's a rational, scientific approach all right!

Let's try a little thought experiment - my car keys went missing yesterday. I eventually found them down the back of the sofa. Consider the two following possible explanations...

1. An invisible bigfoot took them out of my pocket and borrowed my car. To cover up the fact that he'd borrowed it he filled it with petrol, wound the clock back to the milage that it showed when he borrowed it and left it on the drive. However, because I was wearing my coat at the time, he couldn't replace the keys so he put them down the back of the sofa, assuming that I'd think I dropped them there.

or...

2. I accidentally dropped them down the back of the sofa.

Invoking occam's razor, I would opt for explanation 2 - it explains the observed sequence of events without having to invent complicating factors. In the case of the Apollo photos, the 'moon hoax' is the 'invisible bigfoot' in the explanation:- it is prefectly possible to account for every observed feature of the photographs without having to invent an implausible series of events.

Do you realize how stupid this makes you appear? Oh yes, we all fall for that one don't we, jumping to the 'invisible bigfoot' conclusion when we lose our car keys instead of assuming the obvious! Oh yes, that's a fair analogy!

The main assumption is that the observable laws of physics and how they relate to the reflection of light is the same on the moon as on the earth.

And what a covenient assumption that is! One that we, except you, it seems, already know to be both factually wrong and highly significant!

So more detailed = less relevant?? I thought simple = less relevant???

You don't follow do you. The more detailed one looks at an explanation the less relevant each individual detail becomes in discrediting that explanation in its broadest sense, generally speaking. If, for example, as part of the apparent anomaly regarding the Buzz Aldrin photo the sceptic was, as part of his explanation, to assert that the angle of the horizon was, say, 10 degrees above the true horizontal plane, and you could show that it was actually 11 degrees, that's a whole different ball game from the sceptic showing that there wasn't even an incline for Armstrong to climb up! That's just a hypothetical example. I'm not asserting any of it as fact.

So, if there are a 'whole host' of simple explanations, why do the hoax theory proponents need to opt for the most convoluted and least likely ones?

Perhaps it's because something seemingly anomalous about the photos alerted them to a particular line of enquiry that could be investigated scientifically. Where would we be, I wonder, if the standard MO of forensic investigators was always to assume a simplistic explanation as fact unless proven otherwise? And why, incidentally, is 'convoluted' less likely?

Yes, but an assumption which neatly accounts for the observed properties of the photograph. Which do you think more likely - Aldrin was standing on an incline when he took the picture or the NASA hoaxers didn't realise they were standing on a step-ladder when they took the picture?

Yes, 'neatly' being the operative word. Do you realize you could have chosen 'conveniently', and still conveyed the same meaning! I wouldn't like to place odds on either of these scenarios, but I'd confidently rule out the step-ladder possibility, given that a hand-held camera at eye level would probably derive the result that we see in the photo! It seems highly likely to me that if the photo is fabricated the photographer didn't realize the implications of his viewing angle compared to that of a chest-mounted camera!

Your equation of simplicity with shallowness is a logical fallacy.

Well aren't you the very scholar. You think the mere 'possibility' of Armstrong's standing on an incline consitutes a deep and thorough analysis?!

You're right - there isn't one indisputable piece of evidence - there are hundreds. They have been examined in detail by scientists all over the world. They are called 'moon rocks'.

So-called 'moon rocks' on Earth prove that man walked on the moon? Yeah, right. I have a Mars rock right in my study here. Would you like for me to send it to you for analysis, and if it's shown to be not of this Earth you'll accept that I've walked on Mars?

Yes, there is - it is called The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment

Again, the placement of this equipment on the Moon proves that man has walked on the moon does it?!

Who said that it was the main source of evidence? Not I.

Well what else did you offer in your post #87, other than the links to the laughable 'thoroughly debunking' websites?!

 

[Thabiguy]

I will now quickly address the silly claims that there's anything "anomalous" about the picture of Buzz Aldrin.

First of all, I'll remark that due to the weight of the life support system, the astronauts were noticeably leaning forward when standing. This needs to be kept in mind when considering an impression that a photograph gives.

Now, can we determine from the picture more about the circumstances of its exposure? Sure, and it is rather simple. We know that on a photograph, the horizon will intersect objects at the level of the camera lens. Therefore, when we look at the picture, we can instantly tell that when it was taken, the camera was (roughly) at the level of Aldrin's eyes, or about a foot higher than it "should be".

How could this be? Two obvious explanations come to mind: Armstrong had the camera chest-mounted, but was standing about a foot higher than Aldrin; or, Armstrong was not standing higher than Aldrin, but for some reason held the camera at his eye level.

Can we tell, just by looking at the picture, what the actual case is? Sure we can, simply by looking closer at the reflection in Aldrin's visor (reoriented color-corrected closeup). We know that the horizon will intersect Armstrong's picture at the level of camera lens, and we see that the horizon intersects Armstrong's chest, not his head. Therefore, we can conclude that the camera was in fact chest-mounted, and Armstrong, for some reason, stood about a foot higher than Aldrin.

Is there anything anomalous about Armstrong standing about a foot above Aldrin? The pictures clearly show that the ground is quite uneven, and it is obvious that for Armstrong and Aldrin to stand at exactly the same level would be an incredible coincidence. Some difference in terrain height would be expected. Is the actual height difference observed in the picture - about one foot - in any way unusual or anomalous? No, nothing in the pictures indicates that height difference of that magnitude would be unusual or anomalous in any way.

And as for the argument, "But the picture could have been manipulated, the reflection in Aldrin's visor could have been altered", all I can say is: yes, if you assume that the picture is faked, then you can conclude that the picture is faked. That doesn't tell us much, though.

 

[Corsair 115]

Did you see the film Capricorn I? It's about the faking of a moon landing via the use of special effects. It was produced around 1975 or there abouts.

Actually, the film was about a faked landing on Mars (using a lander which looked almost identical to the lunar lander strangely enough). It was released in 1978. The IMDB page for the movie can be found here.

Astronauts take photos all the time.

Indeed. Apogee Books has a whole series of books on the Apollo landings, and many of them come with a CD that includes the photos taken on the mission.

The CD included with the book on Apollo 17 (Apollo 17: The NASA Mission Reports) contains all 11 hours of television footage taken from the lunar surface. The number of photos included is about 2,500 if I recall correctly. The books also include materials from many technical documents, mission training guides, transcripts of the astronaut post-mission debriefings, and much more.

 

[Radrook]

Actually, the film was about a faked landing on Mars (using a lander which looked almost identical to the lunar lander strangely enough). It was released in 1978. The IMDB page for the movie can be found here.


Thanks for setting that straight. Maybe it was the Lunar Lander similarity you mention which messed up my memory. LOL In any case, the scenario is identical to the faked Lunar landing ideas except for the presumed location. The film did make me wonder though. Of course at that time going to the moon was a very extravagant thing. But the logic went that if you could fake a Mars landing then faking a moon landing would be also possible.

But as was mentioned previously, if indeed the landing had been faked then the Soviet Union, our competitors, would have been the first to challenge the claim. Yet we have not even a peep from them in this matter--as far as I know. Then again someone might claim that the Russians cooperated with NASA in the cover-up. But anyone claiming such a thing would have to provide us with the motive for the Russians doing this and I see no believable motive that could be offered.

I surmise, however, that those who claim that we were warned by aliens not to go back to the moon would say that this would get the Russians to provide cooperation. But following this train of thought is really beyond the purpose of this thread and goes into another area altogether. I personally prefer to simply accept the moon-landing as fact though I do respect anyone else's opinion to the contrary.

 

[Southwind17]

I will now quickly address the silly claims that there's anything "anomalous" about the picture of Buzz Aldrin.

First of all, I'll remark that due to the weight of the life support system, the astronauts were noticeably leaning forward when standing. This needs to be kept in mind when considering an impression that a photograph gives.

Now, can we determine from the picture more about the circumstances of its exposure? Sure, and it is rather simple. We know that on a photograph, the horizon will intersect objects at the level of the camera lens. Therefore, when we look at the picture, we can instantly tell that when it was taken, the camera was (roughly) at the level of Aldrin's eyes, or about a foot higher than it "should be".

How could this be? Two obvious explanations come to mind: Armstrong had the camera chest-mounted, but was standing about a foot higher than Aldrin; or, Armstrong was not standing higher than Aldrin, but for some reason held the camera at his eye level.

Can we tell, just by looking at the picture, what the actual case is? Sure we can, simply by looking closer at the reflection in Aldrin's visor (reoriented color-corrected closeup). We know that the horizon will intersect Armstrong's picture at the level of camera lens, and we see that the horizon intersects Armstrong's chest, not his head. Therefore, we can conclude that the camera was in fact chest-mounted, and Armstrong, for some reason, stood about a foot higher than Aldrin.

Is there anything anomalous about Armstrong standing about a foot above Aldrin? The pictures clearly show that the ground is quite uneven, and it is obvious that for Armstrong and Aldrin to stand at exactly the same level would be an incredible coincidence. Some difference in terrain height would be expected. Is the actual height difference observed in the picture - about one foot - in any way unusual or anomalous? No, nothing in the pictures indicates that height difference of that magnitude would be unusual or anomalous in any way.

And as for the argument, "But the picture could have been manipulated, the reflection in Aldrin's visor could have been altered", all I can say is: yes, if you assume that the picture is faked, then you can conclude that the picture is faked. That doesn't tell us much, though.

Ordinarily I'd agree that your assessment of the circumstances governing the characteristics of the photo seems to be sound, and could well explain what we see in the photo. If you've read Dark Moon, however, (and, no disrespect, but I suspect not, given your seeming predisposition to discount flatly any and all CTs regarding the Apollo missions), you'll be aware that there's a three page detailed study and analysis of the photo in the appendix. The study and analysis was carried out by a Dr David Groves, who is a Chartered Physicist, a member of the Institute of Physics, has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and a PhD in holographic computer measurement. By mathematical analysis and calculation he puts the difference in height between the standing positions of the two astronauts at no more than 10cm, which does not account for the height of the centre of the camera's imaging plane, calculated as being at eye level.

Now, with respect, given the choice between one possible explanation derived from supposition by a lay-person (I assume that's essentially correct, and hope, therefore, that you don't mind be calling you that) applying absolutely no scientific methodology as such and having a seeming predisposition to refute any allegations of foul play, and a scientific and mathematical analysis by an eminent person within the relevant field of study, who, incidentally, initially thought that the people presenting the images to him for analysis simply misunderstood the nature of images and was, therefore, highly sceptical about the allegations(!), which do you honestly feel I should go with? Dr David Groves, incidentally, concluded that the images, including the Buzz Aldrin photo, are:

"... full of contradictions and inconsistencies".

 

[Thabiguy]

Ordinarily I'd agree that your assessment of the circumstances governing the characteristics of the photo seems to be sound, and could well explain what we see in the photo. If you've read Dark Moon, however, (and, no disrespect, but I suspect not, given your seeming predisposition to discount flatly any and all CTs regarding the Apollo missions), you'll be aware that there's a three page detailed study and analysis of the photo in the appendix. The study and analysis was carried out by a Dr David Groves, who is a Chartered Physicist, a member of the Institute of Physics, has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and a PhD in holographic computer measurement.

I have not read that book; it is not available in the local library. The logical fallacy that you are committing here is called appeal to authority. Claims are supported by strength of arguments, not by merits of the person making the claim.

By mathematical analysis and calculation he puts the difference in height between the standing positions of the two astronauts at no more than 10cm, which does not account for the height of the centre of the camera's imaging plane, calculated as being at eye level.

I have not seen this "mathematical analysis and calculation". I have seen a YouTube clip featuring David Groves, where he says, I quote, "The variation in height of the surface between the astronauts is typically a few inches" - without presenting any argument to support this claim, other than "we can calculate it". Because there is compelling photographic evidence that the variation in terrain height is significantly more than that, I challenge this claim as false and unsupported. Is the argument presented in the book, so that it can be followed and verified? If so, I invite anyone to present it here. Without presenting valid argumentation supporting it, the claim by David Groves is baseless.

Now, with respect, given the choice between one possible explanation derived from supposition by a lay-person (I assume that's essentially correct, and hope, therefore, that you don't mind be calling you that) applying absolutely no scientific methodology as such and having a seeming predisposition to refute any allegations of foul play, and a scientific and mathematical analysis by an eminent person within the relevant field of study, who, incidentally, initially thought that the people presenting the images to him for analysis simply misunderstood the nature of images and was, therefore, highly sceptical about the allegations(!), which do you honestly feel I should go with?

With respect, my earlier posts aren't addressed to you. I wrote them for the benefit of readers capable of critical thinking, and I wrote them because I believe that this is an opportunity for all of us to learn something here. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. I neither intend nor expect to convince you, and I have no interest in what you choose to believe.

Unlike people citing David Groves, I ask absolutely no-one to have any faith whatsoever in my education. I address the silly claims with straightforward arguments, presented clearly for everyone to consider by their strength alone. No reliance on my personal qualifications is needed.

Dr David Groves, incidentally, concluded that the images, including the Buzz Aldrin photo, are: "... full of contradictions and inconsistencies".

As no contradictions and inconsistencies have been shown, that claim is baseless.

I will now point out that the photographs clearly show that the terrain height varies all over the place. The "famous" photograph of Buzz Aldrin is not an exceptional photograph; due to uneven terrain, the horizon intersects images of objects at a wide range of heights:

Horizon intersecting Aldrin:
Very low, Low, Medium, High, Very high.
(Note that the difference in relative camera height between the first and last picture is perhaps 3 times greater than the "unexplainable" height difference in the famous picture of Aldrin, clearly indicating that it is not an unusual quirk, but indeed a consistent feature of the photographs. With the silly assumption that the ground was level, the photographer would have to kneel down for the first photograph, and actually hold the camera above their head for the last.)

Horizon intersecting US flag:
Low, Medium, High.

Changes in terrain height over distances:
Compare Aldrin 1 with Aldrin 2, or Eagle 1 with Eagle 2.

Finally, I will point out not an indirect, but direct photographic evidence that the ground near the Eagle module was sloped, invalidating David Groves' unsupported claims.

In this picture, Buzz Aldrin is standing next to the US flag. We see that the top of Aldrin's spacesuit reaches slightly over the half of the blue rectangle in the flag. In this picture, which is a rare shot of Armstrong, not Aldrin, the horizon intersects the flag at more or less the same level as the top of Aldrin's spacesuit in the previous picture - but it goes some 2 feet above the top of Armstrong's spacesuit. This directly shows that the ground next to the module is about 2 feet below the ground next to the flag, which conclusively demonstrates a downward slope in the general direction of the sun. (Also, if you look at the latter picture, you'll note that the silly conspiracy theorists would have to claim that the photographer held the camera on a 2-feet pole above his head.)

 

[R.Mackey]

If you've read Dark Moon, however, (and, no disrespect, but I suspect not, given your seeming predisposition to discount flatly any and all CTs regarding the Apollo missions), you'll be aware that there's a three page detailed study and analysis of the photo in the appendix. The study and analysis was carried out by a Dr David Groves, who is a Chartered Physicist, a member of the Institute of Physics, has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and a PhD in holographic computer measurement. By mathematical analysis and calculation he puts the difference in height between the standing positions of the two astronauts at no more than 10cm, which does not account for the height of the centre of the camera's imaging plane, calculated as being at eye level.

Ooh! A three-page detailed study, you say? Three whole pages? And in the appendix of a book, rather than in a scientific journal?

And you dare to stack this up against tens of thousands of images, video including live video from the landings themselves, hundreds of pounds of recovered material, tens of thousands of scientists and engineers, hundreds of thousands who witnessed the launches, remaining hardware in museums, remaining blueprints (some of which are even now being modified for future use as part of Project Constellation), robotic exploration beforehand, follow-up robotic exploration by the Soviets, radar tracking data, radio communication and ranging...

Something tells me you're a wee bit biased.

Now, with respect, given the choice between one possible explanation derived from supposition by a lay-person (I assume that's essentially correct, and hope, therefore, that you don't mind be calling you that) applying absolutely no scientific methodology as such and having a seeming predisposition to refute any allegations of foul play, and a scientific and mathematical analysis by an eminent person within the relevant field of study, who, incidentally, initially thought that the people presenting the images to him for analysis simply misunderstood the nature of images and was, therefore, highly sceptical about the allegations(!), which do you honestly feel I should go with?

Well-poisoning. Those who made the Moon Landings possible are not "lay-persons." You're simply ignoring them.

I'll give you an example. The Apollo mapping camera imagery of the Lunar surface, particularly portions of the back side of the moon, are still the best mapping data we have for many regions of interest. To this date. However, some of it can only be corroborated with later data, such as that from Clementine -- and it does. JAXA has a mission there now. The Chinese will be there soon. No hoax would last for long.

Were there people on board? Of course there were. Apollo 13 would have been unrecoverable if there had not. None of the LM landers would have functioned without a pilot. QED.

This is just the barest beginning. And against this, you have some yahoo who thinks a single image looks slightly wrong, appearing in a book designed to extract profits from other conspiracy believers, where I'm sure it received all the critical and scientific verification it deserved. Well, color me unimpressed.

And please take your off-topic nonsense elsewhere. I won't ask again. This is a derail, and it's contrary to your Membership Agreement.

 

[Belz...]

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon

I believe that this is what people mean when they say "you just went down a notch."

Sheesh. Feel free to join reality, any time.

ETA: Sorry, Mack. Didn't see your request to move this to CT.

 

[Radrook]

So-called 'moon rocks' on Earth prove that man walked on the moon? Yeah, right. I have a Mars rock right in my study here. Would you like for me to send it to you for analysis, and if it's shown to be not of this Earth you'll accept that I've walked on Mars?....

Again, the placement of this equipment on the Moon proves that man has walked on the moon does it?!....

This is just to say that I understand your argument and agree that those things alone do not prove a manned moon landing. But if there is a conspiracy to deceive, how do you explain the Soviet Union's silence? Are we to believe that the Soviet Union is in on this proposed cover-up? If so--why? What explanation is given about this silence by those who believe that we never landed on the moon?

 

[Southwind17]

I have not read that book; it is not available in the local library.

Say what? If the local library don't have it then what the hell, that's good enough reason to ignore it!

The logical fallacy that you are committing here is called appeal to authority. Claims are supported by strength of arguments, not by merits of the person making the claim.

I absolutely knew you, or somebody, would come back with this old chestnut. You just couldn't resist unleashing it at the first opportunity could you? There should be a categorized fallacy for the fallacious use of any of the many other categorizations of fallacy that many 'scholarly' people on this Forum so hastily deploy in their defence, or as a counter argument. Perhaps there already is. If not, maybe we could call it: 'The Fallacy of Fallacious accusation of Fallacy', or 'Triple-F' for short! Well big guy, I think you'll find, if you care to think about it 'critically' for a second, that my quoting David Groves' eminence, backed by his relevant qualifications, is secondary to the main basis of my argument, being the scientific, mathematical study and analysis that he conducted and that is presented in Dark Moon; the book that you haven't taken the time to consider because 'it's not available in your local library'! The primary basis of my argument is the said scientific, mathematical study and analysis that you've never even set eyes on. In other words, to paraphrase you from above, David Groves' strongly supported argument.!

I have not seen this "mathematical analysis and calculation".

Evidently, and how unfortunate!

I have seen a YouTube clip featuring David Groves, where he says, I quote, "The variation in height of the surface between the astronauts is typically a few inches" - without presenting any argument to support this claim, other than "we can calculate it".

That wouldn't fall into the 'Reliance on YouTube Clip' fallacy category by any chance, would it?! I think Groves might just possibly be alluding to the said scientific, mathematical study and analysis to which I refer above, when he says: "we can calculate it"!

Because there is compelling photographic evidence that the variation in terrain height is significantly more than that, I challenge this claim as false and unsupported.

I'd be inclined to hold my tongue, if I were you, before claiming something to be 'unsupported' after I've already been informed that an authoritative study and analysis exists. Moreover, I'd also be inclined to hold my tongue, if I were you, before claiming something to be false when I already know that an authoritative study and analysis exists that convincingly demonstrates otherwise, especially if I've never even read the study and analysis!

Notwithstanding the existence of an authoritative scientific, mathematical study and analysis contradicting your opinion, on what basis have you actually determined the photographic 'evidence' to be 'compelling' as regards the 'significantly' higher terrain? Have you, by any chance, gone beyond simply 'looking' at the photo?!

Is the argument presented in the book, so that it can be followed and verified?

Absolutely.

If so, I invite anyone to present it here. Without presenting valid argumentation supporting it, the claim by David Groves is baseless.

I'll do that tomorrow, unless somebody beats me to it. (Does anybody know if I'm allowed to scan and post an extract from a copyrighted book?)

With respect, my earlier posts aren't addressed to you.

With respect, this is an open forum!

I wrote them for the benefit of readers capable of critical thinking ...

Why thank you kind sir.

... and I wrote them because I believe that this is an opportunity for all of us to learn something here. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

That's admirable. I hope you'll enjoy reading the study and analysis.

I neither intend nor expect to convince you ...

That's understandable, given the basis of your argument!

... and I have no interest in what you choose to believe.

I'm sorry?:

I believe that this is an opportunity for all of us to learn something here.

Unlike people citing David Groves, I ask absolutely no-one to have any faith whatsoever in my education.

Who's seeking 'faith' from others in their 'education'?!

I address the silly claims with straightforward arguments, presented clearly for everyone to consider by their strength alone.

How, exactly, have you determined Groves' claims to be 'silly'? What, exactly, does your 'argument' comprise?

No reliance on my personal qualifications is needed.

Do you have any qualifications relevant to the subject matter?

As no contradictions and inconsistencies have been shown, that claim is baseless.

The authoritative scientific, mathematical study and analysis excepted?

I will now point out that the photographs clearly show that the terrain height varies all over the place.

You don't need to; it's evident from the Buzz Aldrin photo itself. The pertinent question is: By how much between where the two astronauts were allegedly standing?

Finally, I will point out not an indirect, but direct photographic evidence that the ground near the Eagle module was sloped, invalidating David Groves' unsupported claims.

Completely erroneous. Again, the pertinent question is: By how much between where the two astronauts were allegedly standing?

You might feel that I'm being unduly mean to you, but if you're being honest when you say:

I believe that this is an opportunity for all of us to learn something here.

I sincerely hope you will understand and appreciate my comments, even if only in the context of how to present a solid argument.

 

[Southwind17]

Ooh! A three-page detailed study, you say? Three whole pages? And in the appendix of a book, rather than in a scientific journal?

And you dare to stack this up against tens of thousands of images, video including live video from the landings themselves, hundreds of pounds of recovered material, tens of thousands of scientists and engineers, hundreds of thousands who witnessed the launches, remaining hardware in museums, remaining blueprints (some of which are even now being modified for future use as part of Project Constellation), robotic exploration beforehand, follow-up robotic exploration by the Soviets, radar tracking data, radio communication and ranging...

Something tells me you're a wee bit biased.

Something tells me you're a wee bit over-reactive! I'm simply 'stacking it up' (to use your phrase) against thabiguy's assessment, and contrasting the relative degrees of scientific methodology. That's actually the point of my argument on this thread; not so much trying to disprove that we walked on the moon. Hell, if the likes of Groves can't convince you (I assume you've read the study(?!)) then what chance would I stand?!

That said, you won't mind if I play devil's advocate for a moment will you?:

I'll give you an example. The Apollo mapping camera imagery of the Lunar surface, particularly portions of the back side of the moon, are still the best mapping data we have for many regions of interest. To this date. However, some of it can only be corroborated with later data, such as that from Clementine -- and it does. JAXA has a mission there now. The Chinese will be there soon. No hoax would last for long.

That proves we walked on the moon?!

Were there people on board? Of course there were. Apollo 13 would have been unrecoverable if there had not. None of the LM landers would have functioned without a pilot. QED.

You know some of them personally do you? And which LM 'landers' would that be then?!

This is just the barest beginning.

You're telling me!

And against this, you have some yahoo who thinks ...

has shown!

... a single image looks slightly wrong ...

to be inconsistent with physics!

... appearing in a book designed to extract profits from other conspiracy believers, ...

That might be the cynic's view.

... where I'm sure it received all the critical and scientific verification it deserved.

Like the laughable websites cited above?

And please take your off-topic nonsense elsewhere. I won't ask again. This is a derail, and it's contrary to your Membership Agreement.

Will you come along for the ride if I do? Please?!

 

[Belz...]

You know some of them personally do you? And which LM 'landers' would that be then?!

So, point a laser at the moon and then tell me what's reflecting it. Moon dust ?

to be inconsistent with physics!

Which photograph would that be ?

I hope it's not like the "no stars" argument.

 

[Thabiguy]

I'll do that tomorrow, unless somebody beats me to it. (Does anybody know if I'm allowed to scan and post an extract from a copyrighted book?)

If you post it, I will comment on it, and if the errors are obvious, I will explain to you what's wrong with the analysis. (I leave it as an exercise to readers to figure out why I can presume the analysis to be flawed even though I haven't seen it.) But I would suggest you do that in a different section, preferrably Conspiracy Theories.

I sincerely hope you will understand and appreciate my comments, even if only in the context of how to present a solid argument.

I understand your comments. It should be obvious to any rational person why I will not bother to reply to them.

 

[Jimbo07]

That proves we walked on the moon?!

No. Nor does my ISS (again, which you can see with your own eyes) example. What they do prove is that spaceflight is real and that we are going to the moon, even now.

What I still don't understand is the... I don't know... mystical difference that suggests we can't have walked on the moon!

 

[uruk]

What's your take on the allegation that the gloves were so cumbersome so as to have made the manual operation of the aperture ring on the chest-mount camera extremely difficult, to say the least, thereby leading, in all likelihood, to an ordinate number of incorrectly exposed photos, which is claimed not to be the case?

You do know that exposure problems can be fixed in the darkroom. There were many tricks that you could use on film to correct exposure problems. And the Astronauts were trained to use the cameras.

The cameras used on Apollo were Hasselblads:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

The focus on the cameras were fixed to infinity and due to the amount of light that was expected to be on the moon, the aperature was also fixed. Seeing as there would only be one environment present, namely high contrasting blacks, greys and whites, It does not take a genius to figure out what apperature setting to fix the cameras at.

And there were quite a few bad pictures taken that post processing could not fix. particularly When the sun was in the frame. Take a look at the Panoramas on this website.:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html#Mag40

 

[uruk]

I will now quickly address the silly claims that there's anything "anomalous" about the picture of Buzz Aldrin.

First of all, I'll remark that due to the weight of the life support system, the astronauts were noticeably leaning forward when standing. This needs to be kept in mind when considering an impression that a photograph gives.

Now, can we determine from the picture more about the circumstances of its exposure? Sure, and it is rather simple. We know that on a photograph, the horizon will intersect objects at the level of the camera lens. Therefore, when we look at the picture, we can instantly tell that when it was taken, the camera was (roughly) at the level of Aldrin's eyes, or about a foot higher than it "should be".

How could this be? Two obvious explanations come to mind: Armstrong had the camera chest-mounted, but was standing about a foot higher than Aldrin; or, Armstrong was not standing higher than Aldrin, but for some reason held the camera at his eye level.

Can we tell, just by looking at the picture, what the actual case is? Sure we can, simply by looking closer at the reflection in Aldrin's visor (reoriented color-corrected closeup). We know that the horizon will intersect Armstrong's picture at the level of camera lens, and we see that the horizon intersects Armstrong's chest, not his head. Therefore, we can conclude that the camera was in fact chest-mounted, and Armstrong, for some reason, stood about a foot higher than Aldrin.

Is there anything anomalous about Armstrong standing about a foot above Aldrin? The pictures clearly show that the ground is quite uneven, and it is obvious that for Armstrong and Aldrin to stand at exactly the same level would be an incredible coincidence. Some difference in terrain height would be expected. Is the actual height difference observed in the picture - about one foot - in any way unusual or anomalous? No, nothing in the pictures indicates that height difference of that magnitude would be unusual or anomalous in any way.

And as for the argument, "But the picture could have been manipulated, the reflection in Aldrin's visor could have been altered", all I can say is: yes, if you assume that the picture is faked, then you can conclude that the picture is faked. That doesn't tell us much, though.

Also Neil is a bit taller than Buzz. Couple that with standing on higer ground and you get the hieght difference:
http://www.medaloffreedom.com/Apollo11NYC.jpg

And don't you think it is kind of stupid to think that the picture was taken at Neil's eye height? You can see Neil's reflection in Buzz's visor.

 

[uruk]

Maybe what you describe is simply a harsh reflection of the magnitude of the technical difficulties that space exploration beyond Earth orbit presents, tempered by the disproportionate benefit to mankind as a whole that such exploration is likely to derive. You don't seriously believe there's merit in pursuing the colonization of other planets within our solar system do you?!

I'm sure you only think that because you do not think much of the space program.
Haven't really givin any thought or looked into all the benefits we have gained from the space program.
But that's ok. Why think about about things you really don't care much about.

 

[drzeus99]

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon....

Oh, OK...

This explains alot about your posts. Gotcha.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[drzeus99]

Southwind17....Now I realize why you think it's a DREAM for man to get to Mars in 5-7 years. You actually seriously question the moon landings!! Conspiracy theorists and kooks are all over the place. The only thing they show is their gullibility in believing a *VERY FEW* like minded kooks who present a seemingly "credible evidence". They fall in with the fringe group and deny the 99.99% of the population who knows otherwise...yet SOMEHOW think THEY are right and the 99% are wrong!!
Did you ever think when 99.99999% of a humungous group believes something to be factual based on credible evidence that it's true?
If you tell your non belief to people you meet in person, with a serious face, they're gonna think you're off your rocker.
Word of advice. Stop the silly childishness and be an intelligent person and just accept the obvious fact as being fact.

But I'm sure you'll come back with some, what you think is, some whitty smart commen,
claiming that YOU'RE right and everyone else is wrong. You might even name s scientist (they can be kooks too, ya know) or a doctor (yikes) who says or wrote that. Not that the 10,000 reputable scientests who all agree that it happened means anything to you. You seem to enjoy the odd person who has the strangely differring view point from everyone else, even when incredible amounts of verifiable evidence is presented to him.

Oh....but I forgot. There's them bigfoots and Nessies out there too that people have seen. They all GOTTA be real, right? Too many eye witnesses (even if there isn't any scientific evidence to back it) But I know..you saw a show on TV that said so and so...

If you want, you can have the last word. It's useless presenting you with facts.


Cheers,
DrZ

 

[Southwind17]

If you post it, I will comment on it, and if the errors are obvious, I will explain to you what's wrong with the analysis. (I leave it as an exercise to readers to figure out why I can presume the analysis to be flawed even though I haven't seen it.) But I would suggest you do that in a different section, preferrably Conspiracy Theories.

If I determine that it's OK to post it I will, as a separate thread, and we can then have a debate about that single aspect of the CT if you wish. I have to say, though, at this stage of the proceedings, that given your apparent lack of relevant experience and qualification in the applicable fields of science (I assume you're not holding something back!), any notion on your part that the 'errors' could be 'obvious' and that you will convincingly (I assume it would be convincing!) explain what's 'wrong' with the analysis, well, frankly, I find that both arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme. But let's hope I can make the post and we'll let Groves' analysis and the deployment of your analytical skills speak for themselves.

As I wrote, I'm not trying to present the sceptics' case all over again. I'm simply contesting that a vast amount of contradictory information and analyses concerning the Apollo program has been presented by many critics over the years, and in my opinion, whilst some of it has clearly been debunked, much of it has not; well not satisfactorily, in my opinion. It's all very well offering a counter-argument that's based on supposition and assumptions to an allegation . We can all do that pretty well, I'm sure. But when the argument being countered derives from an authoritative, scientific, mathematical study and analysis, well, as I wrote earlier, which way would the critical thinker lean? If you're happy to let all of the associated emotional and vast circumstantial factors associated with the Apollo program get in the way of an otherwise objective assessment of an isolated piece of contradictory information, such as the Buzz Aldrin photo, I'm OK with that. I understand that. Indeed, I allow myself to do exactly that, to a degree, which is why I say that, on balance, I'd be inclined to bet that we have been to the moon. But I'm focusing here on the contrasting degree of consideration and depth of analysis applied to the contradictory information by the sceptics and the convinced.

I understand your comments. It should be obvious to any rational person why I will not bother to reply to them.

I'm sure it is!