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

[PixyMisa]

And here you go YET AGAIN! THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE! I will ask you again. Please answer with only one word, EITHER 'yes' or 'no': Do you consider that ALSEP alone, on its own, nothing else, PROOVES BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that man has walked on the Moon?

ALSEP doesn't stand on its own. It stands together with the Explorer, Ranger, Surveyor, Mercury and Gemini programs, with the rest of the Apollo program, with everything else NASA has done before or since, with the Soviet Zond and Soyuz and Salyut programs, with the Chinese and Japanese orbiters that are surveying the Moon right now, with the work of hundreds of thousands of scientists, engineers, technicians and the astronauts themselves.

As I've explained before, my concern is over the contradictory evidence, not the confirmatory evidence.

You don't have contradictory evidence. You have a photo you think looks funny.

Contradictory evidence would be, for example, an engineering study which proved that the Saturn V launcher did not provide sufficient lift for the Apollo missions. (There's no such study.)

I haven't considered the Apollo 8 and 10 missions. They have no bearing on the contradictory evidence.

See above.

 

[Southwind17]

If Aldrin and Armstrong were 3.8 meters apart, then Aldrin would have to be 227cm tall.

How come?

Even allowing around an extra 15cm for boots and helmet, he's only about 195cm tall (note that his leaning forward also shortens him). A quick back of the envelope calculation based on his taking up 58% of the frame from top to bottom and the FOV of the camera being 53.5° from top to bottom, put the two at a distance of only around 3.2 metres.

How come?

Using the shadow for measurements is rather a strange thing to do since shadow length relies on knowing, the angle of the sun, the slope of the terrain (and how it changes), and in this case determining the effects of the convex reflector. Quite simply it is impossible to determine what the length of the shadow should be or is (though it seems to stretch slightly beyond Armstrong's position) since none of these factors is actually known and trying to do so is simply guesswork. You have no way of knowing what the rise in the terrain is between the photographer and the subject, and your above waffle doesn't prove anything except that you're taking wild stabs in the dark to justify your claim about it.

The shadow length does not feature in Groves' calculation, so everything you've written above is, well, let's be polite and just say irrelevant!

That "hardly in a depression" is almost in the centre of a 10-15cm deep crater.

You calculated this just from looking at a photo! Cool!

It doesn't put him "above" Aldrin, other then explaining why parts of the top of the suit that normally wouldn't be visible are actually visible. It also shortens Aldrin vertically.

Have you actually ever seen Groves' analysis?!

Have you noticed that the ground the shadow lies on goes up immediately from Aldrin's position, then reaching the rim of the crater descends again before rising once more? Have you also noticed that the direction the shadow lies is not the direction to Armstrong? (Before you say that it is in the helmet, realise that the helmet is a convex reflector) Nothing the shadow does gives any conclusion as to Aldrin and Armstrong's respective heights. The only thing it tells us is that Aldrin is standing in a depression, something we already knew.

Again, have you actually ever seen Groves' analysis?

No, Groves' analysis claims the camera would be higher than Aldrin's chest height, and then he extrapolates that to mean it was higher the Armstrong's chest height if they are on level ground. The fact they aren't nullifies his conclusion so he tries to fudge that the ground is uneven so as to keep his wanted conclusions.

You haven't, have you!

Sorry I disagree. The change in the ground under Aldrin's shadow has zero to do with the lie of the ground between Aldrin and Armstrong since the shadow isn't on that section of ground.

Try drawing a straight line from Aldrin's right shoulder to the part of the shadow that corrssponds with Aldrin's hip, i.e. the extent to which Groves analyzed the shadow. Now extend that line 'down' to the bottom of the photo and beyond. I'd say it probably intersects the photographer's left shoulder. Have you ever heard of the principle of 'perspective'?!

Funnily enough that is sort of the point to the images, they look different depending on if you are looking up sun or down sun because in one you can see the shaded areas so it looks textured and darker while the other they are hidden from your view so it looks bright and untextured.

And, 'funnily enough' the famous Aldrin shot is looking essentially up-sun, but doesn't display the characteristics that your up-sun example shows, so far as the image of Aldrin is concerned! Will you be moving towards a plausible explanation for this any time soon?! (Contrast Aldrin's left inner knee and right shoulder before you erroneously suggest that great reflecting lump of cheese as the light source!)

It doesn't occur in all direction, it only occurs in the up-sun direction.

The ground is noticeably darker at the bottom of the photo, i.e. near the photographer, than the apparent 'pool of light' around Aldrin.

Look at the ground being reflected in Aldrin's visor. It is much brighter than the surface behind him and is evenly bright all the way to the horizon.

It is completely unnecessary, and would be a fundamental mistake, to try to assess drop-off by reference to an image reflected from a concave visor facing the opposite direction. Now if anything's stretching incredulity that is!

The drop off is only in the up-sun direction where the shadows of the rocks and craters make the surface look darker and as you look further away you are seeing more shadow and less sunlit area.

There are only rocks and craters in the up-sun distance, and that accounts for the drop off? How do you reach that conclusion? The terrain looks pretty uniform on average to me. You posted photo earlier does not display any drop off whatsoever!

They demonstrate the zero-effect of the shadows being seen or not seen, the "drop-off" is merely that on a larger scale.

I'm sorry, I don't follow. Are you able to expand this explanation?

Wow, that makes very little sense at all. Firstly the crosshairs are NOT printed onto the photo, they are created when the image is taken by the means of a reseau grid that sits directly on top of the film. This means that the fiducials are a fixed part of each image that is taken, the largest one being in the exact centre of the image.

Whatever, the technicalities are irrelevant.

I have no idea what you are going on about the "position of the cross-hairs relative to the all-important image recorded,"

I'm saying that cropping and adding, even if there were some, is completely irrelevant. Groves analysed the image with complete disregard to the perimeter of the photo. Any reference to the centre cross-hair is only in respect of assessing part of the image, and the relationship between any part of the image and the centre cross-hairs is fixed!

Aulis' claim is that since the large cross hair isn't in the centre of the photo that there is an issue with the image because the large crosshair is supposed to be in the very centre, and in theirs it isn't.

I don't recall this. Are you able to cite Dark Moon precisely?

This is because the image they use is cropped and the fiducial have been moved in respect to the borders of the image. The large cross hair has nothing to do with important information or anything else, it merely shows where the camera was pointed.

As I pointed out earlier, the image appearing in Dark Moon is hardly cropped at all. Do you have a copy of the Dark Moon image? Otherwise, I agree re. the significance of the cross-hairs, subject to my foregoing comment re. Groves' analysis.

The outer cover was white beta cloth, a material that is 90% reflective of sunlight. Do you suggest this is not a strong enough light source?

Accepting your 90% assertion, yes I am, especially given that we're only talking about Armstrong's shoulder, which is pretty small in area and can hardly be described as an effective reflecting surface (take a look at how 'well' Aldrin's left outer shoulder seems to be acting as a meaningful light source for comparison).

No, that was done by the light reflecting of the rather large reflector behind Armstrong. The lunar surface.

Do you mean the area close to the LM that's completely in shadow, or the lunar surface way beyond the LM shadow?!

 

[sts60]

... I'm not disputing for one second all of the great work and effort that went into the Apollo program, I'm simply skeptical about whether we actually went so far as to set foot on the Moon. There is a preponderance of evidence that indicates that we did, and there's a limited amount of evidence that suggests we might not have. But when you categorize the evidence into, say, still photographs, video, technology, etc., the preponderance diminishes drastically, and the categories where absolutely no contradictory evidence exists becomes very small in number.

Then perhaps we could establish whether the ALSEP is in that category, eh?

I again refer you to my ALSEP comments in post 85 and post 192. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks!

 

[Belz...]

What's your data source supporting this statement?

Are you saying that most scientists DON'T think the US went to the moon ?

'Straight' ground! What's that then, exactly?!

What's your question, now ? The moon's surface tends to be a little bumpy, but it's not like you can tell exactly from a picture, since the whole damn thing's the same colour all over.

 

[Belz...]

You don't think that this prospect pales in comparison to actually putting men on the lunar surface?!

No, because something that's that's really, really difficult is always easier than something that's impossible.

For instance, how exactly would they "fake" lunar gravity ?

 

[Belz...]

Now THIS has to be THE best example yet of foot in mouth in this thread, if not the history of the Forum. The cross-hairs are actually printed on the photo

Actually, they're part of the camera. Now, who's looking foolish ?

 

[Belz...]

One bloke with his "scientific" photo analysis stacked up against the work of thousands of Engineers, Scientists, Technicians and everyone else involved in Apollo over the years is a reasonable doubt to you?

You don't seem to quite understand. I'm not disputing for one second all of the great work and effort that went into the Apollo program, I'm simply skeptical about whether we actually went so far as to set foot on the Moon.

Yeah, that's is EXACTLY what he said. One bloke vs thousands of scientists.

 

[sts60]

Actually, they're part of the camera. Now, who's looking foolish ?

Actually, I take Southwind17's original statement to mean that he acknowledges they are "part of the camera":

The cross-hairs are actually printed on the photo, or to be precise, have obscured any imagery from the photo, which allows them to 'record' on the photo.

(Bolding mine)

It's an oddly worded statement, but perhaps Southwind17 will confirm that he understands the reseau grid was part of the camera.

Now, I have issues with other statements about Groves(/Percy) and their analyses, but I'm really far more interested in the ALSEP program. For Southwind17's convenience, I will repost my earlier reminder:
----------

Jeez, this thread's getting easier by the minute - you're all tripping over not only each other but yourselves in your own little debunking 'space race'

I'm glad you find this so easy. I find that answering claims from HBs (hoax believers) generally takes far more work than asking the questions. It's not that any of the claims from HBs which I have yet investigated have panned out; it's that it's simply far easier to spew unfounded accusations (and then modify and reissue them as they are debunked), ignore certain posts, pounce on strawmen, play semantic games, and in general simply stir the pot, than it is to issue a detailed factual response.

Not that I am accusing you of this, of course; I'm just speaking in general terms.

In any case, since you evidently have some free time, I'd appreciate your comments about my ALSEP discussions in post 85 and post 192.

You don't think that this prospect pales in comparison to actually putting men on the lunar surface?!

Have you really thought - in detail - about it would take to successfully fake the visual record? Do you think the record can be considered independently of the other facets of the missions? I would be happy to chew the fat on this matter at length - as well as discuss my reservations with Groves enumerated in post 193 - but I'd rather get the ALSEP issues resolved first.

 

[VonNeumann]

I'm sorry VonNeumann, as you can see there's a lot of flack coming my way (as expected) and I'm trying to respond in an orderly fashion. Please continue to bear with me with any future responses; you're kind of in a queueing system!

Have you ever looked into the details behind the Enron debacle? It's amazing how easily it can be to 'fool' people, very intelligent people, when an organization puts its mind to it.

I can't think of a third option off hand.

I guess conspiracies are best concealed when everything around them just seems like business as usual. I can't quite remember which film it was in which somebody remarked something along the lines of: "The best crimes ever committed are those where nobody even realizes they've been committed." I suppose much white-collar fraud, for example, might fall into that category.

Thank you for your unabashed answer: you think I was fooled and that I unwittingly conspired in a hoax. You even likened it it a crime.

Here is how the space program is different from accounting.
Accounting is a made up artifact. Accounting is arbitrary, as is law. We can cook books. We can invent entities. We can make structures that are intangible. Not only that, accounting is generally boring and yet complicated. Unless paid to do so, how many people find it interesting to analyze a complex web of arbitrarily created flows of cash and credits?
The physical universe is something that stands on its own, and cannot be fudged. The order of the physical world is such that it is, no matter how much we may want to change it. The only way that the data could have been fooled with would have been via a cooperation of willing conspirators who would have to have known what they were doing.

In accounting, individuals can more easily go along if things seem unreasonable, because it is human arbitrariness that decides 'what is reasonable'. Who can know everything?

In science, individuals can spot things that are not reasonable or things that are faked, and generally can do so for a long time after the event, if sufficient data has been recorded. I believe that is the case here in the point be argued. But the whistle blower to whom you give credence, is not basing his claim on anything that stands up to scientific inquiry. The other individuals who use science as the deciding criteria easily point out the holes in his claims.

So that's why I'd say your comparison to Enron scandal is not valid.

I agree that people can believe stupid things or wrong things in the safety of large groups (even scientists and other technical people can). But I think that only happens in cases where it is too difficult for individuals to get their hands on the raw data. In the case of the program, too many of us had our hands on the data and knew other people who had their hands on other pieces of the data.

If a group of insiders pulled off a hoax to trick us, the group of insiders would have had to have been as large or larger than the group that was duped. The cost of the space program would have been double, at least, what it was to put people on the moon.

So if you think I could have been fooled, being inside the space program (and also being outside the space program when I worked for the US Air Force), I wonder if you think it is a weakness of mine, or if you think you would have been so easily fooled if you had been in my shoes?

 

[sts60]

I can't think of a third option off hand.

I find this interesting. If you cannot think of any possibility other than that VonNeumann was wrong about ALSEPs existence (either innocently or deliberately), it follows that you believe ALSEP was faked. I'm interested in seeing how you propose to prove that - and I've shown you how; see references in my prior post.

But I'm also interested in how you reconcile this with statements such as:

On balance, with regard to the evidence for and against, and the circumstances, I'd say man has probably landed on the moon. I'd give it a 95% probability to show my degree of 'conviction', but as a meaningful measure that's a somewhat arbitrary figure.

 

[uruk]

You 'thought it was a possibility'? Let's remind ourselves what you really 'thought':

Why would it not be a possibility? The helmet is a highly specular reflective surface that is capable of creating hotspots on another surface. Can you really tell just by looking at the hotspot that the source is the reflection from the helmet, the light reflecting from Armstrong's white suit, or an artificial light source?

Groves did say that the source of the light was 30cm to the right of the camera. The camera was at chest height. So what could be 30cm to the right of a chest mounted camera? Hmmmm.

That reads more like 'probability' than 'possibility' to me, possibly even close to 'certainty'?!

So what is the difference between a "probablity" and "possibility"? I did not say "has to be" or "most definitly is". What I am pretty certain of is that it is not an artificial light source.

Seems you've a ways to go!

But it seems quite a bit less than you or Dr. Groves. Both you and he have been overlooking some pretty basic concepts and behaiviours of light.
You still haven't answered me on why the shadows on picture 5903 are on the upper surfaceses of Aldrin's suit.
Where could that source of light be coming from if Aldrin is standing on the ground?

Care to answer? Or are going to continue to ignore the question?

Isn't it just!

Yep. I wonder what that says about Groves?

 

[uruk]

And here you go YET AGAIN! THIS IS UNBELIEVABLE! I will ask you again. Please answer with only one word, EITHER 'yes' or 'no': Do you consider that ALSEP alone, on its own, nothing else, PROOVES BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT that man has walked on the Moon?

Your reading comprehension seems to be a bit off today. He wrote "It does" at the begining of the sentance.

As I've explained before, my concern is over the contradictory evidence, not the confirmatory evidence. It's a little like a court case. The maxim of 'innocent until proven guilty' inevitably presupposes that there is a preponderance of evidence in favour of the defendant. It's the prosecution's duty to present sufficient compelling contradictory evidence. If the defence can immediately show that the defendant could not possibly have done it (or, in the case of Apollo, did do it) then the prosecution's case immediately collapses. So far, we have a plethora of circumstantial evidence in Apollo's favour, and a relatively limited amount against. When that very limited amount has been satisfactorily discounted that's the point at which I'll become convinced. If the contradictory evidence is clearly flawed then that shouldn't take too much effort now, should it!

It hasen't taken much effort to discount the contradictory evidence. The effort here is in explaining how weak the contradictory evidence is to a brick wall.
You seem to be the one that is having trouble with the explinations. Heck, you have even been ignoring questions, responses, and explinations posed to you. You havent' been giving us any reasons why our explination are incorrect.
Is it deliberate? Or are there things you do not understand?

I haven't considered the Apollo 8 and 10 missions. They have no bearing on the contradictory evidence.

Yes they do if you are saying that the moon landing is a hoax. Apollo 8 and 10 had men going to Circumlunar orbits. Apollo 10 had the lunar lander decend down to a few hundred feet abouve the surface of the Moon. It would not have been difficult for Apollo 10 to have gone the rest of the way and land on the surface.
If it is impossibly for men to land on the moon because of the Van Allen radiation belt or solar radiation or some other reason, then those missions would have had to been faked also. Why go through all that trouble of faking tests?

I do know a little about photography, actually. The explanation you're seeking from me is that the low intensity light enamating from stars is insufficient to expose the photograph to enable the stars show up in it. This seems like a very logical and plausible explanation to me. Would you agree?

Well, halleluja!

 

[CurtC]

OK, so where are we? Is there anything Southwind still considers to be contradictory evidence? I think from what I've seen that it's all been shown not to be contradictory, so Southwind, have all your questions about it been resolved now?

 

[uruk]

Let's take the video stuff then.
To me that's the prime candidate for proof.
The sheer length of the footage for each "scene" is phenomenal, all done, you would have us believe, with 1960s special effects? The distances travelled in some of the shots precludes a soundstage, so where was this shot?

Especially the lunar rover footage. The astronuts traveled a few miles away from the lander.
That must have been one hell of a soundstage!

 

[sts60]

I haven't considered the Apollo 8 and 10 missions. They have no bearing on the contradictory evidence.

Yes they do if you are saying that the moon landing is a hoax. Apollo 8 and 10 had men going to Circumlunar orbits. Apollo 10 had the lunar lander decend down to a few hundred feet abouve the surface of the Moon. It would not have been difficult for Apollo 10 to have gone the rest of the way and land on the surface.

The Apollo 10 LM actually flew down to about 50,000 feet above the surface. But, in the airless environment of the Moon, there's little practical difference. The descent, ascent, and rendezvous with the LM showed the lunar landing profile would work, and demonstrated the readiness of the LM systems for the next test - an actual landing, which occurred on A11. Apollo 8 and 10 may not have anything directly to do with "hot spots" and whatnot, but they show the steady progression towards a manned lunar landing - a progression that started with Mercury and built up through Gemini, along with a robust unmanned campaign in the decade prior to Mr. Armstrong's famous footstep.

All of which, of course, enabled the ALSEP investigations. Which, also of course, is what I'm really interested in discussing

 

[Southwind17]

So instead of simply sending men to the Moon, NASA launched (with 1960s technology) ...

Are you inferring something here?

... fully automated radio and television repeater stations? ...

Seems technologically feasible to me.

... Landed them on the Moon ...

No great shake.

... prepared actors on a set ...

Known to be feasible.

... that somehow accurately portrayed hard vacuum ...

Portrayed 'hard vaccuum'? What's that look like then?!

... and 1/6th Earth gravity ...

Have you seen the lunar surface video footage speeded up?!

... filmed them ...

Again, known to be feasible.

... beamed the broadcasts to the Moon ...

No great shake.

... relayed them back to Parkes and other ground stations ...

Seems technically feasible.

... and then broadcast them to the world?

Isn't this what happened?

Is that really what you think happened?

Given the above, it doesn't exactly seem impossible, does it!

And what does this say of Mercury and Gemini? Those were manned missions too; were they faked? And every Shuttle mission is manned, are those faked?

Do these astronauts walk on the Moon, by any chance?!

I don't know; I'm just asking.

I don't know either; I'm just postulating.

 

[uruk]

{snip}
Do you mean the area close to the LM that's completely in shadow, or the lunar surface way beyond the LM shadow?!

Southwind17, you do know that light reflected from a rough surface spreads out right? it's called diffusion. You can see a simple explination here: http://www.tpub.com/neets/tm/106-5.htm

The reflected light is coming from the area of the lunar surface that is around the shadow. That is why the shadows are soft and not harsh on the surfaces of the suit or the lander.
That is also why the light source looks like it is coming from below.

 

[uruk]

The Apollo 10 LM actually flew down to about 50,000 feet above the surface. But, in the airless environment of the Moon, there's little practical difference. The descent, ascent, and rendezvous with the LM showed the lunar landing profile would work, and demonstrated the readiness of the LM systems for the next test - an actual landing, which occurred on A11. Apollo 8 and 10 may not have anything directly to do with "hot spots" and whatnot, but they show the steady progression towards a manned lunar landing - a progression that started with Mercury and built up through Gemini, along with a robust unmanned campaign in the decade prior to Mr. Armstrong's famous footstep.

All of which, of course, enabled the ALSEP investigations. Which, also of course, is what I'm really interested in discussing

Thanks for the correction. 50,000 feet is not much higher than the average altitute of an airliner.

I don't see how Southwind17 can say that it is possible for a probe to land on the moon safely and yet it is not possible for a manned craft to land safely on the moon. Sounds like like a big contradictory pill to swallow. Unless he also believes that the lunar probes were also faked.

 

[sts60]

Well, he evidently believes the ALSEP program - which was inextricably intertwined with human presence on the Moon - was faked, as I mentioned here. What I am interested in his specific proposal for how such a fake could be pulled off - not just at the time, but a fake which has remained impervious to scientific scrutiny for the better part of four decades - and his specific evidence for such a fake. I've discussed this in reasonable detail in post 85 and post 192, and look forward to more detailed discussions with Southwind17 on this topic.

 

[sts60]

BTW, just looked over a gorgeous J-size drawing (yes, an actual blueprinted drawing) - "ALSEP Subpackage 2 Assy" - from 1967. I was a little afraid to open it up, but it's still in pretty good shape. They did good work back in the day.

I also flipped through one of the Bendix monthly progress reports from that time. Subsystem status, nonconformance reports and their solutions, cost variances, system weight vs. target weight evolution, change review boards, test planning, hardware flows, etc., etc. - nearly two hundred pages detailing the hard work of an army of people on a fast-moving program.