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

[Southwind17]

No. Just that even Groves trips up and says something true now and then.

This is a change of tune, isn't it? As I said: when it suits!

 

[Brainache]

Oh, that's right, I haven't, just like you haven't shown that your alternative theory and hypothesis does account for them! So we're left none the wiser aren't we, with just burden of proof left to debate, I suppose!

That would be the alternative hypothesis that thousands of photographs were not faked, that hours of video footage was not faked, that all of the ALSEP data was not faked and that hundreds of thousands of scientists from all over the world for the past four decades were not duped into believing a pointless hoax. That alternate hypothesis?

 

[ArmillarySphere]

So my presumption regarding the reason for low sun angle landing times is wrong. i.e. the electromagnetic radiation from the sunlit lunar surface is zero, or negligible?

It affects how hot your feet get, basically. The reflected sunlight is enough to illuminate the shadows to some degree, but not enough to cause significant heating. The astronauts' feet, however, are in contact with the surface and can exchange heat with it through conduction. I don't have the temperature figures at hand - I know others have found the measurements, but a reasonable guess would be near-zero, given that the missions occurred during lunar morning - the maximum temperatures listed in various places wouldn't be reached until after lunar noon.

Surface temperature was considered, certainly, but the landing time was chose specifically so that it wouldn't be a significant concern. Another reason for landing during lunar morning is that navigation and safety during landing is much improved if you can see the craters and boulders by the shadows they cast.


And for the record, any historical document enjoys the assumption of authenticity until proven otherwise. This is simply because it is a theoretical impossibility to prove them authentic.

 

[PixyMisa]

I believe there could have been certain technical impediments that emanated from the extreme temerature differences that would appear to preclude some of the operations and records that were presented by NASA as fact.

Why do you believe this?

The Gemini and Shuttle astronauts deal with the exact same extreme temperature differences. Are those missions all faked too?

Do the shuttle missions use the same technology as the Apollo program?!

As has been explained, the Apollo suits were developed from the Gemini suits, and the Shuttle suits from the Apollo suits. There is not now, and never has been, any magic to dealing with temperature extremes in space.

Would you care to back up this allegation with hard facts?

I already did.

The qualification that followed it, and served to discount it as a 'one-word' answer!

No qualification followed the answer. What followed was additional evidence. The answer was YES, and furthermore... That is not a qualification.

It seems you, too, don't understand the concept of a 'one-word answer', and the very obvious reason why somebody might be requested to respond to something 'in a word'! It's to force an unequivocal answer, which Corsair, consequently, never gave! Wake up!

You are completely misrepresenting what Corsair said. You got your one-word answer. You got your unequivocal answer.

As mud! See above!

Look, I'm not going to explain your own posts to you. Do try to keep up.

So we're still where we started, with certain contradictory evidence that raises questions that have only been answered with theory and hypothesis. You're putting up a compelling defence!

You haven't presented any contradictory evidence. You have merely made claims of anomalous evidence, none of which claims have held up to examination in any case.

So we have a veritable myriad of pieces of evidence, each of which, by itself, proves beyond reasonable doubt that man walked on the Moon.

YES.

What was so hard for Corsair then simply to respond 'yes' then button it?

She did respond "YES".

Hell, what better way to shut Southwind up than to show that just one piece (and that's now just one piece from a number of pieces!) of evidence on its own is enough?! What an opportunity missed, eh!

This has already been done.

You can't even get the question right, let alone a credible response! THIS more accurately reflects what you're desperately trying so hard to misunderstand, and succeeding, in the context of your version:

Windsock: In a word, have you ever been to Europe? Well, have you? Huh? Huh? Well? In a word?!

Now, please show me, notwithstanding the immediate failure by Cursor to answer the VERY SIMPLE question as asked, what in your blatantly disparate version above serves to even hint at qualifying the almost-initial 'YES' part of the 90+word response, as Corsair did.

Corsair answered your question, exactly as Cursor answered Windsock's question. You got more answer than you bargained for. This in no way constitutes a failure on Corsair's part; the failure is yours.

Are you starting to get a slight incling as to why I might be inclined to disagree that this would be a more accurate picture, or is this whole thing proving just way too hard for you to comprehend?!

No. You are consistently misrepresenting what others have said, even though their words are right here.

Now, let me see ... er ...

Well?

Yes, the vacuum that we 'see' on the lunar video footage is unmistakable, isn't it. I'd say its a reddy-pink colour; what would you say?

No. The relevance of the vacuum has been explained. Read the thread.

Evidence?

There are ways to create a locally reduced gravitational field relative to Earth normal.

The entire sound stage could have been plummeting to Earth. Actually, you'd have to attach rocket engines to push it down, otherwise it would quickly reach terminal velocity and would experience normal gravity. This technique would give you, oh, dozens of seconds of film time before colliding with the ground and killing all involved.

You could remove most of the mass of the Earth; if you removed the right amount, the gravity of what was left would be equal to that on the lunar surface. I suspect someone would have noticed this.

Alternatives: Build an enormous rotating cylinder in orbit and film inside it. Or build a space-borne sound stage, and keep it in constant acceleration at 1/6th Earth gravity.

Do you think for a moment that any of these ideas are tenable?

You can direct us to some speeded up lunar video footage that demonstrates this effect, presumably? Now this is where a one-word answer (which you now seem to have got the grasp of!) is not necessary!

This has already been posted. Right here in this thread. Pay attention!

 

[PixyMisa]

This is a change of tune, isn't it? As I said: when it suits!

No. If Groves says something wrong, it's wrong. If he says something right, it's right. Whether it suits us or not is irrelevant; what matters - what matters to us, anyway - is whether it is true.

 

[Southwind17]

That would be the alternative hypothesis that thousands of photographs were not faked, that hours of video footage was not faked, that all of the ALSEP data was not faked and that hundreds of thousands of scientists from all over the world for the past four decades were not duped into believing a pointless hoax. That alternate hypothesis?

As a matter of fact, no, NOT that hypothesis! The reference to 'alternative hypothesis' relates to the two photos of Aldrin that have been the subject of some discussion so far during this thread, and the theories and hypotheses that form the entire basis of the rebuttal of most, if not all, of the technical inconsistencies displayed therein, at least one of which has been analysed by Dr David Groves, as also discussed herein, and which, to my knowledge, has not been shown to be wrong, whether within this thread or elsewhere. THAT is what I'm referring to when I write about the 'alternative hypotheses'! I suggest you follow the thread, in future!

 

[Southwind17]

are you trying to claim that since only 2 people were required "on-location" to film the scenes on the moon, only 2 people would be required to fake the whole thing?

Of course not, but I don't believe it would take many people to produce the quality of monochrome video that was produced! I could imagine the Apollo 11 'shoot' involving no more than a dozen people, including actors (but excluding the all-important tea lady!). For good 'effect' the actors would also be the cameramen (no soundmen needed!). All that's needed then is a little direction, oh, and artificial lighting, of course, albeit only two lighting rigs, at most, one permanently fixed! Remember that Armstrong & Aldrin spent less than 3 hours on the lunar surface!

A couple guys (possibly from the location team) in post-production doing the slo-mo, adding some voice sound and maybe a little editing should finish the job nicely!

I've seen far better quality home videos on America's Funniest!

 

[Southwind17]

Well, if you believe that there were some technological aspects which prevented a Moon landing from becoming reality, how do you rationalize the fact that the team or teams of scientists and engineers that would have undoubtedly run up against such insurmountable obstacles... didn't said anything when their "impossible" Moon landing was actually happening? And still haven't said anything 40 years later...

I'm afraid I can't account for what a limited number of people are prepared to talk and not talk about. A number of people, though, have spoken regarding 'technicalities' in the context of possible fakery, such as Douglas Arnold at Kodak and Jan Lundberg at Hasselblad.

 

[Southwind17]

That last statement shows yet again, your ignorance.

Apparently you didn't consider all the material that covered those particles was removed by the exhaust before the engine was shut off 6 feet above the surface. Notice the long foil covered "stick" that was attached to the bottom of one of the lander's pad?
That is the surface contact probe. When that probe touched the surface, it turned on a light on the cotrol panel to tlet the astronauts know that they were within 6 feet of the surface. At that height, the pilot would sut off the engine and drift the remaining height at 1/6 gravity to the surface.

You really need to look these things up.

And here's another great example of counter-theory/hypothesis that, because of its apparent plausibility, MUST INEVITABLY provide the only possible 'answer'!

 

[Southwind17]

I thought you said you understood about film exposure?

Are you referring to the near-perfect exposures of both the extremely contrasting brightly sunlit lunar surface and the inside of the 'unlit' exit bay, notwithstanding that that very same brightly sunlit lunar surface provides the only source (secondary) of reflected light to facilitate the near-perfect exposure of the inside of the exit bay?

 

[Belz...]

Windsock: In a word, have you ever been to Europe? Well, have you? Huh? Huh? Well? In a word?!

Now, please show me, notwithstanding the immediate failure by Cursor to answer the VERY SIMPLE question as asked, what in your blatantly disparate version above serves to even hint at qualifying the almost-initial 'YES' part of the 90+word response, as Corsair did.

Who cares ? "Yes" was the answer. It's not as if he/she dodged the question by answering with the rest of what he/she said, foregoing the "yes" part.

 

[Brainache]

As a matter of fact, no, NOT that hypothesis! The reference to 'alternative hypothesis' relates to the two photos of Aldrin that have been the subject of some discussion so far during this thread, and the theories and hypotheses that form the entire basis of the rebuttal of most, if not all, of the technical inconsistencies displayed therein, at least one of which has been analysed by Dr David Groves, as also discussed herein, and which, to my knowledge, has not been shown to be wrong, whether within this thread or elsewhere. THAT is what I'm referring to when I write about the 'alternative hypotheses'! I suggest you follow the thread, in future!

Alright, so it's just those two pics that are fake and all the rest of the proof is genuine then?

So you admit that men walked on the Moon?

 

[PixyMisa]

And here's another great example of counter-theory/hypothesis that, because of its apparent plausibility, MUST INEVITABLY provide the only possible 'answer'!

No.

 

[Southwind17]

All that would mean is that the photograph was faked.

I think there might be a slightly deeper meaning, but that would involve opening your mind and thinking just a little outside the box!

You would still have to explain why it was faked ...

Er ... the photo's just 'been shown beyond all reasonable doubt' to be faked. I think the explanation might have already been given?!

... and how it relates to the Apollo mission.

Er ... it's an allegedly genuine photo of Aldrin on the Moon DURING THE APOLLO MISSION.

And provide supporting evidence.

Ugh?! See above.

Just likie in a court case

Let's hope for all future criminal defendents' sake in your area that you're never called up for jury service! Jeez, the way some of you anti-CTists think. Almost makes me wonder whether hard-core CTists just do it for cheap entertainment!

 

[Southwind17]

Here's another one for the melting pot: How come some photos of Earth taken essentially from a fixed location on the Moon show significantly varying angles of the Earth above the Moon horizon?

Allow me to pre-empt THE theory/hypothesis that this question will inevitably invite: "Because the surface of the Moon undulates and it's not the 'true' horizon/it's a distant mountain range 'elevating' the true horizon".

Answer's on a postcard please.

 

[Southwind17]

What most HB's don't understand is that all it takes to prove the landings were real is ONE image that is unquestionably taken on the surface of the moon.

Just one.

They can argue until they are blue in the face about fake photographs and whatnot but either we were there or we were not.

Can you provide such a photo?

 

[Southwind17]

not entirely true, unfortunately.

What's 'unfortunate' about Shrinker's ignorance?!

It is true for the swinging thingie--it is a pendulum, and the frequency of a pendulum is a function of local gravitational acceleration and length.
For the aerial (and the flag pole!), however, there is no difference in frequency on Earth and on the Moon.
In that case, frequency is a function only of Mass and Stiffness.
Mass does not change between here and the Moon, or anywhere in the universe.
Damping, however, is a function of velocity, and on Earth, the atmosphere acts as a very effective damper on things like flags and such. So, on the Moon, they keep on shaking for a lot longer than they would on Earth.

Did you manage to dig out the school physics books Shrinker?!

I suppose your observation could be considered to be half right, possibly!

 

[Shrinker]

What's 'unfortunate' about Shrinker's ignorance?!



Did you manage to dig out the school physics books Shrinker?!

I suppose your observation could be considered to be half right, possibly!

Could be. You should have continued reading the thread before posting though. Unless you want to chime in with you own knowledge on the topic...

 

[sts60]

sts60, I hope you will forgive me for deferring commenting on your very thorough precis (not a contradiction, I hope!) of ALSEP, but there are a number of posts commenting on some of the contradictory evidence that I should like to review and respond to first. It is the contradictory evidence, afterall, that interests me most, but that's not denying the possibility that ASLEP, as confirmatory evidence, might well prove as best as anything can, that we did indeed walk on the Moon. There are potentially, of course, many explanations for faked or flawed records that would be equally interesing to explore in addition to the allegation that man never walked on the Moon. I will, however, come back to ASLEP in due course, and appreciate your patience.

OK, I'll stand by for now.

I must note, however, that you continue to raise a large number of claims, either directly or by implication, without having properly defended earlier claims. This is known as the "Gish gallop", and I've seen it before by committed HBs who cannot support their claims against informed criticism and instead relay on FUD to "win" debates. Now, I'm not accusing you of doing this on purpose, but this sort of thing tends to arouse my suspicions, and in any case will not distract me from eventually pressing you to defend (or retract) your claims that the ALSEP program was faked.

I'll also note that I've already seen - many times - every claim you've made or implied thus far, and seen every one debunked before (including claims I've debunked myself). A number of them I consider not only to be wrong in their conclusions but in fact based on faulty premises. I intend to address them (except specific photographic interpretation claims, for reasons already explained) once the ALSEP issue is resolved (or I consider it to be abandoned).

All of which is a long way around thundering, VERY WELL, BUT MY PATIENCE IS NOT INFINITE! - which I'd like to do, but can't type without giggling.

 

[Southwind17]

Alright, so it's just those two pics that are fake and all the rest of the proof is genuine then?

So you admit that men walked on the Moon?

You wish - if only logic were that simple eh!

Allow me to explain something that should be patently obvious to you:

IF, it were to be proven that one, or even two, photos are faked, it doesn't necessarily follow that the others are genuine. In fact, almost the opposite. It would all depend on the motive for the fakery. If it was just enhancement for public consumption that's a whole different ball game from deceipt to try to prove something that never really happened. In any event, it's inevitable that only a small proportion of the photos, even if they were all faked, will contain inconsistencies that reveal them to be fakes. It would basically come down to spotting where the photographers had slipped up with composition, lighting, etc. without spotting it themselves and removing those photos from the record.

Worth a shot though, Brainache!