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

[phunk]

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.

How about an example that you can prove is not caused by differences in elevation of the horizon?

 

[uruk]

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

It is not a theory. That is what in fact happened. Read the astronauts debriefing on the landing proceedures and events. Read the science reports and astronaut's observations of the area below the decent engine nozzle. Read the engineering reports on the expected performance results and tests.

The problem you are having is that you are taking a counter position based on a single book, a personal opinion and a philosophical technicality.

Yes, I understand that you can never be 100% certain on any given event.

It would seem that the only way you would accept that fact that man landed on the Moon would be for you go there yourself. That seems to be the level of proof you are arguing for considering some of the reponses you have given to sts60 and Corsair.

At the moment, all we have is personal experiance, circumstantial and secondary evidence. Literaly tons of it. (if you count all the science reports, mission reports and hardcopy data generated by the Apollo program not to mention all the equipment that was left on the Moon)

You are arguing plausibility which, for all your arguments, seem to come down to personal opinion of what you believe is plausible or not.

And your supporting evidence has been from a single book where the author seems to be ignoring or missunderstanding some basic fundamental theories of the nature of light. And most of that based on an interpretation of one or two photographs. And an interpretation that has been shown to be a mistaken at that.

Can you step away and look at that objectively?

 

[uruk]

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?

Hmmm. "near perfect" sound like a subjective assessment to me.

You do know that light can reflect or bounce off of more than one surface depending on the amount of light and the reflecting material. Remember those matte white photographer's reflectors?

Have you also heard of controling exposure when making positives from the film negatives? Things like light blasting and dodging?

You have never given me any comment as to why the the upper surfaces, particularly the top of Aldrin's helmet in picture 5099, is in shadow and the lower surfaces are illuminated.

 

[technoextreme]

Can you provide such a photo?

Can you explain the technical limitations that you described and completely ignored? It's just stupid to bring it up as an issue and then provide no proof.

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?

You actually can't fake the ALSEP data. It's pretty much impossible.

 

[uruk]

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

Again you are confusing your time periods. There were no CCD chips in 1969. They used "videotron" tubes.

The video camera had been invented a few years before and was primitive at the time. Though I do not see what the relative quality of video between the 60's and the 90's has to do with the validity of the Moon walk.

 

[volatile]

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!

A dozen? What about the set construction? What about the special effects - it has been explained to you that "slo-mo" does not reproduce lunar gravity? The props construction?

Have we *ever* been to the Moon, in your opinion? Who faked the Apollo 15 footage, for example? Who built the prop hammer and feather that land at the same time in earth air? Who faked the footage from Apollos 12, 14, 16 and 17? The same "dozen" guys? Did they keep the same set between landings? Who looked after it? Supervised the warehouse it was in?

If a dozen people faked the Apollo footage, who else knew about it? Who signed the invoices? Who wrote the contracts? Who authorised the faking? How high up, and how low down does this go?!

For the Apollo landings to have been faked, hundreds and hundreds of people (and at least one tea lady) would need to not only have been involved, but to have remained silent and told no-one for four decades. Why haven't they?

 

[Hindmost]

I have alway enjoyed the videos from the moon. Simple knowledge of ballistics can tell the rover is on the moon...the picture below was taken as a video snap from this link.

http://www.apolloarchive.com/



And how on earth does this laser work??? Tough to fake this one.

http://www.csr.utexas.edu/mlrs/

Occam's razor is getting dull.

glenn

 

[Belz...]

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

"Thinking outside the box". Again, one implies that their opponents are dogmatic.

Considering how you've ignored evidence on this thread, I do think that makes YOU close-minded.

Let's hope for all future criminal defendents' sake in your area that you're never called up for jury service!

Accused are not sentenced on hunches.

 

[Belz...]

IF, it were to be proven that one, or even two, photos are faked, it doesn't necessarily follow that the others are genuine.

Now that is the most inscrutable piece of logical nonsense I've seen in quite some time.

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!

See what I'm talking about when I say "ignoring evidence" ? What part of "moon gravity CANNOT be faked" don't you understand ?

 

[Shalamar]

One of the interesting bits that moon hoaxers often ignore, are the contractors. Either they (And their hundreds of employees, EACH) were in on the hoax, or they were kept in the dark, so they would go along as business as usual.

Since no-one who was working on engineering the rockets, the lander, etc have come forward to say they were faked, they obviously believe that the items they built would have performed as intended. ie: to land a man on the moon.

Nasa guy #1: We're going to pretend to land some people on the moon. WHat are we going to need?
Nasa guy #2: Well, We'll need some convincing actors, A really big airless soundstage. And oh yeah, some contractors to build all kthe stuff.
#1: Wait. Contractors? Thats a lot of people.
#2: Well, We don't have the manufacturing, and it would look obvious if no-one worked on this stuff.
#1: Oh. Right. Well, see if we can get someone to build that airless soundstage. It has to look, and act like a vacuum. We'll just slow down the speed of the film to simulate gravity.
Time passes...
#1: We have a problem. We don't seem to have the real tech for that soundstage. Its proving to be a bugger.
#2: Well, I just took a look around the manufacturing! Those engineers, they're real bright. Because we couldn't tell them we weren't actually going to the moon, they went ahead and designed stuff that could actually do it!
#1: You're joking?
#2: Nope. At this point, its easier, and cheaper just to send those guys to the moon, and come back with some rocks, than it is to fake an airless atmosphere, run repeaters up to the moon to fool the amateur radio enthusiasts, let alone the other countries. ..

 

[Belz...]

Shalamar, obviously Aldrin and Armstrong could've done ALL that on their own.

 

[Shalamar]

Shalamar, obviously Aldrin and Armstrong could've done ALL that on their own.

Oh.

Really?

They put fishbowls on their heads, wrapped themselves up in tinfoil, and used models to show how it was done?

Well, Now I'm convinced, It was all a hoax!

 

[Vincent Vega]

http://www.answers.com/topic/apollo-moon-landing-hoax-accusations

While poking around. this is actually a pretty good resource on the subject.

 

[uruk]

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

Well first you have to start out by first proving that the photo was faked. then you work outward from there. But so far you or Groves have not shown the photo to be faked.
You have only shown that you and Groves do not fully understand what you are seeing in that picture. And from what you have said in past posts, Groves is working from some inital assumptions and estimations. If there is garbage going into the equations, garbage will be the result of the equations.

The choices are that the anomlies pointed out by Groves are real and the photo is of a staged event or that Groves has mistakenly interpreted the photograph and is in error.

If the first it true and the photo is of a staged event that would certainly place the other photos in doubt but, you would than have to show that the others were also staged. Which would not be that difficult since you can request to see the original negatives. (some one did that for a book) You would than have to rule out the other possibilities for staging that particular event other than faking a Moon landing. (you want to keep an open mind and think outside the box right?)

That could also place all the other evidence in doubt also, but the burden would still be upon you to show that the other evidence was faked. (and it has been shown that some of the evidence is impossible to fake with 1960's technology)

Considering all the evidence that exists and that noone has been able to show with any degree of probabilty or possibilty that any of it has been faked in the 40 some odd years that it has been in existance. I think the second choice is far more plausible than the first.

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

No it has not. Groves hasn't been able to show that his interpretation of the photo is correct from what you have been arguing (if you are basing your argument from Groves work). Especially considering all the evidence that exists that goes against him

Let me see if I can find his book at my local library. I should be having some free time over the holidays.

{snip}

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!

Let's hope the defendant does get a CT'er on the jury either. No telling what the defendant might be convicted for like abducting lumber jacks or assainating JFK.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Since Southwind's veneer of impartial skepticism is wearing thin, perhaps it would be interesting to list the unfakeable parts of the Apollo evidence. For me, the list goes something like this:

1) The rocks. Impossible to retrieve with robots even with today's technology, and utterly impossible to fake without building them up atom by atom. And yet there's not a single geologist among the thousands who have handled them who doubts their authenticity. Either you dismiss the whole geology community as frauds, or they're the real thing. So how did they get here?

2) The ALSEP and EASEP experiments. For the sake of argument, remotely fakeable using today's technology, but given the track record of remote-controlled probes, I wouldn't base a multi-billion scam on getting a robot to place them properly. And inventing the data out of whole cloth is so far-fetched it's beyond ludicrous. There are other experiments such as the LRRR that are slightly more possible, but we haven't a single data point to back that theory.

3) The videos. I have yet to see a single fictional movie come close to the Apollo material. You might fool a layman at first glance, but these are among the most scrutinized videos ever, and they consistently stand up to any test they've faced. Remember, raytracing wasn't even a concept, so all the work would have to have been done "live", i.e. in vacuum... and in 1/6 G... and without messing up shots that lasts half an hour, continuous. And then there are the photos which are slightly easier (in the same way that the sun is less massive than Betelgeuse...). Still, faking those thousands of photos would have occupied a major movie company. For years. Per mission. Wasn't there something about "before the decade is out"?

4) The launches. Seen by thousands, live and on TV. Not to mention that the CSM itself was tracked visually by astronomers much of the way to the moon.

No doubt there's more. Anyway, I'm pretty much done here, unless there's someone with a genuine question. All this quibbling about basic photography is boring me.

 

[Belz...]

Oh.

Really?

They put fishbowls on their heads, wrapped themselves up in tinfoil, and used models to show how it was done?

Well, Now I'm convinced, It was all a hoax!

Yeah, they even played the other actors.

 

[Southwind17]

And apparently not insurmountable.

That's not the point. You were suggesting that landing a man on the Moon presents essentially the same technical impediments as landing a probe. Chalk and cheese buddy! Why has no man gone beyond LEO since!?

Do you know an incident where the laws of physics have changed?

Er ... "never changes!". That looks like a resounding 'NO' to me.

Yep, the only difference is the nature of the payload. Extra wieght of people and life support systems and provisions, and the G-forces. Sounds difficult?

Er ... I think you might have overlooked keeping the payload alive? Needn't concern ourselves with the minutia though eh!

Wouldn't that be one of the many reasons the Russians aren't crying hoax? Because they know it is possible

Ooh, the Reds again. Yes, passive Rusky = US man on Moon! Is that a logical simultaneous equation I wonder!

Are you questioning those missions also?

OK, let's stick with Apollo 11 - try not to confuse matters.

 

[VonNeumann]

Southwind,
It saddens me to have to tell you that many of the guys I worked with at NASA, NASA contractors, and US Air Force, are now dead! Yes, they have died! I don't know what the statistical odds are for so many to have died but I think you had ought to look into it. Maybe you can find out what's at the root of all this.

Also, I can tell you a few things that are not known by the public with regard to the space program and if you promise never to tell, you can PM me and I might just give you a few very interesting tidbits.

 

[Southwind17]

Who said anything about space suits?

I just did. Are you having trouble following the discussion?

Spacesuits? Oh, your presumption, do you mean, that I was alluding to spacesuits, to which I responded:

I'm not alluding to the space suits; they were, I assume, designed from basics specifically with the missions in mind. Many other aspects weren't, though. [emphasis added]

To which you responded:

What aspects? Specifically.

To which I have subsequently responded, and obviously, it ain't spacesuits!

So where do spacesuits still fit into this debate, exactly?! Seems it's you who's 'having trouble following the discussion'!

Southwind, what is your reference to temperature gradients supposed to signify?

Oh here it comes, for the record, the erroneous presumption:

Remember that people have worked in space, in space suits both more primitive and more advanced than the Apollo suits, for years before and decades after Apollo. Temperature is a solved problem.

OK, so as to untangle your severely twisted proverbials let's just call it 'temperature difference'; keep things nice and simple for you eh. [Note: not originally directed at PixyMisa]
Allow me to ask you a question:
What would the temperature difference have typically been between, say, a partially reflective metal surface exposed to full sunlight for, say, an hour, and that same surface placed in full shade for an hour?

The same as it would be in Earth orbit. You know, where the Mercury and Gemini and Shuttle missions go.

Which would be what, exactly?

Look it up. It's not hard. Just type the words "moon" and "temperature" into that little Google box.

Pixi - do you understand the concept of a 'leading question'? Better debaters tend to answer them honestly, but then retort with an intelligent counter attack. Less capable people, however, just side-step them, because they find them threatening, but can't look ahead to determine where the best counter-attack should come from. In any event, side-stepping tends to stall the debate, which I suppose is the preferred option when you feel threatened!

And I asked, Southwind, what is your reference to temperature gradients supposed to signify? You seem to suffer inordinate difficulty in answering simple, direct questions.

Doh! See above!

 

[technoextreme]

What technical limitations exsisted that made traveling to the moon impossible?