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

[PetersCreek]

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!

Are you pleading a special case for the Apollo 11 video only or does you scenario also apply to the later missions with their much-improved video, longer durations, and wider ranging "sets"?

Sure, you can imagine your scenario but can you demonstrate it? If it was as easy as you suggest, I could readily imagine that these simple techniques would have been used by others who wished to convincingly portray a manned mission to the moon...like Hollywood film makers. Can you provide a contemporaneous cinematic example that is similarly convincing?

Can you also imagine for us...

...the types and placement of the lighting rigs you suggest that would duplicate the appropriate lighting conditions? This setup must faithfully replicate the appearance of full sun during Lunar morning. It must be of sufficient intensity to duplicate the dynamic range expected of a scene recorded in full sun. It must not cast multiple shadows, nor shadows otherwise inconsistent with a Sun-distant light source. It must not be visible in any camera pan...unless it looks exactly like the sun. It may not exhibit the falloff typically associate with local lighting.

...the set construction technique that allowed for all recorded activities, in all directions observed, including the panoramic photographic record, without reset? All specular surfaces recorded must not reflect any indication of crew or rigging but instead must reflect only what would be expected on the surface of the Moon. Any forced perspective techniques used must consistent and convincing in any direction observed.

...a simulant for the Lunar dust that behaves in atmosphere as it would in a vacuum? It must look like dust, cling like dust, take an impression like Lunar dust, and otherwise act like dust...except...it must not billow or othewise behave as dust would in the presence of an atmosphrere.

...a method of slowing down the video and that accounts for all technical and physical limitations and considerations? For instance, you could start by addressing the very good issues raised in this thread. Then you could explain how audio was synchronized to video when the duration of recorded activity was doubled as a result of slow-motion conversion. Don't forget to include foley artists to the crew. Then there's the matter of integrating interactive communications with mission controllers into the video record. Also explain why non-gravity-driven motion wouldn't appear anomolous in a slow motion video and why all tasks portrayed take twice as long.

 

[beachnut]

How dumb to you have to be to believe in lies like the moon hoax type junk? How can you test for that limited amount of mental capacity?

The only cure for this type of terminal stupidity is education; why are those afflicted unable to participate in the cure?

The cretins who spew the lies of CTs are easily exposed by experts and laypeople with little effort. Only other cretins are unable to absorb the lessons passed on by knowledgeable people who graciously explain reality for those who appear to be void of facts and reason. Many thanks to those who take the time to spread knowledge to others. Thank you.

For those who spread lies and fail to learn how things really work; there is no way to express how pathetic you are.

For those who take the time to expose the lies and illuminate us with knowledge; there is no way to express or thank you enough.

 

[Belz...]

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

Southwindbot: "None. I just find the contradictory evidence suspicious."

 

[sts60]

Southwind17, I am following this thread with much amusement. I'd like to just ask a few clarifying questions to pass the time while I honor your polite request to defer in-depth discussion of ALSEP-related hoax claims. Sorry if you feel that you've already answered some of these; I have read all of your posts, but I can't remember everything you've said and don't want to re-read all 13 pages. Anyway, a simple "yes" or "no" answer will do for each...

1. Do you believe the Mercury and Gemini programs orbited humans, successfully practiced rendezvous techniques, and returned the humans safely?
2. Do you believe the Surveyor program successfully landed robots on the Moon, which studied the soil composition and mechanics and lunar environment, imaged the landing area and lighting in reasonable detail, and performed thruster firings on the surface (including a brief takeoff and re-landing)?
3. Do you believe that various U.S., Soviet, and other spacecraft studied the space environment in Earth orbit, in cislunar space, and outside the Earth-Moon system in the period before and during Apollo?
Note: questions 4-7 are understood to mean "with men aboard, who returned safely to Earth"
4. Do you believe Apollo 8 circumnavigated the Moon?
5. Do you believe Apollo 9 tested the Lunar Module in Earth orbit?
6. Do you believe Apollo 10 orbited the Moon?
6a. And tested the LM descent and ascent, approaching within about 50,000 ft of the lunar surface?
7. Do you believe any Apollo mission landed on the Moon?
8. Whoops! No question 8.
9. Do you believe lunar rocks, regolith, and core samples retrieved in situ are indistinguishable from items found naturally (including meteorites) or somehow fabricated on Earth?
10. Do you believe the Shuttle orbits the Earth with humans for missions lasting up to roughly two weeks?
11. Do you believe the Mir space station used to, and ISS currently, orbit the Earth with humans aboard continuously?
11. Do you believe in telecommunications, weather, and surveillance satellites in geosynchronous orbit?

 

[CurtC]

It seems Southwind isn't too interested in discussing facts and evidence. I think he's just trolling, trying to get the board riled up, so he just pokes his head in every once in a while to disagree about whether his request for a one-word answer was fulfilled properly, or who said what when.

Come on, SW, you started talking about anomalies. The ones you mentioned have been shown to be not anomalous. Are we finished with the boot-shine discussion? Do you have anything else?

 

[uruk]

Anybody who wants to peruse the book "Dark Moon" legaly on a limited basis, go here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uq...+moon&sig=iZQMLhA_N8udgRT-OqtjJKfUH64#PPP1,M1

I am currently trying to read what I can.

 

[rwguinn]

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

Try to keep up...,sigh.
Blowhar ...er...Southwind doesn't doubt that men went to the moon, or have traveled in space.
What he cannot believe is that they actually exited the lander and walked around out there...

 

[Brainache]

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.
...

Worth a shot though, Brainache!

But still the point remains that if those guys didn't walk on the moon, then every single piece of evidence (photos, videos, technical data. moon rocks etc etc) must be fake. Every single one! They must also be fakes of such high quality that they can fool thousands if not millions of qualified people for decades.

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.

In your photo faking scenario, are we expected to believe that occasionally they slipped up and accidentally used two "suns" as a light source instead of the usual one? Lucky some sharp eyed darkroom worker spotted that before it made the cover of Time Magazine! Were they constantly re-setting the lights and occasionally forgot how many suns in this solar system?

It would have taken years and years of work just on the hoax photos. Then you have to start shooting all the videos...

Face it Mr Southwind, your position is untennable.

 

[slyjoe]

Anybody who wants to peruse the book "Dark Moon" legaly on a limited basis, go here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=uq...+moon&sig=iZQMLhA_N8udgRT-OqtjJKfUH64#PPP1,M1

I am currently trying to read what I can.

I would stop if I were you. Your head may ache. I lost it right after the bad science, the UFO stuff, the hiding of Mars structures that match those on earth, astrology, Horus' eye...

It was too much even leaving out the parts google wouldn't let you see.

To hold this guy up as a serious researcher is a joke.

 

[uruk]

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!?

The laws of physics are the same for a robotic probe or a manned spacecraft. The difference is the weight and the G-forces you want to inflict on the astronauts. So it is actually more like Cheddar or Wenslydayle mate!

Other issues are the life support systems Such as consumables (air, food, water) radiation protection and waste disposal. (You do not want to know how they handled defecation on Apollo. Lets just say the Shuttle astronauts are lucky they have some sort of a toilet!)
From a propulsion/navigation perspective it comes out to weight. The logistics of the other things are not too dissimilar from a nuclear submarine. Again the major difference was weight.
Most of the food was freezedried. The balanced the amount of radiation protection with the amount of time they were going to be in space away from the earth magnetic field. Again weight being a significant factor. You would be surprised at what can and can't block certain types of radiation.

Why has no man gone beyond LEO since? Short answer: money.

longer answer: After seven missions (Apollo 13 aborted. ) Americans got bored with the Moon missions. We beat the Russians, that's all the public cared about. The American public generally are not interested in pure research unless it does something to amuse. Sadly our media nutured culture is that way. The Vietnam war also helped to turn interest away.

NASA is a government agency. It's budget is determined by politicians. The space race was a big thing and so was NASA's blank check at the time. Public interest goes away so does the money. No bucks, no Buck Rodgers .

Though there are plans to go back in the near future. I'll await your arguments as to why these missions will be faked also.

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

Could have just said "no". Sarcasm does not translate well on text.

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

Nope. See abouve.

All you need is enough air (replenished with liquified oxygen and CO2 scrubbed with filters), water (primarily produced from the fuel cells), food(freezedried and rehydrated with onboard water supply), and a place to keep the waste. (Urine and excess water was dumped overboard via a valve system. Feces were *ugh* bagged and stored. And you had a diaper in the EVA suits).

Radiation was delt with as much as possible via different materials that absorbed or blocked a good deal of the radiation. plastics and the fuel handled most of that. The temperature differnetial was delt with by slowly rotating the spacecrafts along the long axis and reflective and insulating material. Why do you think the Command module and lunar module were covered in reflective film? Looks pretty?

The other issue would be to limit the g-forces. that would change your trajectories and accelerations. but not by much. General what is bad for a human is bad for delicate instruments.

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

More like: Grudgingly conceeding Russians who had spies and didn't out the US fakeing a Moon landing at the height of the cold war in the middle of a space race = an increased possibility that we actually went to and landed on the moon.

Your argument is more like " I think these photos look a little weird = US faked the Moon landing"

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

You mean don't confuse matters with additional facts. Gotcha.

 

[uruk]

I would stop if I were you. Your head may ache. I lost it right after the bad science, the UFO stuff, the hiding of Mars structures that match those on earth, astrology, Horus' eye...

It was too much even leaving out the parts google wouldn't let you see.

To hold this guy up as a serious researcher is a joke.

Yea, I saw the part about the face on Mars and I threw up a little bit in my mouth.

Unfortunatly most of Groves calculations in the index are with held. I'll have to go and see if i can find it at the library.

 

[PhantomWolf]

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!?

Because after Congress killed Apollo there has been no political will. The Soviets gave up after their heavy lifter failed, the US ended up with the Space Shuttle, a vehicle that was never designed to get out of Earth orbit and can't do so without a major redesign and refit, and no one else has had the money to even try. BTW in 1960 two men travelled to the deepest part of the ocean, the Challenger Deep. Since then no one has returned, and today thereis no submarine that can even come close to making the journey. Does that mean the the Trieste and it's voyage was faked?

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

What issue was there in this? The Soviets did a lunar flyby with living creatures previous to Apollo 8, people had been in space for 2 weeks during Gemini and landing on the Earth and keeping your cargo alive is a lot harder than landing on the moon (just ask the Soviets who lost 1 astronaut and nearly lost a second because of landings that didn't quite go to plan with their Soyuz craft.) Merely waving your hands and declaring that it is massively difficult doesn't make it so.

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

Why? Apollo 11 didn't happen in a vacuum, it was merely a part of a series of ongoing missions that started by putting a man into space and then progressively extending from there until they completed a landing. By merely sticking to Apollo 11 you can ignore all the history before the mission and after it that puts it into context and don't have to do more than wave your hands about what was so impossible about the missions.

 

[Brainache]

I have a question for the technical types here: Is there any way to measure the distance to the horizon in those moon pics? Trigonometry or some such? If we know the camera settings and lens size, focal length etc as well as the astronaut's height above the mean, can it be worked out?

If so something like that would put the idea of them being shot on location on Earth to rest, wouldn't it? (Even if all the other factors haven't already buried that notion)

 

[PhantomWolf]

I have a question for the technical types here: Is there any way to measure the distance to the horizon in those moon pics? Trigonometry or some such? If we know the camera settings and lens size, focal length etc as well as the astronaut's height above the mean, can it be worked out?

If so something like that would put the idea of them being shot on location on Earth to rest, wouldn't it? (Even if all the other factors haven't already buried that notion)

not really, at least not by any of the techniques I know of, at least not without knowing the height of the objects on the horizon. In theory a mountain on the horizon could be a thousand feet high and far away, or ten feet high and quite close. What we can determine is that the mountains are in fact 3D as they change with parallax as the camera moves.

It may be possible to determine their distance if you can locate a stereo-pair of images, but I think that you'd still need to know how far apart the images were taken to get results.

Having said that, it would likely be able to determine things like how far away the rover or LM is in some photos since we know their height, and it could be possible to determine how tall a mountain is based on that information and the change in hieght of the moutain with the change in distance over several photos, though I wouldn't be totally sure of the math.

 

[slyjoe]

I have a question for the technical types here: Is there any way to measure the distance to the horizon in those moon pics? Trigonometry or some such? If we know the camera settings and lens size, focal length etc as well as the astronaut's height above the mean, can it be worked out?

If so something like that would put the idea of them being shot on location on Earth to rest, wouldn't it? (Even if all the other factors haven't already buried that notion)

I think PhantomWolf is correct. Even if there was a method, the hoaxers just would say that they faked it on a soundstage with the right curvature.

 

[Brainache]

I think PhantomWolf is correct. Even if there was a method, the hoaxers just would say that they faked it on a soundstage with the right curvature.

Yeah thanks guys. I suspected as much, but was still curious. And you're right about the HBs who would in any case dissmiss whatever didn't fit with the fantasy.

 

[PixyMisa]

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

Yes, subsequently. Kind of the point, isn't it? Throw out an unsupported assertion, wait for responses, and then say "oh, I wasn't talking about that!"

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

Yes, if you never bother to say what you are talking about, we have to guess.

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

And?

You said, after I made those points, that you were referring to... cameras:

Uninsulated, essentially standard stock cameras, for starters.

But first, you dodged the question, with this response:

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.

So now, apparently, your sole objection to the Apollo program is the use of cameras that you assert were "Uninsulated, essentially standard stock". This is not entirely accurate:

http://history.nasa.gov/apollo_photo.html

On Apollo 8, Hasselblad EL electric cameras were used for the first time. The electric motor in these Hasselblads largely automated the picture taking process. The astronauts needed only to set the distance, lens aperture, and shutter speed, but once the release button was pressed, the camera exposed and wound the film and tensioned the shutter. Two Hasselblad EL cameras, each with a Planar f 2.8/80mm [normal] plus a single Sonnar f5.6/250mm [telephoto] lens and seven magazines of 70mm film, were carried. The cameras, film magazines, and lenses used on Apollo 8 had black anodized surfaces to eliminate reflections. Modifications to the cameras included special large locks for the film magazines and levers on the f-stop and distance settings on the lenses. These modifications facilitated the camera's use by the crew operating with pressurized suits and gloves. Additionally, the cameras had no reflex mirror viewfinder and instead a simple sighting ring assisted the astronaut in pointing the camera.

Hasselblad cameras were used during the Mercury and Gemini programs. John Glenn used a cheap Minolta camera purchased at a drug store. Were those programs faked too?

Pixi - do you understand the concept of a 'leading question'?

Yes.

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!

What relevance does any of this have?

Doh! See above!

Yes, you did eventually answer the question. The answer makes little sense, but you did answer it.

 

[PixyMisa]

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.

Certainly.

Keeping them alive and getting them back again, that's harder.

Chalk and cheese buddy! Why has no man gone beyond LEO since!?

Several reasons:

1. We've been to the moon. The next step is Mars, which is much further away - a six month trip rather than three days.
2. We've been to the moon. We're not in a space race with anyone. America won.
3. NASA at the height of the Apollo program received 4% of the Federal budget. Today it receives 0.5%.

 

[PixyMisa]

Why? Apollo 11 didn't happen in a vacuum, it was merely a part of a series of ongoing missions that started by putting a man into space and then progressively extending from there until they completed a landing. By merely sticking to Apollo 11 you can ignore all the history before the mission and after it that puts it into context and don't have to do more than wave your hands about what was so impossible about the missions.

Yep, that's why.

 

[Hindmost]

This is getting so silly...thousands of photos...moon rocks that have been confirmed to be older than any on planet earth...obvious 1/6th gravity...the laser ranger from apollo 11 still giving data...etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_rock

one can lead a horse to water, but one cannot shove the horses head under water and force the horse to drink.

And of course, people like me that actually watched the whole thing as it was happening. Yet the hoaxers are out there with nothing and the debate goes on--to the credulous--learn some physics.

glenn