Moon Hoax - A Simple Solution

[PhantomWolf]

Get caught falsifying data even once and you're toast.

Exactly. Look at the results of the Cold Fusion debacle.

The simple thing is that very few science events occur the way that softearth is demanding. A scientist doesn't give his raw data to others; he processes it into a paper and gives that to the reviewers for peer review. That paper might contain tables of his data, but usually the closest to the raw data you'll see are photos of samples and graphs that plot the results. This is standard practice. NASA doesn't do things all that much differently, in fact often they release things before they are ready for release, look at the "Catbox" issue with the high resolution image of the "face" being released before it was fully processed.

Most of the events in history don't have independent verification. No reporter was with Hillary and Tensing when they summited Everest. No one has been back to the bottom of the Marina Trench since the crew of the Trieste placed an American flag there in 1960. No one photographed Columbus as he set foot on the shore in the West Indies, and there is no other source of information about the Roman invasion of Gaul except for seven copies of the writings of Julius Caesar. As Tofu stated, no palaeontologist, nor archaeologist, nor geologist, in the field, has the media standing over his shoulder watching his every move to prove where and when he found a sample. Often sites are kept relatively secret to prevent others damaging the sites as well, so independent verification by going to the dig site may not even be an option.

The simple thing is that Apollo already has more evidence of happening that any other event in the history of the planet. Regardless of softearth's claims, which to date he has failed to support even though asked to repeatedly, these things would NOT have been easy to fake in an undetectable way, and yet, to date, not one single challenge to their authenticity has stood up under the scrutiny of well balanced and impartial science and observation. Merely asking questions and producing unsupported and unscientific claims of fakery is not and never will be enough to erode the current evidence, and that evidence categorically states that Apollo happened as advertised. That conclusion is inescapable to anyone that truly desired to know the truth. Only those that desperately want to deny Apollo's reality and live comfortably in their little delusional world of conspiracy and evil governments could possibly continually ignore the facts and close their minds to the truth that stands open for anyone to see if they simply bothered looking.

I know that this post is pretty much useless as far as softearth is concerned, he's already shown that he is ignoring my posts because he won't answer any of the numerous questions I have asked repeatedly. And since the only reason that I can possibly see for not doing that is that he knows that in answering them he will have to admit that Apollo couldn't have been faked, and he can't do that because it would conflict with his world view, I doubt he ever will answer them. Instead he continues to try and act amenable, all while demanding impossible proofs that he knows will never actually be done, and thus he can continue the pretence that he is the reasonable one and that it is NASA who are the ones that aren't reasonable and are hiding something, because "all they have to do is this simple little thing."

I'm sure that the luckers see through that, it's a very typical HB stance, and I can't see it changing (despite that his level of demanded proof has done so about 5 times.)

[softearth]

So again, If anyone has knowledge or an idea on how this can be done, please share it with the board.

To be blunt, it isn't possible without removing the control of the very people who are running the probe. Any system put inside the probe can be counterfeited by the people that build it. Short of building, launching, and operating your own probe, you're out of luck. By the way I have been involved in computers, both programming and building, for over 19 years, so I have a little knowledge in the field.

Thanks for putting it on the record that it is impossible to have a tamper proof system to validate data and/or images without removing the control of the very people who are running the probe.

I will now take my request to other forums and user groups, especially ones related to computer science to see if they agree with your assessment. I have a few good ones in mind, so I would ask that the Moderator keep this thread open so that others may weigh in on this issue as well.

...

[Frantic Freddie]

...and for those of us keeping score, that would be the 3rd time softearth has ignored/refused to answer Frantic Freddie's question...

sorry I'm late,went out of town for a couple of days

Thank you R.A.F.,but it's obvious softearth's not going to answer my question.After reading his replies it's also obvious that he's an experienced troll.I've run into people like that in my RL businesses of music & real estate & don't like dealing with them,they create problems where there aren't any just for the twisted pleasure of it.

And that's all I'm gonna say,'cause what I'd like to say would get me suspended or banned.:wall:

[captain swoop]

cut and run I see.

[Dave J]

Ok, softearth, you have already determined that the next LRO mission will be "fixed", with false data inserted to show the landing sites. This presumably is to support the faked landings from almost 4 decades ago.

A few questions...

1) Show us just one piece of evidence which indisputedly, clearly shows that the entire record is faked. We're still waiting for that smoking gun.
2) The FAI recognizes the flights. Does this invalidate their standing as the International authority on flight records?
3) Is there any capable space agency in the world that would accept your demands on their telemetry program, including the cost? After all, you are demanding it from them under your declaration that they are inherently dishonest and fraudulent.

The audacity of your expectations is astounding. Where is your proof that all this is necessary? What will you tell these agencies and computer companies when they ask you why you think this is required?

[Grand_Lunar]

That's all great, but this thread was not started to discuss moon rocks, soil and core samples, photos etc.,


We bring those up, because those are examples of better evidence than what you expect.

You ignore the fact that there is no reason to cater to the needs of skeptics concerning Apollo by sending an orbiter to take images of the landing sites.

And the main reason for that is because of the existence of the other bits of evidence in the form of the photos on the moon itself, the rocks and soil samples, ect.

It's a simple idea, really: examine what has been learned rather than make ludacrious expectations.

[AGN Fuel]

How does this question justify the response of.... Well, as you can see it doesn't, and the whole reason I started this thread was to discuss lunar orbiter evidence either from past or future missions in refernce to the Apollo moon landings....

What is so wrong about asking for more evidence?

It is justified on the basis that if you are presented with 20 pieces of evidence from various sources, all of which are internally consistent and all of which supports a very specific and detailed proposition, then suspending judgement until an arbitrary 21st piece of evidence (which evidence will be less compelling than that already submitted) is, frankly, irrational. :eh:

[SirThoreth]

That's all great, but this thread was not started to discuss moon rocks, soil and core samples, photos etc., but was instead started to discuss the lack of lunar orbiter images showing the lunar modules and/or rovers on the surface of the moon during the past 35 years.


Then I suggest you stop posting in this thread. Why? Because you yourself have strayed from what you're now claiming the purpose of this thread was.

As you said in your very first post in this thread:



I hope this logic helps to solve the moon hoax problem once and for all. ;)
...

The entire crux of your reasoning was that there's a need to "solve the moon hoax problem". When it was pointed out what high-res images currently exist, why the idea of a "moon hoax" is silly in the first place, and future high-res imagery that's planned for the Moon, it was you who chose to turn this into a "why the Apollo missions must have been faked" thread.

That your arguments have been proven to be faulty, forcing you to try to prevent "thread drift" isn't our problem. The genie is out of the bottle, and what you're asking for now is not only not what you asked for in your first post, but far removed from what this thread has been for several pages now.



Therefore, the only question up for scientific debate now is how can NASA or any other space agency guarantee the data and/or images are 100% tamper proof? This is a great opportunity for all the brilliant people on here or from anywhere else for that matter to circumvent the skeptics and beat them to the punch.


So you acknowledge, then, that the current evidence of the Apollo mission is incontrovertably correct, and therefore beyond "scientific debate"?

[Mellow]

Am I being out of line to suggest this thread needs terminating? It seems to just be a place where certain parties are seeing how long they can string us along?

LRO images will be great for those of us who believe the Apollo missions took place.... because they did, go on softearth, prove me wrong!

I'm really looking forward to seeing even little tiny pixellated images of the landing sites, I really really am. Perhaps I'm a bit sad.

Bust anyway, HB's won't find the new images compelling at all, so this thread feels like a waste of time.....

[R.A.F.]

Is there any capable space agency in the world that would accept your demands on their telemetry program, including the cost? After all, you are demanding it from them under your declaration that they are inherently dishonest and fraudulent.

Given available evidence, the idea that the Moon landings were faked is an extraordinary claim.

Softearth demands that NASA "prove" itself correct, but in reality, it is up to him to "prove" NASA wrong...something that he has not even attempted...

Therefore, I agree with those who have suggested that this thread be locked...

[Grand_Lunar]

Am I being out of line to suggest this thread needs terminating?


No, I think not.

Others agree that this has turned into a pointless discussion. No matter what points we bring up, or how often we state them, Softearth just doesn't get the jist of it.

[softearth]

It is justified on the basis that if you are presented with 20 pieces of evidence from various sources, all of which are internally consistent and all of which supports a very specific and detailed proposition, then suspending judgement until an arbitrary 21st piece of evidence (which evidence will be less compelling than that already submitted) is, frankly, irrational. :eh:

I wonder how all the people who have been exonerated by DNA technology, only after being convicted by 20 pieces of evidence would feel about your statement?

Real science will always welcome new technologies to help find the truth, whereas the new results may either solidify or extinguish existing evidence and/or perceptions.

Again, my very first message on this thread was to propose a simple scientific solution to help end the moon hoax theories and I have maintained that position for the most part. However, it is very obvious that some people would like the shift topics and talk about other issues, even after "tofu", a senior member of this board posted message #177 to plea with everyone to keep this thread on topic.

If you type in the search words “nasa fake data” into Google, you'll find that one of the first references to appear is on whether NASA faked the “face on Mars” images during one of their latest missions to Mars.

Are these real? (http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata2.html)

I'm not supporting this article, but merely pointing out that there will always be speculation and ridicule of data unless open access is given to all the raw data and information and a method of independent verification is in place.

It also seems strange that after I made the statement of letting others from different forums from around the world have a chance to weigh in on the subject of data integrity, everyone wants to lock this thread down.

...

[Tog]

A criminal conviction is a bit different than what we're talking about here though. In a trial, you get 12 ordinary people and they are exposed to most of the evidence. Much of the evidence is not presented either becasue it is inconclusive, or because it may be seen as overkill, and they don't want to bore the jury. There is a also a process at the start of a tril where each side can elect to remove a juror that they feel will not be impatial for some reason. In this example, if we were to put Apollo on trial, it is very likely that anyone with expertise in any relavent field will be removed from the jury by the side that questions the landings. Juries are NOT a Peer review in the sense that science is Peer reviewed.

For that matter, you have still not answered, that I've seen, the questions put to you about your qualifications to review any bit of information as a scientific peer. You have failed to respond to a number of other questions as well. If you have no intention of answering these questions, then I think you should say so, or give any valid reason why this thread should remain open.

Otherwise, I agree that it should be locked, as it is just a waste of space.

[Jakenorrish]

I wonder how all the people who have been exonerated by DNA technology, only after being convicted by 20 pieces of evidence would feel about your statement?

Real science will always welcome new technologies to help find the truth, whereas the new results may either solidify or extinguish existing evidence and/or perceptions.

Again, my very first message on this thread was to propose a simple scientific solution to help end the moon hoax theories and I have maintained that position for the most part. However, it is very obvious that some people would like the shift topics and talk about other issues, even after "tofu", a senior member of this board posted message #177 to plea with everyone to keep this thread on topic.

If you type in the search words “nasa fake data” into Google, you'll find that one of the first references to appear is on whether NASA faked the “face on Mars” images during one of their latest missions to Mars.

Are these real Mars images? (http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata2.html)

I'm not supporting this article, but merely pointing out that there will always be speculation and ridicule of data unless open access is given to all the raw data and information and a method of independent verification is in place.

...

Well, as far as I know having studied the evidence (albeit as a total amateur astronomer) for the best part of a decade, there is plenty of access to much of the raw data if you are prepared to spend your time on the net researching it, rather than mooching around message boards with no intent of using your innitiative. What is it you want Softearth? Your own piece of Apollo Moon rock? If you had that piece of rock, would you have the faintest idea of how to study it?

I'd suggest that you are another HBer clutching at straws in the face of overwhelming evidence. The fact that every response you give twists logic from the sublime to the ridiculous (for instance your above mention of the completely irrelevant face on Mars) is plain for us all to see.

How about you bring something new to the discussion (like evidence of the faking - you've plenty of evidence to support the landings in previous postings) or stop trying to use every well worn and previously debunked CTer tactic in the book.

[AstroSmurf]

This whole debate falls under "proving a negative". It's theoretically impossible to prove that data from a satellite hasn't been tampered with, no matter how many safeguards, checksums, "independent" verifications and whatnot you come up with. Someone wilfully determined to question the evidence can always find a way that it might have been faked, so NASA wisely decides not to waste its energies.

Unless actual evidence of fakery surfaces, the data enjoys the presumption of being authentic. If you don't like it, tough. You don't get to play with a different set of logic than the rest of us.

[lek]

Are these real? (http://www.marsnews.com/news/20020910-fakedata2.html)

I'm not supporting this article, but merely pointing out that there will always be speculation and ridicule of data unless open access is given to all the raw data and information and a method of independent verification is in place.



If I remember correctly, some future mars missions (and why not any other missions) can use laser for faster communication; meaning you would need a satellite of your own to get access to "raw" data... Good luck with that.

<HB mode> It is only to prevent people access to raw data!!!1one </HB mode>

[Swift]

<snip>
Real science will always welcome new technologies to help find the truth, whereas the new results may either solidify or extinguish existing evidence and/or perceptions.

Again, my very first message on this thread was to propose a simple scientific solution to help end the moon hoax theories and I have maintained that position for the most part.
Sure, real science always welcomes new technologies. But real science works on real problems. There will always be people who doubt (or claim they doubt) the landings on the moon. Those who are truly searching for evidence of the landings on the moon can find overwhelming evidence for them. Those who believe otherwise will not be convinced by some photos from lunar orbit, no matter what bit-checking you do. NASA has better ways to spend their (my) money than on debunking hoax believers.

Two questions softearth. First, you never answered my question here (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=840369&postcount=422) about what you thought of the photos from Mars orbit of the rover. Do you think those are fake too?

Second, why do you put the ;) smiley in almost all of your titles? Does that mean this is all some sort of joke?

[bonkey]

If you don't like it, tough. You don't get to play with a different set of logic than the rest of us.


Thats not entirely fair.

Softearth is absolutely and totally entitled to play with a different set of logic than the rest of us.

He just doens't get to be taken seriously by the rest of us whilst doing so.

And this is ultimately the answer to the "why has NASA not done X" style of question from the we-have-a-right-to-more-proof brigade. X is not done because the only people asking for X are those who are choosing to play with a different set of rules and thus who simply aren't taken seriously.

To be taken seriously, either abandon the use of such alternative rules of logic, or prove their worth by successfully proving a hoax that conventional logic could not uncover.

[Grand_Lunar]

I wonder how all the people who have been exonerated by DNA technology, only after being convicted by 20 pieces of evidence would feel about your statement?

Real science will always welcome new technologies to help find the truth, whereas the new results may either solidify or extinguish existing evidence and/or perceptions.

The case with Apollo is not the same as a criminal case.
All the data is available for Apollo, and has been examined by thousands of experts. The evidence is clear cut.

And an orbiter isn't really new technology, nor is it really any better than having the proof of the rock samples, which you keep ignoring. In fact, the rocks are a stronger proof, as that is physical evidence which cannot be faked.

Images can be faked, though experts can tell which are faked are which are not. So far, you haven't shown yourself to be an expert.

Please explain to me as to why the rock samples returned by Apollo aren't enough proof for skeptics to prove the Apollo missions real.

[PhantomWolf]

I wonder how all the people who have been exonerated by DNA technology, only after being convicted by 20 pieces of evidence would feel about your statement?

Generally people exonerated by DNA evidence where jailed on circumstantial evidence rather than physical evidence. Apollo's record is physical. DNA evidence is better than circumstantial; a few pixels on a satellite image are worse evidence than the current Apollo evidence. If the other 20 points of evidence where solidly proven and supported one conclusion, then regardless of the DNA the conviction would likely stand anyway as it would be the DNA would be an aberration.

Consider this. A bank robbery is committed and a teller killed. The suspect is caught on camera, is identified by 10 people in the bank and was, in front of a camera crew, stopped by the police 100m from the bank, carrying the money and the gun. His fingerprints are on the shells of the gun, and he has GSR on his hands and shirt. The bullets recovered from the victim match the rifling in the gun's barrel, and the casings recovered at the scene match the firing pin. However on a closer examination of the gun, a bit of flesh is found in the hammer, and it doesn't test as the suspect's DNA, nor does the suspect have an injury on his hand. Is he going to be convicted?

Yet with Apollo the scenario becomes one of the defence team (The Hoax Proponents) claiming that their client was set up and that the police faked the security camera footage and news footage, bribed the bank staff and clients, threatening to kill them if they didn't agree to testify again the suspect, and planted the gun and money on him. They then set out to prove this with film and photo analysis that makes Oliver Stone's JFK movie look good, a self taught photo analyst who goes about drawing irrelevant lines on stills to show that the "Bullet went around corners" and that the "shadows of the street signs aren't parallel." Their big one how ever is that the police didn't vacuum up all the dust in the bank and test it for DNA to prove that the suspect was ever in the bank, after all that's the simple proof they need to say well okay he could have been there and done it, but till then there is no evidence and the suspect should be acquitted. If you were on that jury, would you ignore the evidence and claim he didn't do it? That's what you are doing with Apollo.

I'm not supporting this article, but merely pointing out that there will always be speculation and ridicule of data unless open access is given to all the raw data and information and a method of independent verification is in place.

The simple thing is that the evidence for Apollo is overwhelming and there is no scientific evidence of any fakery. Those claiming it was faked have ZERO scientific training and ZERO credibility. When the evidence says that without any reasonable doubt Apollo was real, why go on to try and prove it further? Photos of the landing sites isn't going to stop the HP's from claiming it was fake, they'll just claim the new images are faked too, even if you got the raw data, they'll still claim it could be faked. They don't need proof of fakery, that it could be is enough. That they can drag alien bases out of image artefacts is enough for them to claim it as fake. They don't disbelieve Apollo because the evidence points to a fake, they disbelieve it because They want to disbelieve it. And no amount of photos will change that, so why bother wasting millions of dollars trying when it could be spent on something useful?

Is this real?

The article talks about an individual called Bamf. After his little run in at Enterprise, he came here. You can find out what he has to say about the issue in his postings. (http://www.bautforum.com/search.php?searchid=235507)

[Grand_Lunar]

PW, you sure you got that link about Bamf right? I clicked on it and it says there are no matches.

BTW, on that website, I can't find a link to a larger image, so it's hard to see whatever point they're trying to make. In fact, I see no point. :D

[PhantomWolf]

edited, for some reason it didn't like starting on page 2, and since the posts are reverse chronological order, you need the bottom ones on page 2.

[PhantomWolf]

This (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=268060&postcount=41) is probably the most important of his postings.

[BigDon]

Wow.

I used to be amused by Hoag, I was in the "He's a harmless buffoon" camp. After reading Bamf's saga I think differently. :think: After that last bit of Hoag giving out Bamf's personal info on the radio (Especially nut job radio at that!) I would have sought him out. And I'll just leave it at that. ITCB.

[sts60]

Real science will always welcome new technologies to help find the truth, whereas the new results may either solidify or extinguish existing evidence and/or perceptions.

Of course. But you don't know anything about real science, which unambiguously supports the reality of the Apollo moon landings. Furthermore, you simply ignore or deny it in favor of another supposed "proof" which allows you to attempt to create a bit of melodrama ("what will LRO show?") as if there were some real debate or doubt. But there is none among those with as much as an educated layman's grasp of the subject, so no one here is buying it.

This also allows you to portray yourself as someone who's just looking for some honest confirmation; gee, all I need is to see the raw data... You do not have any grasp of what is needed to interpret the "raw data" and I do not for a moment believe you have any serious intention of carrying out the work need to do so. Do you really think we haven't seen this sort of cheesy rhetorical trick before?

Again, my very first message on this thread was to propose a simple scientific solution to help end the moon hoax theories

The scientific solution lies in the massive body of evidence already laid out for you in considerable detail.

and I have maintained that position for the most part. However, it is very obvious that some people would like the shift topics and talk about other issues,

Piffle. It is in the nature of such forums for the talk to range over various related subjects, especially when the subjects show your proposed solution to be unnecessary (to proving the reality of Apollo, that is).

If you type in the search words “nasa fake data” into Google, you'll find that one of the first references to appear is on whether NASA faked the “face on Mars” images during one of their latest missions to Mars.

Are these real?

No sure what you mean by "these". But there will always be real crackpots who believe NASA or whoever is hiding evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life.

I'm not supporting this article, but merely pointing out that there will always be speculation and ridicule of data unless open access is given to all the raw data

1. You keep insisting on "sharing raw data" as some sort of scientific protocol when in fact you know nothing about how science works; and you keep ignoring the explanations that are given to you.
2. You keep ignoring the kinds of "raw data" supporting Apollo that already exist - whether it be telemetry downlinked all over the world or lunar samples shared and analyzed all over the world.
3. This statement implies that you are genuinely interested in imaging data for its scientific value, rather than as a rhetorical tool with which to bash NASA simply because they do not do things the way you think they should be done. Sadly enough, the real world is not required to conform to your expectations.

and information and a method of independent verification is in place.

Once again, this is meaningless. You don't know how any of it works, your handwaving schemes wouldn't do it, and you have yet to provide any kind of explantion as to why you would trust a digital data stream to answer the question, when the enormous weight of historical and scientific evidence has been waved away by you. The most likely answer is that you wouldn't; you'd simply raise more uninformed objections in order to keep insisting that Apollo is suspect.

It also seems strange that after I made the statement of letting others from different forums from around the world have a chance to weigh in on the subject of data integrity, everyone wants to lock this thread down.

People are proposing to close the thread because they've repeatedly explained why everything you've said is wrong, including your handwaving about "checksums" and "data integrity", and you're simply repeating yourself. It doesn't really matter how long the thread stays open; you're not learning anything and you're not convincing anyone that you're actually interested in real scientific inquiry.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Consider this. A bank robbery is committed and a teller killed. [...]
Heh. I'm always sadly amused by the type of mindset that believes that the larger the conspiracy, the better it remains hidden.

[sts60]

From the thread involving BAMF mentioned above, this little quote about Hoagland caught my eye:

"'"His beef with NASA is that the space agency should conduct systematic studies — based on standards that he would be involved in setting — to answer the questions he poses.'"

Yeah, that sounds familiar.

[jaydeehess]

softearth's first post in this thread
The Solution is:

NASA could simply just resend another moon orbiter with even higher resolution to verify that the lunar landers and space vehicles exist on the surface of the moon. We could learn a lot from these new pictures as well.

The Question is:

If they could send an orbiter way back in 1967 to take high resolution pictures of the moon's surface that could identify a rock 15 feet in diameter, then why hasn't NASA done this after the lunar landings in the nearly 35+ years that have passed?

I hope this logic helps to solve the moon hoax problem once and for all.

It has been shown to SE that his 'solution' will not do what he believes it will do. NASA , the ESA, Japan or China could send a lander to set down right next to the Apollo landing sites and send back close up pictures of the material left there 30+ years ago and still there would be many in the HB camp (dare I say most of the vocal ones) who would simply state that these new photos were as fake as those taken by American astronauts of the Apollo program. There is absolutely no way to have these photos be fake proof! There is no digital protocol that can be used to verify for any person receiving the data stream from Lunar orbit that the data being received is an exact representation of the image coming through the lens.



His 'question' has been answered many times in the previous pages as well.

Therefore, since both of SE's original topics have been covered perhaps it is time to lock the thread. If SE has any further topics then IMHO they should be covered in a new thread.

[PhantomWolf]

Therefore, since both of SE's original topics have been covered perhaps it is time to lock the thread. If SE has any further topics then IMHO they should be covered in a new thread.

I can't see any point in locking it actually, it'll die on it's own. All locking it does is gives him an out and plays into his hands because he was "prevented from furthering his arguments." He's had the rope, he's hung himself, just wait out the twitches of the feet and we can call time of death.

[Trivial Pursuit]

It has been shown to SE that his 'solution' will not do what he believes it will do. NASA , the ESA, Japan or China could send a lander to set down right next to the Apollo landing sites and send back close up pictures of the material left there 30+ years ago and still there would be many in the HB camp (dare I say most of the vocal ones) who would simply state that these new photos were as fake as those taken by American astronauts of the Apollo program. There is absolutely no way to have these photos be fake proof! There is no digital protocol that can be used to verify for any person receiving the data stream from Lunar orbit that the data being received is an exact representation of the image coming through the lens.



His 'question' has been answered many times in the previous pages as well.

Therefore, since both of SE's original topics have been covered perhaps it is time to lock the thread. If SE has any further topics then IMHO they should be covered in a new thread.

Bravo, I've been thinking that after reading the first 350 posts of this thing...

What he doesn't understand is that the <b>evidence</b> of the Apollo moon landings is easily obtainable and uncensored. Also, NASA, does not care if a handful of people do not believe the landing were real because NASA got what they needed from the landing, and the information they have recieved is not going to change no matter what the general population thinks.

[jaydeehess]

Therefore, since both of SE's original topics have been covered perhaps it is time to lock the thread. If SE has any further topics then IMHO they should be covered in a new thread.

I can't see any point in locking it actually, it'll die on it's own. All locking it does is gives him an out and plays into his hands because he was "prevented from furthering his arguments." He's had the rope, he's hung himself, just wait out the twitches of the feet and we can call time of death.




<<sighs>> That's true!

Trivial Pursuit, that's just it. NASA went to the moon for many reasons. They would have loved to keep doing it but the funding was cutback and NASA could no longer justify the expense but they had already gotten a huge amount of scientific research done and set new goals, within the new budgetary constraints and sent probes to flyby other objects.
They have no impetus to spend money purely in an attempt to quell HB twists on the tale.

[PhantomWolf]

NASA could no longer justify the expense but they had already gotten a huge amount of scientific research done and set new goals

Actully this isn't entirely true. Nixon had cut the funding to Apollo before they even landed with 11. The real death knell though was Apollo 13. The anti-Apollo senators who hadn't been able to punge the knife for Apollo 1, lapped up the accident and as a result, slashed the funding to NASA, citing Apollo as "too dangerous." Add to that Nixon's desire to be rid of the Democratic lunar program and get his own Shuttle and Space Station Programme going, NASA just didn't have any supporters for the Apollo Programme to continue.

Public will was lost with the camera on 12, Political will with the failed landing on 13. At that stage hardy any science had been done, that was to come after the execution orders of the programme had been signed, with Apollo 15-17.

[Nowhere Man]

NASA , the ESA, Japan or China could send a lander to set down right next to the Apollo landing sites and send back close up pictures of the material left there 30+ years ago and still there would be many in the HB camp (dare I say most of the vocal ones) who would simply state that these new photos were as fake as those taken by American astronauts of the Apollo program.
Ironically, if they use that phrasing, they'd be right...

Fred

[jaydeehess]

Ironically, if they use that phrasing, they'd be right...

Fred

LOL

[ineluki]

If you type in the search words “nasa fake data” into Google, you'll find that one of the first references to appear is on whether NASA faked the “face on Mars” images during one of their latest missions to Mars.
I'm not supporting this article, but merely pointing out that there will always be speculation

What's your point? The goverment should spend millions, to appease some crackpots, who made it clear they will not accept any evidence (making up the "UdSSR was bought with wheat"-claim)?

Shouldn't the death of Elvis be also investigated, after all there are so many hits for Elvis sightings on Google?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=elvis+sighting&btnG=Google+Search


and ridicule of data unless open access is given to all the raw data and information and a method of independent verification is in place.

And you still haven't explained, how you would determine whether the data is really raw, and how the verification should work exactly.

[captain swoop]

well, if its all runny its still raw and needs another 5 minutes.

[Grand_Lunar]

well, if its all runny its still raw and needs another 5 minutes.

That, or it'll be pink and rubbery in the middle. Might still have blood too.

[Tog]

That, or it'll be pink and rubbery in the middle. Might still have blood too.

Mmmm data tartar

[captain swoop]

i was thinking eggs. Scrambled Data?

[Mr Gorsky]

i was thinking eggs. Scrambled Data?

or Poached?

[jaydeehess]

Whatever is done I believe that softearth wants data that has not been cooked at all.

"data tartar" I like that

[Grand_Lunar]

Whatever is done I believe that softearth wants data that has not been cooked at all.

Which might lead to the cooking of his PC's hard drive. :)

What's the error message that shows up when a hard drive get's too much data? Whatever it is, I bet that's all he'll see.



"data tartar" I like that

Wasn't that a dish on Star Trek: The Next Generation?
:D

[NEOWatcher]

Wasn't that a dish on Star Trek: The Next Generation?
:D
You might be thinking of the data cake at the end of this episode. (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68622.html)

mmmm, cellular peptides.

[WHarris]

mmmm, cellular peptides.

...with mint frosting. :D

[NEOWatcher]

...with mint frosting. :D
I was wondering how long that would take. :lol:

[Donnie B.]

I think "soft boiled" might be more a propos. ;)

[PhantomWolf]

What's the error message that shows up when a hard drive get's too much data? Whatever it is, I bet that's all he'll see.

I don't know, four 500 gig SATA HDDs would give you close to 2 terabytes of storage space.

[Nicolas]

which is only a mere order of magnitude too little.

[PhantomWolf]

which is only a mere order of magnitude too little.

Just need to hook up a dozen of these (http://pcworld.com/product/specs/id,27918-c,harddrives/specs.html) then. ;)

[Grand_Lunar]

You might be thinking of the data cake at the end of this episode. (http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/episode/68622.html)

mmmm, cellular peptides.


Exactly!

Sometimes, a cake is just a cake.

[Grand_Lunar]

Just need to hook up a dozen of these (http://pcworld.com/product/specs/id,27918-c,harddrives/specs.html) then. ;)

Now all that's needed is something to process that data into images, telemetry, ect. :)

[Nicolas]

So it would only require about 70 times 1336 dollars on hard disks alone for Average Joe willing to see the results, yeah why don't NASA simply stick to this raw data instead of wasting time on processing them to useful results?

[Sigma_Orionis]

Plus the Checksums! :D

[jaydeehess]

Plus the Checksums! :D


Another $1336 ???

[Grand_Lunar]

Another $1336 ???

Plus tax.

[Nicolas]

To link 70 harddisks, you'd need some tools (what is it called, a RAID? Don't know), again adding to the costs. And that's just storage. Silly NASA not wanting us to spend a fortune to see their pics. If spending thousands of dollars is OK, why are HB's complaining they have to pay 40 dollars for some Apollo footage DVD's...

[jaydeehess]

To link 70 harddisks, you'd need some tools (what is it called, a RAID? Don't know), again adding to the costs. And that's just storage. Silly NASA not wanting us to spend a fortune to see their pics. If spending thousands of dollars is OK, why are HB's complaining they have to pay 40 dollars for some Apollo footage DVD's...


Because its supposed to be the land of the free ?

[Sigma_Orionis]

To link 70 harddisks, you'd need some tools (what is it called, a RAID? Don't know), again adding to the costs. And that's just storage. Silly NASA not wanting us to spend a fortune to see their pics. If spending thousands of dollars is OK, why are HB's complaining they have to pay 40 dollars for some Apollo footage DVD's...

Well, to do that will be a "bit" more expensive than just the 70 hard disks, for example, you need DISK CONTROLLERS capable of handling that many disks, and the only ones that can do so are Fibre Channel Adapters (usually in Mesh Mode). That means a SAN (Storage Area Network). Hard Disk "Frames" (Say, Big assemblies full of disks) are usually called "Enterprise Storage Systems" (ESSs) and prices start at US$ 100K, not to mention the Fibre Channel Switches (go ahead, google the price of a Brocade, McData or even a Cisco Fibre Channel switch, it's a couple of thousand bucks at least), the Fiber Cables, the Fibre Channel Adapters for the Server you are attaching, the specialized software to manage the disks, and so on.

[Donnie B.]

Okay then, how about a whole slew of USB drives? Fill up one, pull it out, plug in another... :dance:

[Sigma_Orionis]

With the great bandwidth provided by USB? sure :lol:

[Maksutov]

Hey, whatever happened to the OPer? Did he sink into some of that soft earth known as quicksand and disappear forever?

I guess not, since a quick check of his posting history shows he's just switched threads. Sure sounds familiar.

:lol:

[PhantomWolf]

No he started the thread directly below this one. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48090)

[Keermalec]

They certainly will if you have the date and time the image was taken. :D

...

Softearth, you misrepresent the actual distance stars are at. Being on the moon, Earth or mars WILL NOT show a visible difference in the position of the stars. Do the maths: distances beteeen planets are measeured in millions of km. Distances between stars are in light-years (or billions of millions of km). Therefore the angles between stars won't change in a visible manner even between Earth and mars.

[PhantomWolf]

I think that someone suggested that there wouldn't be a huge amount of change even as far as Alpha Centuari. Obviously the sun would appear as a new star and the lower pointer to the southgern cross would be gone, but otherwise.....

[Van Rijn]

I think that someone suggested that there wouldn't be a huge amount of change even as far as Alpha Centuari. Obviously the sun would appear as a new star and the lower pointer to the southgern cross would be gone, but otherwise.....

Yes, from a paperback version of The Cosmic Connection by Sagan, page 14, regarding the view from Alpha Centauri:

In terms of the scale of the Milky Way Galaxy, this is such a short distance that our perspective remains almost the same. From a Cen, the Big Dipper appears just as it does from Earth. Almost all other constellations are similarly unchanged. There is one striking exception, and that is the constellation Cassiopeia...a sixth star appears in Cassiopeia, one significantly brighter than the other five. That star is the Sun.

[Maksutov]

No he started the thread directly below this one. (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=48090)Nah, that's not the same guy. His checksum doesn't match.

[KingNor]

forgive my ignorance but i'd like to actually learn something from this thread.

'the hell is a check sum anyway?

[Van Rijn]

Google is your friend. From

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

A checksum is a form of redundancy check, a very simple measure for protecting the integrity of data by detecting errors in data that is sent through space (telecommunications) or time (storage). It works by adding up the basic components of a message, typically the asserted bits, and storing the resulting value. Later, anyone can perform the same operation on the data, compare the result to the authentic checksum, and (assuming that the sums match) conclude that the message was probably not corrupted.

[nomuse]

Used to have to do them in hex, to make SysEx messages for my MIDI gear. Annoying bit was keeping track of which nibbles were used to calculate the checksum, and which weren't.

[Nicolas]

I love SysEx (mind the caps here :)) commands. I can't write them myself, but it's amazing to see how playing back a very small MIDI file can nicely reset my old synthesizer to factory presets. I think I need to play it in Logic as WinAmp doesn't send SysEx commands, but still it's elegant.

But that is diverting a bit from checksums :).

[nomuse]

I thought the checksum was kind of cute. MIDI is all 0-127 values, expressed via two hex figures (one bit was used as error correct or something). The trick was to add one more pair to your SysEx message so that the final digit of the total was either "0" or "8."

Are we learning yet?

[worzel]

And there was me thinking checksums verify the authenticity of data :)

[Nicolas]

It's a simple form of the Reed Solomon error detection code on CD's and other digital data. RS also sometimes is used for space transmissions. Of course one needs to keep the amount of added data by the error detection within reasonable bounds.

[jt-3d]

I used checksums when typing programs on the old C=64. You type in a line and check the number listed to see if you entered it in correctly. Checksums are exciting indeed.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Well, the original use of "checksums" in data telecomunications was to determine if a packet of data had corrupted during transmission, usually the algorithm used was CRC-32. They are of no use if you want to guarantee that the mentioned data was not altered INTENTIONALLY during transmission (particularly since the transmission medium might be snearkernet :) )

Algorithms like Reed-Solomon were devised to provide a way to recover data to a limited extent if it was corrupted it's uses in IT are tipically for devices as Hard Disks, CDs and Backup Tapes.

From the IT security point of view none of these is enough, for the reason mentioned above.

In those case we use things like MD5, SHA-1, RIPE, etc.

A good case about the uselesness of "checksums" is Credit Card Numbers, they relied on a scheme similar in concept to CRC32 called the Luhn Algorithm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhn_algorithm) as seen Here (http://www.brainjar.com/js/validation/default2.asp)

Most of your credit card numbers include the Luhn Checkdigits as part of the number, it's a quick way to validate if the credit card number is at least consistent

When it was designed in the 60s is was good enough, computers were not exactly available to everyone and the CPU power was low.

Nowadays is trivial to generate valid Credit Card numbers, the algorithm is well known and CPU power is cheap

Credit Card Companies nowadays use another method, popularly known as CVC2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_Security_Code) which are the 3 or 4 numbers at the back of your credit card and it's not related directly to the credit card number, a form of CVC2 is used also as part of the unique identifier (IMEI) of GSM SIM Cards

[nomuse]

Still doesn't explain why the OP wants NASA to use one, unless the front and rear of the data stream are coming from an independent source (aka some independent team builds a camera and encoder, and never tells NASA enough to be able to mimic it).

Otherwise it's like that exchange of dialog once on Star Trek. "Computer is detecting no anomalies." "Run a level-1 diagnostic." "Computer reports it is functioning normally."

[Sigma_Orionis]

Of course, that's why I asked Softearth why he thougth "Checksums" would be of any use....

So I suppose he wants a "BlackBox" PKI infrastructure installed in the LRO managed by.... RSA Energia? ESA? JSA? that certifies that the images sent were produced by the LRO, as if that would help..... After all if Nasa were the dastardly shady organisation (notice the UK spelling) they are supposed to be they could NOT simply have something pushing fake images installed in the LRO that would be "certified" by the "Blackbox" :D

[richyboy]

I believe that there is a telescope in England that is pointing at the area of the moon they landed, during the moon landing, Armstong placed a set of transmiters, i believe it was 2 do with lasers or something. The telescope in England can actually fire a laser at this spot in the moon and they get a reflection from it. This measures the distance from the earth 2 the moon. This disproves the moon landings r fake, since this is an independant telescope, and they can fire, and get a response from the equipment on the moons surface.

[Grand_Lunar]

That would be the laser ranging device that they are reflecting off.

What softearth wants is a probe to take images of the landing sites themselves to see if it can spot the descent stages.

The best proof is the moon rocks themselves, as mentioned to (and ignored by) softearth.

EDIT to add:

I think this thread should be closed until the OP returns.

[Grashtel]

Richlyboy posting the same message multiple times in different threads is considered spamming and strongly frowned upon in this forum, please stop before the moderators have to get involved.

[Francis Graham]

In regards to the claim of a Moon Landing Hoax, the following is minimally costly and could be done to disprove it.
Since 1969, several telescopes and space telescopes have come on-line which exceed the resolution of the Hale Telescope (the largest telescope at the time), especially using adaptive optics and such. Lunar features in the astronaut photos, much larger than the astronauts or their equipment, but nonetheless smaller than features visible with the Hale telescope, could be imaged by the Keck, Subaru, Hubble or similar telescopes. In the case of ground based telescopes this could be done with adaptive optics in such a manner that skeptics could witness. If the observed features match the astronaut-photographed features, then the features were indeed seen by the astronauts.
This assumes that the Moon Hoaxers also discount the reality of lunar orbiter and other lunar orbiting recon probes.
Since such a large fraction of the US population believes that the moon landing was a hoax, the ground-based photos , with appropriate media fanfare, might actually do some good.

Francis Graham

[JayUtah]

Unfortunately something on the lunar surface would still have to be the size of a football stadium or larger to be seen with those instruments.

[gwiz]

But it's a very good argument against a hoax even without telescopic confirmation. Why on earth would a hoax team publish higher-resolution surface details? They didn't have to, no-one complained when they didn't fly high-res cameras from the start. How would they know that the Russians wouldn't launch a mapping probe the following month which would falsify the data?

[PhantomWolf]

Why bother with telescopes to do it, we have the photos from Clementine and hopefully will from Smart-1 when the team is finished with them. These probes were much closer and got much better images than any earth based telescope, in fact the Clementine images revealed disturbances about the Apollo 15 landing site, and a new crater nearby (possibly made by as cometary fragment detected hitting shortly after the mission.) That hasn't stopped the claims of a hoax.

[JayUtah]

You know, I read Mr. Graham's message, noted that it spoke of large objects, then went to a meeting and came back and typed a largely misdirected response. Today is not my day.

[Grand_Lunar]

Let's not forget the LRO, due next year.
The problem is, regardless if a probe or a telescope is used, the Hoax Believers love to shift the goalposts. Kaysing did that when one of the lunar probes examined the Apollo 15 site, IIRC. Anyone have the full story on that?

In any case, there's no need to spend money just to satisfy the desires of hoax believers, especially since they'll discount the evidence once presented.

Go figure; when a method isn't readily available, they look to it to solve their problem, but when the method is right in front of them, "Nope! Not good enough!"

[JMV]

In regards to the claim of a Moon Landing Hoax, the following is minimally costly and could be done to disprove it.
Since 1969, several telescopes and space telescopes have come on-line which exceed the resolution of the Hale Telescope (the largest telescope at the time), especially using adaptive optics and such. Lunar features in the astronaut photos, much larger than the astronauts or their equipment, but nonetheless smaller than features visible with the Hale telescope, could be imaged by the Keck, Subaru, Hubble or similar telescopes. In the case of ground based telescopes this could be done with adaptive optics in such a manner that skeptics could witness. If the observed features match the astronaut-photographed features, then the features were indeed seen by the astronauts.
This assumes that the Moon Hoaxers also discount the reality of lunar orbiter and other lunar orbiting recon probes.
Since such a large fraction of the US population believes that the moon landing was a hoax, the ground-based photos , with appropriate media fanfare, might actually do some good.

Francis Graham
I doubt this would convince any HBs, but I personally found this animation (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/TL_QT.mov) fascinating. It's a Hubble image of Taurus-Littrow Valley taken in 2005 overlayed on a digital-terrain model constructed during the Apollo program. If you spend some time looking at the Apollo 17 pictures (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/images17.html) you'll see that it matches quite nicely. Picture AS17-147-22466 (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-147-22466.jpg) and the adjoining ones are particularly interesting in that regard.

[JayUtah]

Kaysing did that when one of the lunar probes examined the Apollo 15 site, IIRC. Anyone have the full story on that?

In the Fox program, Kaysing said that he would recant if someone could provide high-resolution pictures of the lunar surface that showed Apollo remnants. Then the Japanese announced plans to do just that. In a 2004 interview for Discovery Canada, Kaysing changed his story to say that nothing would convince him the moon landings were real.

[Gillianren]

Welcome aboard, Francis.

Personally, I don't think many people believe the landings were a hoax. I think the numbers get inflated by those who do. However, of those who do, most will never believe squat about anyone's landing on the Moon, even if someone else (not the US) does it. They won't say why they don't believe it's possible, I've noticed, but they don't believe it, they won't believe it, and they can't be made to believe it.

There are exceptions to that, obviously--we have a few around here, come to that--and there are some who just don't really know what to believe, but most conspiracy theorists of my experience don't really care about the evidence. Their worldview requires great, sweeping conspiracies, whether there's any reason to believe they exist or not.

[RobertD]

How easy is it to settle the matter once and for all? Very easy indeed, just point an earth telescope, any good size one should be able to pick out the landing site with the flag and the LEM, Hubble would do very nicely. Take some pictures, and post them here, maybe an observatory would be glad to settle the matter for us. A couple of things bother me, they took the video out of circulation, that bothers me, they don't show pictures, that bothers me, and stars don't show, that bothers me. Someone ought to have copies of that video somewhere to put on the internet. That would be very good so I and others can debate it frame by frame. I heard the rate of sand falls at earth's gravity speed and not at moon gravity speed. And since this is impossible to fake, that's why they took the video out. And stars, where are the stars? Astronauts walking in space clearly show stars, why were stars not visible throughout....? That seems very suspicious.

Questions that I would like answered.

[nomuse]

There are pictures of spacewalks with stars?

[JayUtah]

any good size one should be able to pick out the landing site with the flag and the LEM, Hubble would do very nicely.

No. An object on the lunar surface would have to be about 90 meters in size to be visible to the HST.

A couple of things bother me, they took the video out of circulation...

Who's they and what videos are you talking about?

...they don't show pictures...

Who's they and what pictures are you talking about?

...and stars don't show, that bothers me.

I'm a photographer and it doesn't bother me in the least. I've even done tests with similar equipment and film to verify it. What have you done to verify that you can photograph stars?

Someone ought to have copies of that video somewhere to put on the internet.

There are many places on the Internet where you can get Apollo video. However, it is generally of low quality. If you want high quality you need to get it in different format, especially if you plan to do any kind of image analysis.

That would be very good so I and others can debate it frame by frame.

If you expect to see stars in photographs, I doubt there is much you could meaningfully learn by looking at Apollo video frame-by-frame.

I heard the rate of sand falls at earth's gravity speed and not at moon gravity speed. And since this is impossible to fake, that's why they took the video out.

And no one would have noticed than in 1969?

Astronauts walking in space clearly show stars...

I assume you mean they see stars. If you talk to astronauts, as many of us have, they'll tell you under what conditions stars can be seen and not seen. And why do you believe that everything you can see can be photographed?

Questions that I would like answered.

What makes you think they haven't been asked and answered a thousand times previously? Did you actually look around at what's available before you posted this? A Google search took me 40 seconds to locate sites with Apollo video and photographs. That's not even counting the rich libraries of offline material that have been in use for more than 30 years.

[Van Rijn]

How easy is it to settle the matter once and for all? Very easy indeed, just point an earth telescope, any good size one should be able to pick out the landing site with the flag and the LEM, Hubble would do very nicely.


Sorry, that's been suggested repeatedly, but it won't work. No existing telescope on earth, or in earth orbit, has the resolution to do this. See here, for example:

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/answer.php.id=77&cat=topten


Hubble cannot take photos of the Apollo landing sites.

An object on the Moon 4 meters (4.37 yards) across, viewed from HST, would be about 0.002 arcsec in size. The highest resolution instrument currently on HST is the Advanced Camera for Surveys at 0.03 arcsec. So anything we left on the Moon cannot be resolved in any HST image. It would just appear as a dot.


Take some pictures, and post them here, maybe an observatory would be glad to settle the matter for us.


I'm also curious why you would trust images from an observatory (especially Hubble) but wouldn't trust all the images we already have to "settle the matter"?



A couple of things bother me, they took the video out of circulation, that bothers me, they don't show pictures, that bothers me,


Which video is that?


I heard the rate of sand falls at earth's gravity speed and not at moon gravity speed. And since this is impossible to fake, that's why they took the video out.


Again, what video? There are many videos showing dust moving and falling.



And stars, where are the stars? Astronauts walking in space clearly show stars, why were stars not visible throughout....?


That's another one often misunderstood. Sunlight and stars don't mix (they're too dim to register under those conditions). See here:

http://www.clavius.org/stars.html

If you take an image with the proper exposure and if you don't have to deal with reflected or direct sunlight, you can image the stars. Otherwise, forget it.

[Svector]

I'm sure that, when we eventually have regularly scheduled flights to the Moon, the few remaining HBs et al, will claim it's all being done on a holodeck. Or maybe even a futuristic animation...

http://img83.imageshack.us/img83/1094/apollo11futuramase1.th.jpg (http://img83.imageshack.us/my.php?image=apollo11futuramase1.jpg)



This photo is clearly a Photoshop forgery. See how the LM and the asstro-NOTS produce shadows, but the craters don't?

FAKE!!!!

;)

[RobertD]

RobertD: I heard the rate of sand falls at earth's gravity speed and not at moon gravity speed. And since this is impossible to fake, that's why they took the video out.

Van Rijn: Again, what video? There are many videos showing dust moving and falling.


The videos of the lunar landing ya know, rover, astronauts jumping etc.... the thing we're talking about here.

Any links....?

[PhantomWolf]

How easy is it to settle the matter once and for all?

Depends on how rational and open-minded people are willing to be. Since in general the argument often boils down to "I don't care what evidence you have, what science you use, the US Government is the root of all evil and lies all the time so they are lying about this, and since you agree with them you're a lying government agent and in cahoots with them" then it's not at all easy to settle it. If people were willing to objectively view the evidence and learn the science, it'd be simple. Problem is they aren't and if they don't want to believe regardless, then nothing will change their minds. In fact many have stated that very thing.

Very easy indeed

Nope, see above.


just point an earth telescope, any good size one should be able to pick out the landing site with the flag and the LEM, Hubble would do very nicely.

The Hubble's resolution is about 90 meters (that's one pixel = 90m x 90m) the size of a football field. The LM Descent stage is only 3 meters across at its widest.

Take some pictures, and post them here, maybe an observatory would be glad to settle the matter for us.

There are photos taken of the sites taken by Clementine, they are ignored because they don't show much more than a dot. Besides, even if images were produced, the claims would be that the images were doctored, fake, or that they have put the objects there since 1972. Even if we build a telescope with a 750m mirror, there would still be people claiming that the missions were faked.

A couple of things bother me

Okay lets look at them.

they took the video out of circulation

Who is they and what video? All the Apollo footage is available on the ASLJ (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html) in compressed form, or from SpaceCraft Films (http://www.spacecraftfilms.com) on full screen DVD.

they don't show pictures

Who is they and which pictures? All the pictures are available on the ASLJ (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/frame.html), The Apollo Image Atlas (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/apollo/) and Apollo Image Archives (http://www.apolloarchive.com/)

and stars don't show

What camera setting would you have to use to get both sunlit objects and stars in the same picture?


Someone ought to have copies of that video somewhere to put on the internet.

See above. (eta: There are also hundreds of copies on YouTube and Google Video last I looked)


That would be very good so I and others can debate it frame by frame.

Good luck, there are hundreds of hours of footage.

I heard the rate of sand falls at earth's gravity speed and not at moon gravity speed. And since this is impossible to fake, that's why they took the video out.

There is plenty of video clips showing the moon soil being kicked up by the astronaut's feet and the lunar rover too.

And stars, where are the stars?

Why should there be stars showing in the images, what exposure settings do you need to set for both sunlit objects and stars to appear in an image?

Astronauts walking in space clearly show stars

Provide a picture of both a properly exposed sunlit astronaut and stars.

why were stars not visible throughout....?

Again, learn about cameras and film and exposure settings.

That seems very suspicious.

Only because you are ignorant of the science involved. Once you take the time to learn it, it will be obvious to why it happens.

[RobertD]

Well I did find a video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

And it clearly shows the sand being lifted by the boots, and the buggy, now all I need to do is calculate how fast the sand falls, and if this corresponds to moon gravity, and I will rest my case.

[JayUtah]

The videos of the lunar landing ya know...

Which one? There were six.

Any links....?

http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/
http://www.apolloarchive.com/
http://www.spacecraftfilms.com/

and about eleventy jillion places on YouTube. But by claiming that it has all been taken out of circulation, you've pretty much already lost any credibility here. Again I ask, how much did you actually research before coming here and telling everyone how suspicious it all was?

[Grashtel]

How easy is it to settle the matter once and for all? Very easy indeed, just point an earth telescope, any good size one should be able to pick out the landing site with the flag and the LEM, Hubble would do very nicely. Take some pictures, and post them here, maybe an observatory would be glad to settle the matter for us.
Except as people have pointed out there is no telescope even close to big enough:
Largest telescope operational today: ~11m (from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes))
Largest telescope planned to be built in the near future: 40-100m (the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly_Large_Telescope))
Smallest telescope capable of resolving Apollo sites: ~200m (will only show LM base as a single pixel though)
Smallest telescope capable of detailed resolution of Apollo sites (ie spotting footprints): 2,000m

A couple of things bother me, they took the video out of circulation, that bothers me, they don't show pictures, that bothers me, and stars don't show, that bothers me.
Except that the video is avalible, you just have to pay for it either from NASA directly or some place like Spacecraft Films (www.spacecraftfilms.com), it ain't cheap though. The pictures are also on show at various places such as The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/) or The Project Apollo Archive (http://www.apolloarchive.com/apollo_archive.html).

[RobertD]

OK I found the videos here, so I can calculate how fast the sand falls and if it corresponds to Moon gravity, then I rest my case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

[Van Rijn]

The videos of the lunar landing ya know, rover, astronauts jumping etc.... the thing we're talking about here.

Any links....?

PW, Jay and Grashtel have already provided links and information. Do you understand the answers you've been given, and could you answer some of the questions you've been asked?

[Svector]

I heard the rate of sand falls at earth's gravity speed and not at moon gravity speed. And since this is impossible to fake, that's why they took the video out.

I'm not sure what video you're referring to, but the rate at which the "sand" (regolith actually) falls confuses lots of HB's.

It's a fact that the fine powdery material the astronauts trudged around in, actually falls faster on the moon than it would on earth. Since there's a complete lack of atmosphere on the moon, there is no air to suspend these fine dry particles when they're disturbed, so they don't linger in the form of dust clouds as they would on earth.

In the Apollo videos, the dust gets kicked up, and it immediately falls right back down. Despite the obvious talcum-like qualities of the regolith, there isn't a single instance in the Apollo footage where a dust cloud can be seen.

The dust footage is actually some of the most convincing evidence in favor of Apollo landings. Click the link in my tagline to view an interesting video about it.

[Van Rijn]

Except as people have pointed out there is no telescope even close to big enough:
Largest telescope operational today: ~11m (from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_optical_reflecting_telescopes))
Largest telescope planned to be built in the near future: 40-100m (the Overwhelmingly Large Telescope (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overwhelmingly_Large_Telescope))
Smallest telescope capable of resolving Apollo sites: ~200m (will only show LM base as a single pixel though)
Smallest telescope capable of detailed resolution of Apollo sites (ie spotting footprints): 2,000m


And that would only work if the telescope was in space or atmospheric distortion could be eliminated.

[JayUtah]

so I can calculate how fast the sand falls...

How do you propose to do that? Specifically how do you propose to verify the frame rate conversion, if any, in your sample?

...and if it corresponds to Moon gravity, then I rest my case.

There was a case?

[nomuse]

Why not use the hammer-and-feather? They are discrete objects, easy to follow in their path, and the estimation (of time) and calculation (of acceleration) has been done independently. You could do your figures then check your assumptions and calculations again the work of others.

Dust has the disadvantage of being fine (so it doesn't show up well on low-resolution internet videos) and not discrete; it would be quite easy to start measuring in one spot but be looking at an entirely different set of particles when they eventually hit surface. Plus, the travel distance is generally a lot less on the dust; harder to measure accurately enough to get a decent number.

[JMV]

Hi RobertD!

I noticed you got here from Ong's thread on Pravda. I used to debate with Ong there.

I tried to calculate the time it takes the dust to fall from the top of the rover wheel in this clip (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ktclips/ap16_rover.mpg), in which you also seemed to be interested on Pravda. This is what I wrote there back in February 2004:

I don't think it's falling too fast. Look at the dust falling off the top of the tire when the rover brakes. It' takes about a second to reach the ground. I checked it with QuickTime Player and according to it the dust started to fall at 00:00:12.15 and reached the ground at 00:00:13.10. It's 0,95 seconds.
And the tire is about 60-70cm tall.

If it was filmed on earth where vertical falling acceleration is 9,8m/s^2.
s=1/2*a*t^2 => t=(2*s/a)^(1/2)
(2*0,6m/9,8m/s^2)^(1/2)=0,35s

On moon where the acceleration is about 1,6m/s^2
(s*0,6m/1,6m/s^2)^(1/2)=0,85s

Note that if we use 70cm as height it would take 0,94 seconds to reach the ground, which is much closer to 0,95 seconds than 0,38 seconds on earth.

That is most probably shot at 24 frames per second or somewhere around that speed. The clip is played at 30 frames per second and if the frame rate difference has not been corrected on this one, it would make it look only slightly faster than in reality.

These values are only approximations and I don't know the real height of the tire, but I studied the pictures and I know that the ground clearance is 14 inches for the rover, so I figured those out.
Guys at the BA most likely know these things better than me, so please point out any possible errors in my calculations.
Now I'd like to point out a few corrections. Back then I tried to guestimate the diameter of the rover wheel, but now I know it to be about 80 centimeters. Let's calculate the times again with the new height.

(2 * 0.8m / 9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 0.4 s
(2 * 0.8m / 1.6m/s^2)^1/2 = 1.0 s

The time calculated with Earth's gravity is most likely meaningless, because if the clip was shot on Earth in atmosphere the fine grain dust would linger in air for some time and would take longer to settle on the ground. We don't see that lingering effect in the clip.

Regarding the frame rate. Back then I assumed the clip was shot with 16 mm DAC, but now I see that it's TV camera footage. Apparently the TV camera had a frame rate of 30 fps.

I'm farely sure about my 0.95 seconds meassurement, though I've lost the old version of QuickTime Player since, so I'm not able to verify it right now.

[sts60]

And stars, where are the stars? Astronauts walking in space clearly show stars, why were stars not visible throughout....? That seems very suspicious.

Robert, stars are not visible in daylight scenes. You can't properly expose a daylit scene and capture stars, either with film as was used on Apollo, or with electronic imaging devices. Notice how there are no stars in the ISS photograph here (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/multimedia/iss011e09878.html), for example.

[Count Zero]

Regarding the frame rate. Back then I assumed the clip was shot with 16 mm DAC, but now I see that it's TV camera footage.

Incorrect. This was definitely 16mm DAC footage. Charlie Duke talks (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16.trvlm1.html#1245810) about the DAC settings at 124:55:20. Also, you can see the TV camera on the rover, and the TV needed the high gain antenna pointed at the Earth to be received. This was not practical while the rover was moving around. Here (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17v1695942.mpg) is one of the only TV transmissions from a moving rover. Note that the signal is lost as soon as it turns.

[Serenitude]

RobertD, hello and welcome.

The following example isn't a scientific argument for or rebuttal of the "stars in the moon pictures" problem, and it isn't an exact analogy, but the following is easy to understand.

Walk outside tomorrow during the day.

What happened to all the stars? They're still there, in the sky, and shining, right? Unless "they" turn them off during the day? Same basic principle. They're still there. You just don't see them.

Of course, as stated above, this isn't an exact analogy, because there are numerous other phenomena that apply to the problem, such as atmospheric conditions, aperture considerations, etc... that are also very relevant to the matter, but I offer it merely as a simple, understandable, and easily performable experiment ;)

[JayUtah]

Regarding the frame rate. Back then I assumed the clip was shot with 16 mm DAC, but now I see that it's TV camera footage.

The so-called Grand Prix footage is 16mm film. When dealing with a digital clip obtained from convenience source, you have to know whether there was any frame-rate conversion done. If the film was copied frame-by-frame to video, then time will be compressed: shot at 24 fps and played back at 30 fps. If the standard frame rate conversion was done, every fourth frame is copied twice, creating a sort of jitter in the result. You have to be very careful if you propose to use frames in convenience clips as a precise time base.

Your particular clip looks like it has been sampled at a low resolution, then enlarged digitally; it's highly pixelated.

[Maksutov]

Please pardon the OT content, but the thread where I would have liked to have posted this is mercifully closed (please explain (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=945982&postcount=1)).

Where I wrote
Oh well, I guess newbies, per se, are fun, for a while. I should have been more specific.

It should have read


Oh well, I guess HB newbies, per se, are fun, for a while.Big difference between the two, and my apologies to any offended non-HB newbies. You are most welcome here!

[Van Rijn]

It should have read
Big difference between the two, and my apologies to any offended non-HB newbies. You are most welcome here!

I welcome HB newbies, if they are willing to listen to and do the work required to understand the answers they are given to their questions. Unfortunately, most aren't.

[Svector]

OK I found the videos here, so I can calculate how fast the sand falls and if it corresponds to Moon gravity, then I rest my case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

Ah, I see you already found my video. I guess I seriously need to start reading these posts from oldest to newest instead of vice-versa. :lol:

The question you should really be asking yourself is not how long it takes the dust to fall, but why it does not become an aerosol. Would you agree that if this footage were shot with an earth-like atmosphere present, the fine dry powder would form lingering clouds?

Have you ever driven down a dusty gravel road? What did you see in your rear-view?

[Svector]

[b]Your particular clip looks like it has been sampled at a low resolution, then enlarged digitally; it's highly pixelated.

I have a clip with more detail, although it's not the entire Grand Prix sequence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npARfNtO7u8

[JMV]

Incorrect. This was definitely 16mm DAC footage. Charlie Duke talks (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a16/a16.trvlm1.html#1245810) about the DAC settings at 124:55:20. Also, you can see the TV camera on the rover, and the TV needed the high gain antenna pointed at the Earth to be received. This was not practical while the rover was moving around.
Ah, so its is! :doh:
I was remembering reading somewhere that it was shot before the TV camera was installated to the rover. It seems my memory played a trick on me.

Here (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a17/a17v1695942.mpg) is one of the only TV transmissions from a moving rover.
From a moving a rover yes, but not of a moving rover.
There is that footage a few seconds long from Apollo 15 right after the rover unloading and before the TV camera installation, where you can see Dave drive the rover around the LM. And that was TV transmission for sure. It was transmitted trough LM's S-band antenna.

[AGN Fuel]

OK I found the videos here, so I can calculate how fast the sand falls and if it corresponds to Moon gravity, then I rest my case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khDI2MsWSYc

When you have done your calculations, would you be kind enough to detail them here?

(I suppose that a calculation that would not be dependent on the frame rate is the maximum height that the regolith should be kicked up based on a velocity of the LRV, angle of ejection and the respective gravitational forces on Earth & moon.)

[Maksutov]

I welcome HB newbies, if they are willing to listen to and do the work required to understand the answers they are given to their questions. Unfortunately, most aren't.Same here. As you observed, most aren't.

But to an HB newbie who can receive and process new, objective, verifiable data: WELCOME!

[Jason Thompson]

they took the video out of circulation, that bothers me, they don't show pictures, that bothers me,

I'd just like to add that these points are quite simply utterly untrue. The video and film from the Apollo missions is readily available. How do I know? Because I happen to have it on DVD at home. Look at www.spacecraftfilms.com to find out how to get it. You can also find low resolution clips on the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal website, and every picture taken in the Apollo Image Atlas.

I'm curious as to why you believe these materials were taken out of circulation.

[Serenitude]

Because Sibrel Said So ;)

[JayUtah]

Have you ever driven down a dusty gravel road? What did you see in your rear-view?

This is what you get when you do anything to disturb a desert surface.

http://www.clavius.org/img/desert-dust.jpg

I live in a desert, so dust is sort of a way of life. The picture above was taken near Edwards AFB, in the very desert the conspiracists say doubled as the Moon.

[Serenitude]

Why aren't CTers more interested in the Russian Space program, where there really were conspiracies and coverups to hide the failures and loss of life from their own population and the west?

[NEOWatcher]

Why aren't CTers more interested in the Russian Space program, where there really were conspiracies and coverups to hide the failures and loss of life from their own population and the west?
Take your pick:
- Because the Conspirisist government has been replaced.
- There's not enough people to care if the Russians are corrupt.
- We all know the Soviets were corrupt, so no whistle needs to be blown.
- The Russians are much more efficient than NASA, so why would they fake things.
- NASA spends much more than NASA, so there must be some hanky-panky business going on to justify the cost.
I'm sure there's much more...

[Donnie B.]

Another little problem: there aren't many landscapes on Earth that have the flat gray color of the lunar regolith.

Maybe it was all filmed shortly after a major volcanic eruption... or at a cement factory.

[sts60]

Yeah. I've lived in or been to the deserts of southern and central Arizona, southern New Mexico, eastern/southern Colorado, some of southeast California, and Nevada around Las Vegas. Not one of them resembles the Moon.

[Gillianren]

Take your pick:
- Because the Conspirisist government has been replaced.
- There's not enough people to care if the Russians are corrupt.
- We all know the Soviets were corrupt, so no whistle needs to be blown.
- The Russians are much more efficient than NASA, so why would they fake things.
- NASA spends much more than NASA, so there must be some hanky-panky business going on to justify the cost.
I'm sure there's much more...

"I'd have to do more work to learn about the Soviet space program than I do about Apollo."

Which, incidentally, is evidence against a NASA hoax, not for it.

[NEOWatcher]

And now that I see the response, I see the boo-boo on the last line which s/b:
NASA spends much more than Russia.:doh:

[Svector]

Another little problem: there aren't many landscapes on Earth that have the flat gray color of the lunar regolith.

Maybe it was all filmed shortly after a major volcanic eruption... or at a cement factory.

I was 15 when Mt. St. Helens erupted. Our town got about 4" of fallout. The regolith shown in the Apollo Hasselblad stills looks almost exactly like the ash that blanketed our town. Same color. Same texture. Same consistency.

The stuff was so fine that most people had to wear masks if they were spending any amount of time outdoors. It billowed up and just hung in the air for what seemed like forever. If you look carefully, in Lunar Legacy 1 there's a photo of our downtown the day after the eruption.

It actually turned out to be a great plant fertilizer because of the high nitrogen content, but God Almighty what a mess it created. I have to laugh to myself whenever a HB sees this stuff getting knocked around by the astronauts, and just dismisses the lack of dust clouds without any thought or reasoning. I literally lived in this stuff for the better part of a year. Any time the wind would pick up, our whole county looked like Manhattan after the towers collapsed.

So yes, I do have some life experience in dealing with airborne particulates on a daily basis. I believe it's that firsthand knowledge, along with the similarities between St. Helens ash and lunar regolith, that causes the dust evidence to stand out as among the most convincing I've seen.

[JayUtah]

I lived under Mt. Aetna for a year. You learn quickly to dry your laundry by hanging it indoors. My shirts will never be white again.

[RobertD]

Hi RobertD!

I noticed you got here from Ong's thread on Pravda. I used to debate with Ong there.

I tried to calculate the time it takes the dust to fall from the top of the rover wheel in this clip (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/ktclips/ap16_rover.mpg), in which you also seemed to be interested on Pravda. This is what I wrote there back in February 2004:

Now I'd like to point out a few corrections. Back then I tried to guestimate the diameter of the rover wheel, but now I know it to be about 80 centimeters. Let's calculate the times again with the new height.

(2 * 0.8m / 9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 0.4 s
(2 * 0.8m / 1.6m/s^2)^1/2 = 1.0 s

The time calculated with Earth's gravity is most likely meaningless, because if the clip was shot on Earth in atmosphere the fine grain dust would linger in air for some time and would take longer to settle on the ground. We don't see that lingering effect in the clip.

Regarding the frame rate. Back then I assumed the clip was shot with 16 mm DAC, but now I see that it's TV camera footage. Apparently the TV camera had a frame rate of 30 fps.

I'm fairly sure about my 0.95 seconds measurement, though I've lost the old version of QuickTime Player since, so I'm not able to verify it right now.

That's about what I calculate also. I roughed the height at 1 meter, so I get 0.31s for sand to fall 1m on earth, and 0.8s on the moon. It would take careful analysis to verify these, a chronometer, and a movie editor, set up the clip with the sand at the top, then roll the film to ground. And time it. It would be roughtly more than double the time if the clip isn't slowed down, I did a quick estimate with my fingers tapping but that doesn't really give me enough accuracy to be of any use.

At first glance, it seems to fall at earth's gravity.

[Svector]

That's about what I calculate also. I roughed the height at 1 meter, so I get 0.31s for sand to fall 1m on earth, and 0.8s on the moon.

That's wrong. It would take a solid object .453 seconds to fall 1 meter on earth, and 1.09 seconds to fall 1 meter on the moon.


At first glance, it seems to fall at earth's gravity.

Then you need to take a second, third or even fourth glance. I've already done the analysis, and the dust falls at speeds commensurate with lunar gravity.

[jp173]

Robert, stars are not visible in daylight scenes. You can't properly expose a daylit scene and capture stars, either with film as was used on Apollo, or with electronic imaging devices.

One of the things I've found is that Apollo hoaxers do not understand that the surface pictures were shot during the lunar day. They see a black sky and therefore assume that it was night (on earth, a black sky means night). They don't understand that the lunar daytime sky is not blue and is not bright . Thus, they're just not processing that these are daytime scenes (even though there is a definite light shining on the astronauts in the pictures).

As a result, I think that your answer -- while absolutely correct -- doesn't explain it in a way that many of these people can undertand. You say "stars are not visible in daylight scenes" but they're thinking "ahhh, but these aren't daylight scenes". You need to explain why these are daylight scenes even though the sky is black.

[JayUtah]

One of the astronauts, John Young I think, remarked that he occasionally thought the lunar landscape looked surreal because part of his brain was telling him it was nighttime, and the other part, that it was daytime.

One thing I have learned from studying lunar exploration and space engineering in general is how much the human brain's software is optimized for life on Earth.

[Donnie B.]

One thing I have learned from studying lunar exploration and space engineering in general is how much the human brain's software is optimized for life on Earth.Which puts paid to the panspermia hypothesis -- at least the version that suggests we humans (in particular) were seeded here on Earth by ET rather than evolving here. That's not a very widespread idea, but one does run across it occasionally in science fiction and the UFO community.

[Nicolas]

I lived under Mt. Aetna for a year. You learn quickly to dry your laundry by hanging it indoors. My shirts will never be white again.

Not to mention the wigs...

[Larry Jacks]

The behavior of the dust kicked up by the rovers and the astronauts' feet are proof positive that they were in a vacuum, as did the hammer and feather demonstration on Apollo 15. Now, some might try to claim that they set up a soundstage in a vacuum chamber. If so, they're neglecting the effects of atmospheric pressure (14.7 PSI in English units). The biggest vacuum chamber I've ever seen was used to test satellites. It was a cylinder perhaps 20 feet in diameter and 40 feet long (I saw it in the 1980s, so the size could be off by quite a bit). The metal walls of that cylinder were several inches thick to withstand the pressure. How thick would the walls have to be to hold a soundstage? How big a soundstage would you need to fake one of the rover missions?

[sts60]

I've been to Chamber A at JSC, which is 90' high and about 55' diameter inside dimensions. But the biggest vacuum chamber is NASA's Space Power Facility (http://facilities.grc.nasa.gov/spf/), which is 100' in diameter by 122' high inside.

That's still way too small. Many of the sequences in Apollo simply could not be filmed in such dimensions. Various regulars here and at apollohoax have estimated anywhere from > 100 m to half a kilometer minimum "soundstage" size. And you still don't get the lighting right, or the gravity.

[Larry Jacks]

That's a huge vacuum chamber. I wonder what the biggest one was in 1969? From that Space Power Facility link:

Concrete Chamber Enclosure

The concrete chamber enclosure serves not only as a radiological shield but also as a primary vacuum barrier from atmospheric pressure. 130-ft. in diameter and 150-ft. in height, the chamber was designed to withstand atmospheric pressure outside of the chamber at the same time vacuum conditions are occurring within. The concrete thickness varies from 6-8 ft. and contains a leak-tight steel containment barrier embedded within. The chamber's doors are 50 X 50 and have inflatable seals. The space between the concrete enclosure and the aluminum test chamber is pumped down to a pressure of 20 torr (0.5 psia) during a test.

So, in order to withstand atmospheric pressure for the SPF, they need concrete 6-8 feet thick. Imagine how thick the walls would have to be to support an Apollo hoax set. It'd also have to include moving lights to simulate sunlight and cables to fake the low gravity. Seems pretty tough to build such a facility without anyone noticing.

If you look at it systematically, it'd actually be harder to fake an Apollo moon mission than to actually fly one, much less seven (counting 13).

[Swift]

The behavior of the dust kicked up by the rovers and the astronauts' feet are proof positive that they were in a vacuum, as did the hammer and feather demonstration on Apollo 15. Now, some might try to claim that they set up a soundstage in a vacuum chamber. If so, they're neglecting the effects of atmospheric pressure (14.7 PSI in English units). The biggest vacuum chamber I've ever seen was used to test satellites. It was a cylinder perhaps 20 feet in diameter and 40 feet long (I saw it in the 1980s, so the size could be off by quite a bit). The metal walls of that cylinder were several inches thick to withstand the pressure. How thick would the walls have to be to hold a soundstage? How big a soundstage would you need to fake one of the rover missions?
Actually, having worked with vacuum furnaces for many years, I don't think the limitation to a large vacuum chamber is the wall thickness. No matter how big the chamber, you still "only" have to deal with 14.7 psi. Many of the furnaces I worked with were several meters across, went to 10^-6 torr vacuum, and had walls only a few millimeters thick. I'm rather surprised about the thick concrete walls - I wonder if this was a structural limitation of the materials - but I'm neither a metallurgist or a structural engineer.

The limitations are going to be:
(1) Seal surfaces and other potential leaks. Every weld joint is a potential leak. A door big enough to move a LM through (plus all the wire harness stuff) is going to be very big with a very big seal.
(2) Vacuum capacity. I suspect that the hoax vacuum chamber doesn't need sub-millitorr vacuums. But even the mechanical pumps that will be needed to evaucate that big a volume will be absolutely giant.
(3) Virtual leaks. All of those interior surfaces will have to be outgassed. A large chamber will have a very big interior surface area and will be a huge gas load. And then there is all the volcano dust that we shoveled into the floor of our chamber for fake lunar dirt - it will have a huge surface area and will take an extremely long time to outgas (I'm thinking days to weeks). I suspect you will really want a extensive air-lock system, so that when your astro-naughts (I make little joke) come in, you don't have to repressurize your whole sound stage.

[Mellow]

......and of course the vacuum chamber would have to be large enough to place a single, highly powerful, source of light far enough away to create near parallel light rays to create the correct shadow effects..... big enough for all the gantry work to support the Astronauts on wires.... big enough for realistic parallax effects on distant mountains etc.

I reckon they would have to hollow out a mountain to create a chamber large enough without creating a structure that would be obvious to any passing aircraft...... a mountain like Mount Saint Helens!!!! That explains the "Eruption" in 1980... Ahaaa, that was no eruption, it was an explosion created by NASA to eradicate the evidence of the Apollo hoax once it had been decided to really focus on the creation of a space outpost!

I seriously need to get into this hoax business, I'm great!

[JayUtah]

Grr, why does every nefarious plot take place in a hollowed-out volcano?

[captain swoop]

maybe they built the set in a hollow mountain on the moon! That way they wouldn't have to worry about effects for gravity and vacuum!

[RobertD]

That's wrong. It would take a solid object .453 seconds to fall 1 meter on earth, and 1.09 seconds to fall 1 meter on the moon.

Then you need to take a second, third or even fourth glance. I've already done the analysis, and the dust falls at speeds commensurate with lunar gravity.

So according to your calculations, sand falls six times faster on the moon, maybe you should explain that to us...!?!?


Forgive me, I'm a little rusty in math, but I calculate Acc= 9.8m/s^2 = 1 m, that is: square root of 1/9.8 gives me .32s. Same calculations give .8s on the moon, unless I forget something, please clue me in, I'm here to correct my mistakes. It's been a while since high school. But a tenth of a second vs half a second is still six times faster, now slowing down the speed of the clip will also give the illusion of lower gravity. I'm not saying they did, I just want to find out if the US has been lying to us about this, as it has been lying to us about so many things, like JFK's magic bullet and 9-11 and a lot of other things also. The astronaut being picked up by the strings is also a dead giveaway for an expert in the matter on this clip.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&mode=related&search=


Here we clearly see an astronut being picked up by the seat of his pants.... and that one convinces me that wires are involved. But that's another matter altogether. For now I want to concentrate on the falling sand, analyse this line until I am satisfied either way. So far, I have someone telling me he's done it and he's satisfied, but gives no math and no frame by frame analysis to back up his assertion, just says he's done it.

Of course, if it is a hoax of global proportions, there's a mob of people with vested interest in keeping their shams intact, lying and deception is a way of life for certain people, while being lied to and being conned is normal for the rest of the people, not in the mob.

Now I'd like to know how he got to .453 seconds for sand to fall one meter, let's say on the moon, if that's a honest mistake he made....?

[AtomicDog]

Grr, why does every nefarious plot take place in a hollowed-out volcano?

Cheap property, no nosy neighbors. Face it, who would want to live in a volcano?

On second thought, great view, abundant geothermal energy, good skiing if it's tall enough...hmm. I wonder what my realtor has listed...

[Sigma_Orionis]

Cheap property, no nosy neighbors. Face it, who would want to live in a volcano?

On second thought, great view, abundant geothermal energy, good skiing if it's tall enough...hmm. I wonder what my realtor has listed...


Tell that to the people who live close to Mt. Vesubius :lol:

[nomuse]

All Evil Overlords want a volcano base. What better way to provide the hero with a handy self-destruct button to push during the climactic fight scene?


Robert, did I miss a post of yours here? I haven't seen your raw data, assumptions, and calculations. Could you kindly post them into this thread if you have not done so? I see where you have calculated the time an object should take to fall under lunar gravity, but I can't see where you have estimated how long it appears to fall in a video reference.

[JayUtah]

Forgive me, I'm a little rusty in math...

dx = (1/2) a t2 + v0 t

dx is 1 meter. v0 is zero and the term cancels, thus

1 = (1/2) a t2

Solve for t where a is 9.81 m/s2 in the Earth case and 1.635 m/s2 in the Moon case. Algebraically,

1 = (1/2) a t2
2 = a t2
2/a = t2
t = SQRT( 2/a)

Solving for a = 9.81 yields 0.451. Solving for a = (9.81/6 = 1.64) yields 1.10. I confirm Svector's computation.

...now slowing down the speed of the clip will also give the illusion of lower gravity.

Only in the vertical dimension. Since motion in the horizontal dimension does not diminish with gravity, slowing down the clip renders those motions unnatural.

...as it has been lying to us about so many things...

...which are irrelevant to the moon hoax question, although every conspiracy theorist tries to invoke some sort of misguided guilt-by-association.

The question of Apollo's authenticity can be answered solely by examining the facts surrounding that claim, and that claim alone. The claim is either factually correct or factually incorrect, regardless of how much vague and misplaced suspicion can be heaped up against it by people who see conspiracies everywhere. Kindly stick to the facts pertaining to Apollo.

The astronaut being picked up by the strings is also a dead giveaway for an expert in the matter on this clip.

David Percy is not an expert.

Here we clearly see an astronut being picked up by the seat of his pants...

If it's so clear, then please identify the wire in the picture.

Of course, if it is a hoax of global proportions, there's a mob of people with vested interest in keeping their shams intact...

Irrelevant. If one makes allegations of fact regarding the behavior of the physical world, it does not matter how fervently he wishes those allegations to be believed; they will be either factually true or factually false, and he will eventually be found out if they are wrong. Conspiracy theorists always want the discussion to be about who is trustworthy and appropriately motivated, because those subjective discussions can be carried out ad nauseam. They never want the discussion to be about which notion can be demonstrated correct.

...lying and deception is a way of life for certain people

It certainly seems that it is for David Percy, the nice man in your video with the English accent. What did you do to investigate his integrity before trying to tell us all he's an expert? Would you be interested in my history of the things I've noticed David Percy do for the past seven years to protect his sham and his empire?

...while being lied to and being conned is normal for the rest of the people, not in the mob.

What have you done to determine that David Percy et al. are not the ones doing the lying and conning, and that those who believe the conspiracy theories are not the ones being conned?

[Serenitude]

Tell that to the people who live close to Mt. Vesubius :lol:

Vesubius? Is that where the nubs live? Jebus! :p :lol:

[Occam]

would you be interested in my history of the things I've noticed David Percy do for the past seven years to protect his sham and his empire?

Oooh, I would. Give us the dirt :D

[Sigma_Orionis]

I'm interested all right

[JayUtah]

http://www.clavius.org/aulis030318.html
http://www.clavius.org/bibaulis2003.html

[RobertD]

Forgive me, I'm a little rusty in math...

dx = (1/2) a t2 + v0 t

dx is 1 meter. v0 is zero and the term cancels, thus

1 = (1/2) a t2

Solve for t where a is 9.81 m/s2 in the Earth case and 1.635 m/s2 in the Moon case. Algebraically,

1 = (1/2) a t2
2 = a t2
2/a = t2
t = SQRT( 2/a)

Solving for a = 9.81 yields 0.451. Solving for a = (9.81/6 = 1.64) yields 1.10. I confirm Svector's computation.

...now slowing down the speed of the clip will also give the illusion of lower gravity.

Only in the vertical dimension. Since motion in the horizontal dimension does not diminish with gravity, slowing down the clip renders those motions unnatural.

...as it has been lying to us about so many things...

...which are irrelevant to the moon hoax question, although every conspiracy theorist tries to invoke some sort of misguided guilt-by-association.

The question of Apollo's authenticity can be answered solely by examining the facts surrounding that claim, and that claim alone. The claim is either factually correct or factually incorrect, regardless of how much vague and misplaced suspicion can be heaped up against it by people who see conspiracies everywhere. Kindly stick to the facts pertaining to Apollo.

The astronaut being picked up by the strings is also a dead giveaway for an expert in the matter on this clip.

David Percy is not an expert.

Here we clearly see an astronut being picked up by the seat of his pants...

If it's so clear, then please identify the wire in the picture.

Of course, if it is a hoax of global proportions, there's a mob of people with vested interest in keeping their shams intact...

Irrelevant. If one makes allegations of fact regarding the behavior of the physical world, it does not matter how fervently he wishes those allegations to be believed; they will be either factually true or factually false, and he will eventually be found out if they are wrong. Conspiracy theorists always want the discussion to be about who is trustworthy and appropriately motivated, because those subjective discussions can be carried out ad nauseam. They never want the discussion to be about which notion can be demonstrated correct.

...lying and deception is a way of life for certain people

It certainly seems that it is for David Percy, the nice man in your video with the English accent. What did you do to investigate his integrity before trying to tell us all he's an expert? Would you be interested in my history of the things I've noticed David Percy do for the past seven years to protect his sham and his empire?

...while being lied to and being conned is normal for the rest of the people, not in the mob.

What have you done to determine that David Percy et al. are not the ones doing the lying and conning, and that those who believe the conspiracy theories are not the ones being conned?


Well thanks for the math, I stand corrected. Nonetheless, exact calculations with video analysis are needed to put all doubts to rest. Horizontal velocity is not affected by gravity but will follow the wheel anyway. If the wheel is slowed, then the movement is slowed as well, so that won't help.

I certainly would like to hear about David Percy's history, and seems Occam is also interested. As for the wires, they are easily removed from sight with a little editing magic. Certainly "if" a person goes through the trouble of creating an elaborate hoax to fool the whole planet, he wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave hanging wires in plain sight... wouldn't you agree? The astronut clearly looks like he's being picked up by the seat of his pants, like a baby by his diapers. There is also missing on the footage a 360 degree shot of the moon surface, something I would be certain to do, being the first and probably last chance I have to film such an extraordinary landscape. What is missing speaks volume to an exercised investigator.

[peter eldergill]

Robert, for the math, your mistake was that forget the "1/2" in the equation, which gives you 2/9.8, instead of 1/9.8



Pete

[JayUtah]

Horizontal velocity is not affected by gravity but will follow the wheel anyway.

There are two important points here related to alleging fakery by adjusting the frame rate.

First, there is much more horizontal motion involved than just in the wheel. It is possible to play back the Grand Prix footage at 2 or 2.5 times normal speed. The bouncing, careening vehicle does not look realistic to me at that speed, although I'll admit that's a subjective judgment.

Second, you cannot convert one ballistics solution to another involving lesser gravity by altering the time base. The horizontal velocity of ejecta is not affected by gravity; only its vertical velocity. Something shot out an an angle on the Moon will not follow the same path as on Earth if the velocity is the same.

As for the wires, they are easily removed from sight with a little editing magic.

Not in 1969, unless you want to argue that hours upon hours of video was hand-rotoscoped frame by frame. On video. Digital wire removal is commonplace today, but unheard of in 1969. Further, there are non-American, non-NASA people who saw the dowlinks allegedly live. And especially for the J-missions these were interactive downlinks.

But I gather from this that you admit there are no wires actually visible in this frame. That makes your wire claim an inference for which you will have to supply an argument.

Certainly "if" a person goes through the trouble of creating an elaborate hoax to fool the whole planet, he wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave hanging wires in plain sight.

Circular reasoning.

The astronut clearly looks...

Begging the question.

...something I would be certain to do, being the first and probably last chance I have to film such an extraordinary landscape.

Straw man.

What is missing speaks volume to an exercised investigator.

What investigator would that be?

[RobertD]

Indeed, the 1/2 omission stems from the improper layout of the equation. I knew I was not correct. How I like science, but not the antwork associated with it. I'm going back to the theory of numbers, and starting the Diophantine equations just to get back into it.

Now regarding the lack of stars during daylight on the moon. Since there is no atmosphere, a camera pointed upwards would not pick up any light from the surface since there is nothing to reflect it back into the lens, how come there are no upward shots? That's another question that needs answering: If the camera is shooting straight up, there would be no light interference, ergo the starts would be visible. Now since there are no straight up shots, the question is merely rethorical, but again, I would have taken shots of everything if I had been on the moon.

[nomuse]

No!!

You started on the gravity, and you made a good crack at it. So let's finish that first, shall we?

Show me where you measured, in the lunar surface record, the time it takes some arbitrary object to fall.

Compare for me this estimate against the calculated number agreed upon by you and by other posters to this thread.

Then tell me in plain english if you agree or disagree with your original claim, to wit, that the gravity demonstrated in the films is earth-normal.

[sts60]

Now regarding the lack of stars during daylight on the moon. Since there is no atmosphere, a camera pointed upwards would not pick up any light from the surface since there is nothing to reflect it back into the lens, how come there are no upward shots? That's another question that needs answering: If the camera is shooting straight up, there would be no light interference, ergo the starts would be visible. Now since there are no straight up shots, the question is merely rethorical, but again, I would have taken shots of everything if I had been on the moon.

Why? Of what use would be shots of stars from the surface of the Moon, using a hand-held camera? What advantages over Earthbound observations would you expect? Why would you go to the trouble of making sure the camera FOV was shaded from all daylit objects to take these pictures, given that any reasonably-equipped amateur astronomer of the time could take better pictures? Especially since the objective was lunar science?

Hint 1: We've been through all this before, here and on apollohoax.
Hint 2: Pictures of stars from the Moon would be one of the few things it would be possible, let alone easy, to fake.

Here we clearly see an astronut being picked up by the seat of his pants.... and that one convinces me that wires are involved.

As for this one, I disagree with your interpretation; however, all you have to do is show me the wires. Or convincingly explain how they were removed from live television, and how astronauts were able to roll in ways not possible with wire suspension (that's also been discussed here), and provide convincing testimony or other evidence to support their existence in the first place.

[PhantomWolf]

Now regarding the lack of stars during daylight on the moon. Since there is no atmosphere, a camera pointed upwards would not pick up any light from the surface since there is nothing to reflect it back into the lens, how come there are no upward shots? That's another question that needs answering: If the camera is shooting straight up, there would be no light interference, ergo the starts would be visible. Now since there are no straight up shots, the question is merely rethorical, but again, I would have taken shots of everything if I had been on the moon.

There were upwards shots with the TV camera, but it doesn't matter if there is is moonscape in the image or not, the cameras were set at daylight level exposure settings the entire time. A camera isn't like the human eye where it will adjust to different light levels, it has a set level, and if you want to change that, you have to change them.

When you see stars in Hollywood movies, they have been added. Stars don't show up on video.

Besides, the Astronuats DID take images of stars, in UV. Apollo 16 took with them a special camera to do UV photography of the Earth and stars. Thios is because the Earth's atmosphere removes UV and so it was a chance to study stars in that spectrum, something we can't do on Earth. Taking a snap shot of the stars with a handheld colour film camera was pointless, you can get that sort of shot in your backyard (well if you live outside a city like I do.)

BTW how about you finish dealing with one topic before changing to another. That is classic HB behaviour and indicates you aren't willing to learn. At least acknowledging that your point has been answered would go a long way to establishing your credibility here.

[pzkpfw]

Hi Robert,

First you say:


Here we clearly see an astronut [sic] being picked up by the seat of his pants.... and that one convinces me that wires are involved.

Then you say:


As for the wires, they are easily removed from sight with a little editing magic. Certainly "if" a person goes through the trouble of creating an elaborate hoax to fool the whole planet, he wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave hanging wires in plain sight...

(My emphasis, in both quotes)

You seem to want it both ways. First they are clever enough to use wires and edit them out. But then they are still too "sloppy" and leave in a scene that convinces you that wires were there anyway.

Cheers,

[RobertD]

Horizontal velocity is not affected by gravity but will follow the wheel anyway.

There are two important points here related to alleging fakery by adjusting the frame rate.

First, there is much more horizontal motion involved than just in the wheel. It is possible to play back the Grand Prix footage at 2 or 2.5 times normal speed. The bouncing, careening vehicle does not look realistic to me at that speed, although I'll admit that's a subjective judgment.

Second, you cannot convert one ballistics solution to another involving lesser gravity by altering the time base. The horizontal velocity of ejecta is not affected by gravity; only its vertical velocity. Something shot out an an angle on the Moon will not follow the same path as on Earth if the velocity is the same.

As for the wires, they are easily removed from sight with a little editing magic.

Not in 1969, unless you want to argue that hours upon hours of video was hand-rotoscoped frame by frame. On video. Digital wire removal is commonplace today, but unheard of in 1969. Further, there are non-American, non-NASA people who saw the dowlinks allegedly live. And especially for the J-missions these were interactive downlinks.

But I gather from this that you admit there are no wires actually visible in this frame. That makes your wire claim an inference for which you will have to supply an argument.

Certainly "if" a person goes through the trouble of creating an elaborate hoax to fool the whole planet, he wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave hanging wires in plain sight.

Circular reasoning.

The astronut clearly looks...

Begging the question.

...something I would be certain to do, being the first and probably last chance I have to film such an extraordinary landscape.

Straw man.

What is missing speaks volume to an exercised investigator.

What investigator would that be?


Yes the parabolic trajectory would probably be affected differently if gravity was the cause rather than slowing down the motion. But that again require precise calculations, which are not that hard to do, but which are not my specialty. I certainly would like anyone to do them and post the results for us to consider.

As for: "in 1969, hours upon hours of video was hand-rotoscoped frame by frame." I certainly do argue precisely that, because it was necessary for the hoax to succeed, time consuming; yes, hard to do; no. I didn't say I did not see any wire, there is smudging above the astronauts that are where wires would be, and that's not justified by anything.

Downlinks are no proof because part of the deception would be to fake transmissions coming from the moon. That's where the dummy rocket comes into play to act as a relay, sending radio signals up one frequency, via, and bounding them back down another, the one everyone is sure to be looking for. I find your argument very weak, you jump to conclusions hastily. Circular reasoning is not stating that a hoaxter makes preparation, that is not circular reasoning, it's common sense.

And being picked up by the seat of your pants is begging a question yes: Who picked him up? A straw man argument is one that sets up a weak argument to pull down, not asking a pointed question that begs an answer.

What investigator would that be? Well in this case, me and a thousand others who want real answers. BTW, your sites about David Percy don't address the questions he raises, they merely attack him personally. That's a typical run around that we find in all anti-conspiracy sites, 9-11 or JFK do the same thing.

I would like to see the ballistic analysis of the sand projected and careful frame by frame calculation of all sand movements. I'm sure that a hoax would not resist such analysis because the math doesn't lie. If it's truth we all desire, then this is where we should concentrate because that's the weakest point.

[JayUtah]

Since there is no atmosphere, a camera pointed upwards would not pick up any light from the surface since there is nothing to reflect it back into the lens...

True, but irrelevant. Do you agree that it would be wrong to expect properly-exposed stars and properly-exposed sunlit terrain in the same photographs?

...how come there are no upward shots?

Because the Hasselblad 70mm still cameras equipped with wide-angle Zeiss Biogon lenses were intended to document surface conditions and activities. They are poor instruments for astronomical photography. The proper equipment for astronomical photography was deployed on Apollo 16 and the results are part of the Apollo record.

...I would have taken shots of everything if I had been on the moon.

Straw man. What you think you would have done is irrelevant to whether the Apollo missions were real.

[nomuse]

Actually, funny thing, but stars are also added in Hollywood scenes that don't take place in space. Like the patio scene in Apollo 13, for instance (but wait for a few suppressed snickers from any astronomers in the audience as the constellations visible are often risible. But then, Hollywood can have a full moon rise every day for a week -- and at all hours of the night, as well!)

But we're still letting Robert play the old, tired HB game here. Never admit you were ever wrong, but immediately jump to a new claim. Why do we keep letting them get away with it?

[PhantomWolf]

Downlinks are no proof because part of the deception would be to fake transmissions coming from the moon. That's where the dummy rocket comes into play to act as a relay, sending radio signals up one frequency, via, and bounding them back down another, the one everyone is sure to be looking for.

Hang on, so what you are saying is that NASA didn't have the technology to send a man to the moon, but they did have the technology to send an unmanned ship, split it in half in Lunar orbit, land one half, robotically collect rock chips, entire rocks of up to 12 kg in weight, scooped up soil samples, cored soil samples, and deep cores up to eight feet in length, then recover all the material, and do that part entirely in secret?

[nomuse]

I would like to see the ballistic analysis of the sand projected and careful frame by frame calculation of all sand movements. I'm sure that a hoax would not resist such analysis because the math doesn't lie. If it's truth we all desire, then this is where we should concentrate because that's the weakest point.

Done for the hammer-and-feather drop. Don't have the link handy at the moment but I'm sure someone will post it if asked.

Are you saying, however, that if there is one moment anywhere in the tens of hours of surface record for which some sort of fakery can't conclusively be ruled out, the entire mission is suspect, then I am not sure where we can go from here.

Except ask you to prove -- to yourself or anyone else -- that Paris exists. By that same standard, if any map showing Paris could possibly have been altered, then, of course, Paris can not be proven to exist.

(And you can't take my word for it, either; I could have been paid off by a lifetime supply of those bad-for-you but oh so lovely on a cold day crepe sucre citron.)

[RobertD]

Since there is no atmosphere, a camera pointed upwards would not pick up any light from the surface since there is nothing to reflect it back into the lens...

True, but irrelevant. Do you agree that it would be wrong to expect properly-exposed stars and properly-exposed sunlit terrain in the same photographs?

...how come there are no upward shots?

Because the Hasselblad 70mm still cameras equipped with wide-angle Zeiss Biogon lenses were intended to document surface conditions and activities. They are poor instruments for astronomical photography. The proper equipment for astronomical photography was deployed on Apollo 16 and the results are part of the Apollo record.

...I would have taken shots of everything if I had been on the moon.

Straw man. What you think you would have done is irrelevant to whether the Apollo missions were real.


I'm not too interested in the photographic aspect of the debate, I'm certain your argument is defendable, I find it odd that no 360 degree shot was made, the mars rover did that and it seems to be only natural thing to do. Not a straw man, but a questionable behavior, one that can be filed under "?". We don't want too many of those. My main concern is the mathematical analysis of the sand. If that pans out, then yes, no more doubt.

Until then, I have only questions.

[R.A.F.]

...there is smudging above the astronauts that are where wires would be...

Well then it "should" be simple enough for you to point out this "smudging".

Do so...


That's a typical run around that we find in all anti-conspiracy sites, 9-11 or JFK do the same thing.

So is there any conspiracy you don't believe?

[PhantomWolf]

I'm not too interested in the photographic aspect of the debate, I'm certain your argument is defendable, I find it odd that no 360 degree shot was made, the mars rover did that and it seems to be only natural thing to do. Not a straw man, but a questionable behavior, one that can be filed under "?". We don't want too many of those. My main concern is the mathematical analysis of the sand. If that pans out, then yes, no more doubt.

Until then, I have only questions.

It was done, with the TV camera, mainly to view Earth. With the Mars camera they looked at the sky, but there aren't any images of the stars from Mars either as far as I know.

[RobertD]

Done for the hammer-and-feather drop. Don't have the link handy at the moment but I'm sure someone will post it if asked.

Are you saying, however, that if there is one moment anywhere in the tens of hours of surface record for which some sort of fakery can't conclusively be ruled out, the entire mission is suspect, then I am not sure where we can go from here.

Except ask you to prove -- to yourself or anyone else -- that Paris exists. By that same standard, if any map showing Paris could possibly have been altered, then, of course, Paris can not be proven to exist.

(And you can't take my word for it, either; I could have been paid off by a lifetime supply of those bad-for-you but oh so lovely on a cold day crepe sucre citron.)


No sir, an elaborate hoax performed by professional government employees would be very accurate in all aspects, very accurate but not perfect. If sand doesn't behave perfectly in "all" the shots, then tampering has been done. Let me rephrase that, if there is a scene where sand behaves in earthly manner, then this is definite proof that the scene was not done on the moon, because any departure from moon gravity is abnormal and cannot be explained away.

[PhantomWolf]

Well then it "should" be simple enough for you to point out this "smudging".

It's artifacting caused by compession of the footage, it's not there on the full screen DVD version, I've checked previously.

[nomuse]

I for one will wait on his "sand."

I do not expect much good to come of it, however. As far as I can tell he intends to squint at a compressed google video and estimate time with eyeball while muttering "one-one thousand, two-one thousand."

And he's already implied that if even once the "sand" doesn't fall the way he expects it to, he can then sit back in comfort knowing that every other clip was faked -- he just can be troubled to figure out how.

[PhantomWolf]

No sir, an elaborate hoax performed by professional government employees would be very accurate in all aspects, very accurate but not perfect. If sand doesn't behave perfectly in "all" the shots, then tampering has been done. Let me rephrase that, if there is a scene where sand behaves in earthly manner, then this is definite proof that the scene was not done on the moon, because any departure from moon gravity is abnormal and cannot be explained away.

IF

Find one and you have a case, till then you have nothing.

Conversely you need to prove that all the shots were fake, because if even one is real, then they went.

[OddBall]

BTW, your sites about David Percy don't address the questions he raises, they merely attack him personally.


Actually, if you had bothered to check the whole site, you'd have noticed that in fact several of Percy's claims are addressed. "Mere personal attacks" are an common excuse amongst HBers, but hold no water.

[Van Rijn]

If the camera is shooting straight up, there would be no light interference, ergo the starts would be visible. Now since there are no straight up shots, the question is merely rethorical, but again, I would have taken shots of everything if I had been on the moon.

As has been pointed out, UV pictures of stars were taken on the Apollo 16 mission. And that, unlike a Hasselblad camera shot, actually was scientifically useful. So I'll just sit back, waiting patiently for you to concede this point. Of course, if you are like other MHers we've seen here, you'll just use some excuse to declare it fake. If so, it is clear you would also declare a Hasselblad camera shot fake as well.

[Serenitude]

Yes the parabolic trajectory would probably be affected differently if gravity was the cause rather than slowing down the motion. But that again require precise calculations, which are not that hard to do, but which are not my specialty. I certainly would like anyone to do them and post the results for us to consider.

You're the "investigator" making claims. Why don't you do it and submit your results for review?


{snip!}because it was necessary for the hoax to succeed

Begging the question.


I didn't say I did not see any wire, there is smudging above the astronauts that are where wires would be, and that's not justified by anything.

Demonstrate this please.


Downlinks are no proof because part of the deception would be to fake transmissions coming from the moon. That's where the dummy rocket comes into play to act as a relay, sending radio signals up one frequency, via, and bounding them back down another, the one everyone is sure to be looking for.

Well, I have to admit that the reptilian aliens secretly based in Groom Lake, and who actually run the world through the UN, could probably have helped us out with that one.


I find your argument very weak, you jump to conclusions hastily.

Jay has extensive formal training in precisely this area, and is well credentialed to be speaking as an expert. He has also done tireless thousands of hours investigating your absurd, parroted claims long before you showed up here. You, however, have so far shown an extremely weak argument. You have so far produced no evidence at all, and merely offered grossly misinformed speculation and parroted hoax claims from sites offering the same. When shown to be postulating an absurd claim, you quickly jump to another, ie - handwaving.

Who has the weak argument? Who is jumping to conclusions hastily?


Circular reasoning is not stating that a hoaxter makes preparation, that is not circular reasoning, it's common sense.

Huh?


And being picked up by the seat of your pants is begging a question yes: Who picked him up?

You don't know what begging the question actually means, do you?


A straw man argument is one that sets up a weak argument to pull down, not asking a pointed question that begs an answer.

No, that's not actually what a strawman is, although you're alot closer there than in your interpretion of "begging the question". You really should look these up before you deal with people intimately familiar with logic and the standards of debate ;)


What investigator would that be? Well in this case, me and a thousand others who want real answers.

Well, then you're in luck, "investigator" - real answers are provided on this website and clavius :)


BTW, your sites about David Percy don't address the questions he raises, they merely attack him personally. That's a typical run around that we find in all anti-conspiracy sites, 9-11 or JFK do the same thing.

I can't take you seriously if you mean that. As a jest, it's pretty good, though. BTW: "We"? Mentioning 9/11, JFK - you're addicted to these conspiracies, aren't you? In that case, no amount of demonstrable reality is going to help you. At least not from here. If you want genuine questions, though, you should learn to be objective and look at the actual evidence. It's not difficult.


I would like to see the ballistic analysis of the sand projected and careful frame by frame calculation of all sand movements.

Sounds like a good project. Please share your expert investigator results when you are done.


I'm sure that a hoax would not resist such analysis because the math doesn't lie.

Apollo math has been analyzed on a vast scale by hundreds of thousands of people, from many different countries and areas of expertise, and for 40 years now it has stood up completely. Any credible work you could contribute is most welcome.


If it's truth we all desire, then this is where we should concentrate because that's the weakest point.

Begging the question. The real begging the question, not your version of it ;)

Edit: Jeez, guys, quit typing so fast. I was the next reply when I started :p

[JayUtah]

I certainly would like anyone to do them and post the results for us to consider.

If you are claiming that the video shows improper or unnatural movement, it is your burden of proof. If you cannot or will not provide suitable proof, no one is obliged to believe you have a suitable basis for your belief, nor is obliged to do any sort of computation for you.

Do you claim the motion of the dust/sand/regolith is anomalous? Yes or no.

I certainly do argue precisely that, because it was necessary for the hoax to succeed...

More circular reasoning. Do you argue that the wires were rotoscoped out? Yes or no. If yes, please give evidence that such a rotoscoping took place -- not merely a statement that such activity would be necessary in a hoax.

I didn't say I did not see any wire...

Do you claim there is a wire visible in the frame? Yes or no. If not, what is your evidence that the motion you see is caused by a wire and not by something else?

...there is smudging above the astronauts that are where wires would be, and that's not justified by anything.

What explanations did you consider before concluding that they were "not justified by anything"? What do you think "not justified by anything" proves?

hat's where the dummy rocket comes into play to act as a relay...

Please describe the orbit such a spacecraft would need to follow in order to act as the relay you describe. Please also describe how to get around the transmission latency. Please also describe how the Doppler effect at AOS/LOS during lunar orbit would be produced.

I find your argument very weak...

Then it should be easy for you to refute with facts and solid lines of reasoning, not handwaving and appeals to intuition.

...you jump to conclusions hastily.

No, I recite conclusions that have been carefully arrived at by studying the conspiracy theories and associated NASA evidence at length for a number of years, having compiled what many believe to be a definitive and seminal work on the subject. You, on the other hand, seem to believe that these long-debunked claims are somehow worthy of new attention. You're only about the hundredth person to raise these claims without looking for answers yourself first.

Circular reasoning is not stating that a hoaxter makes preparation, that is not circular reasoning, it's common sense.

When the evidence given for some proposed activity having taken place is simply that such an activity would be a necessary antecedent to the predetermined conclusion, that is circular reasoning. That circularity is not corrected by the strength of the implication from antecedent to conclusion.

And being picked up by the seat of your pants is begging a question yes...

Begging a question is not the same as asking a question. You beg the question when you say he is "clearly" being pulled upward. You have not provided any evidence that he has been drawn upward, nor any evidence for what you say has drawn him. You merely have a hypothesis which you want accepted as fact without an argument. That is what begging the question means.

A straw man argument is one that sets up a weak argument to pull down, not asking a pointed question that begs an answer.

When you set forth what you guess you would do on the Moon as the standard by with others' activities are judged, that is an example of a straw-man argument.

What investigator would that be? Well in this case, me...

What are your qualifications for being an "exercised" investigator? What are your qualifications in physics? Engineering? Orbital mechanics? Photographic analysis?

BTW, your sites about David Percy don't address the questions he raises, they merely attack him personally.

No. They attack his methods, which are indeed shoddy. The rest of the site discusses Percy's claims from a strictly factual standpoint. Since you are the one who brought up the question of trustworthiness, you opened the door to that type of analysis.

What specifically did you do to verify Percy's qualifications and trustworthiness before referring to him as an expert?

I would like to see the ballistic analysis of the sand projected and careful frame by frame calculation of all sand movements.

Why?

[RobertD]

Well then it "should" be simple enough for you to point out this "smudging".

Do so...



So is there any conspiracy you don't believe?

Is there a conspiracy I don't believe...? Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean no one is watching me.... ever heard that one? I question the mob in power, the mob lies all the time and that I know. There are people who lie all the time, and they are many, the mob is half the people in the states. So I'm not interested in convincing liars, they will never see, because they are the three monkeys.

[R.A.F.]

Welcome to the board, OddBall. :)

[R.A.F.]

...I'm not interested in convincing liars...

Tread lightly, sir...this board does not allow name calling.

[nomuse]

No sir, an elaborate hoax performed by professional government employees would be very accurate in all aspects, very accurate but not perfect. If sand doesn't behave perfectly in "all" the shots, then tampering has been done. Let me rephrase that, if there is a scene where sand behaves in earthly manner, then this is definite proof that the scene was not done on the moon, because any departure from moon gravity is abnormal and cannot be explained away.

Ah, yes. Accurate and undetectable, like all professional government work.


Define "perfectly." To what significant figure do the numbers need to concur? To more digits than the error in your method? And do you intend to test "all" material? Doesn't this mean you can never quite rule out that there might be a particle falling for a brief moment in some otherwise innocuous shot? Doesn't this mean, in short, that you can forever put off having to admit you are wrong, because there is always some faint hope of appeal?

Why is the obverse not true? If the dust falls correctly in one shot, you will claim that in that one shot it might have been faked by some number of ways (ways you are of course unwilling or unable to detail). And yet, you hold that if the dust falls incorrectly in one shot, there is only onepossible explanation for that behavior; that all the other shots and the entire lunar program was faked.

Interesting litmus test. I can't think, offhand, of any historical or astronomical observation that could not be called a falsehood under that rule.

[JayUtah]

Not a straw man, but a questionable behavior...

Arguing that your personal druthers are the standard by which others' behavior is judged, is a straw man.

My main concern is the mathematical analysis of the sand.

And how do you propose to satisfy that concern?

Until then, I have only questions.

Your questions, or David Percy's questions?

[AtomicDog]

If a camera is pointed up away from the lunar surface, without the (overexposed) Moon in the frame, then how can you tell if the picture was shot on the Moon or the Earth?

The point is that a bare starfield is useless as evidence that one has been on the Moon. I don't know why the hoax believers insist on it.

[JayUtah]

Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean no one is watching me.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean anyone is. Or that it's the person you think.

I question the mob in power, the mob lies all the time and that I know.

Do lies come only from people in power? Is everything that comes from people in power a lie?

[Serenitude]

Is there a conspiracy I don't believe...? Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean no one is watching me.... ever heard that one?

Please provide any evidence you may have for your claims. Ever heard that one?


I question the mob in power, the mob lies all the time and that I know. There are people who lie all the time, and they are many, the mob is half the people in the states. So I'm not interested in convincing liars, they will never see, because they are the three monkeys.

First - mob. Is that literally, as in La Cosa Nostra? Or "sheeple"? Or is half of America employed by the government to perpetuate hoaxes on you?

Second - are you calling the fine people here, who devote precious personal time to help folks such as yourself find real answers "liars"?

Third - you're "the truth is evident for those that have eyes to see" is another logical fallacy. Really, you should look these things up. Try norvik - there's a good list there ;)

[antoniseb]

Is there a conspiracy I don't believe...? Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean no one is watching me.... ever heard that one? I question the mob in power, the mob lies all the time and that I know. There are people who lie all the time, and they are many, the mob is half the people in the states. So I'm not interested in convincing liars, they will never see, because they are the three monkeys.

Hi RobertD,

I live in the states and follow the mainstream view on lots of things, which I guess means you are calling me a liar, or at least that I have a 50% chance of being a liar. Now I am not going to take personal offense at this, but I do want to point out that you've just broken the forum politeness rules. Since you are new, I'm not giving you an official warning here... just a heads up that you need to express yourself in a more friendly and socially aware manner.

Side note, if I'm paranoid and dyslexic will I have the impression that I'm out to get someone?

[Van Rijn]

Is there a conspiracy I don't believe...? Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean no one is watching me.... ever heard that one?


Just a few times. :doh:

I'd be astonished if anyone on this board actually trusted government implicitly. The problem with paranoia, however, is that one tends to ignore facts that get in the way of the paranoia, and accepts ideas (however baseless) that support it.



So I'm not interested in convincing liars, they will never see, because they are the three monkeys.

I hope that isn't a suggestion that attempting to explain the facts behind the moon landing is lying. If so, it would sound just a tad paranoid.

[JayUtah]

No sir, an elaborate hoax performed by professional government employees would be very accurate in all aspects...

Why did you specify government employees? This plus your other remarks indicate you have quite a strong anti-government bias. Not that any of us here are necessarily going to flock to defend the government out of principle, but I have to ask: do you question Apollo because there's some evidence that leads you to, or do you question it because it's a proxy for your distrust of government?

...very accurate but not perfect.

Then if it will fail some objective test, that test -- not some presumption about motive or affiliation -- is the true test of correctness. Elsewhere you seem to heap distrust upon some group and on that basis question the factuality of what they claim. But now you seem to concede that the ultimate test of truth is whether the claim conforms to facts, not whether one is paid by the taxpayers.

If sand doesn't behave perfectly in "all" the shots, then tampering has been done.

No. You would make a poor investigator. You have set up a false dilemma. If the sand doesn't behave perfectly in all the shots, then you would have cause to suspect some other explanation. Jumping to the tamper conclusion is presupposition. You would still need to find some external evidence of the tampering in order for that to be a defensible explanation. There is no default here that holds when some other explanation fails empirically.

You would, for example, also want to examine the method by which you evaluated the behavior of the sand. Such methods necessarily involve uncertainty, estimation, and indirection. You would also want to examine the quality and fidelity of the data. Your straw-man dichotomy is based on the ridiculous presumption that it is possible to determine beyond all doubt that lunar soil is not behaving in a way determined by purely natural factors.

[PhantomWolf]

Sigh, and another reveals his true colours. Why is it that all the HB's out there are anti-Government and that is their entire basis for believing those out there peedling the CT garbage.. It's sad that they are so "open-minded" they can't see past their own little view of the "evil government."

[Jason Thompson]

There is also missing on the footage a 360 degree shot of the moon surface,

This is the second statement you have made about what is and is not available in the record that is simply untrue. Can I ask what research you have done into the Apollo record?

Each mission included photographic panoramas taken by the astronauts using the Hasselblad cameras. The astronaut literally, with the camera clipped to its bracket on the front of his suit, clicked away while turning round on the spot. The first thing Neil Armstrong did when he moved the TV camera off the MESA onto its stand was transmit a 360 degree panorama of the area. During the missions with rovers the TV camera was routinely swung round its full range (just shy of 360 degrees) in all the geology stations.

So, by 'missing' can we conclude that you really mean you haven't found it? Wouldn't it be better to ask those of us who have actually seen the complete footage if such shots exist rather than declaring they don't?

[JayUtah]

You're [RobertD] the "investigator" making claims. Why don't you do it and submit your results for review?

Amen. Merely asking questions does not make one an investigator. Hurling random, unsubstantiated suspicion does not make one an investigator. An investigator answers questions.

[Serenitude]

RobertD, I made a list of commonly asked questions for someone once, and included questions not yet asked but that we just knew were coming. Amazing how that works ;)

Anyway - don't misread the tone - that was 80 frustrating posts in. You haven't pushed that far yet. But the links should give you some starting places both for the "questions" you've asked, and for those that you'll be handwaving to in the next couple of days :)

http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=883092&postcount=83

[Serenitude]

Amazingly enough - I forgot to mention this yesterday. In the morning I was watching a program on Apollo on the Science Channel. They were talking about the atmosphere around Mission Control during the Apollo era. 6 seperate engineers stated on camera that they were never geeky enough to have worn pocket protectors. After each statement, a picture of the engineer, taken during an Apollo mission, was shown, and in each case said engineer did clearly have a pocket protector in the left breast pocket.

Clearly, the NASA photo-doctoring lab forgot to smudge out these pictures :lol:

[captain swoop]

So, by 'missing' can we conclude that you really mean you haven't found it? Wouldn't it be better to ask those of us who have actually seen the complete footage if such shots exist rather than declaring they don't?

I think my sig applies here!

[RobertD]

Tread lightly, sir...this board does not allow name calling.

Do you deny that liars exist?

I didn't call anyone a liar, but if the moon landing is a hoax, as the title of the thread indicates, then there are liars as well, because that's what is implied. I do not make any claims of knowing anything, I merely raise the issue that mathematically the moon landing must be accurate in all points.

There is only two possibilities, one is; there are liars who have made the hoax, or it's a groundless conspiracy and everything is true. To question the facts doesn't take anything from the truth, since facts speak for themselves. That someone defends one side of the argument doesn't necessarily means he is a liar or deluded, it can mean as well he's a honestly wrong person, or right altogether.

But the issue of people being liars is an angle that cannot be ignored since it is at the core of the argument. Nonetheless, I'm not here to make character judgments, just finding if the sand really obeys the gravitational law in every respect. The issue of lying will establish itself at the conclusion.

[Occam]

Thanks for the links, JayUtah

To RobertD and other HB's, I beg to differ with your claim that you want "real answers"
You don't, because you consistently get them and reject them.
You, like all HB's, make wild, sweeping, unsubstantiated claims and assumptions and what is glaringly apparent is that most (if not all) of you have not the slightest understanding of any of the subjects you are questioning. We see video and photographic evidence being dissected and "analysed" by those who are so ignorant of the actual processes that their arguments boggle the mind. We hear massively convoluted explanations of how each minute facet of fakery was probably done. We are fed endless streams of pro-hoax arguments based on tiny little, out of context snippets of video or low-res photos and the entire premise is based on nothing more than "it looks to me like this".

Personally, I cannot be bothered in even attempting to answer ridiculous, petty questions in a vain attempt to make you think beyond your oustandingly silly paradigm. Kudos to those who never give up trying to educate the unteachable but it really does seem like a huge waste of time and effort.

What none of you HB's seem to realise, though, are two very important points.
1 - In 1969 It would have been easier, safer, cheaper and far more practical to go to the Moon than to try and carry out such a ludicrous scam.
2 - With every conceiveable special effect and state of the art electronic tomfoolery available now, it is still categorically impossible to carry out such a fraud today.

Ultimately, of course, there has never yet been anyone who could answer the simple question "why?"
Why would such a hoax be carried out? On this alone, none of you seem to be able to agree.
To beat the Russians? Well, as time has shown, the Russians didn't have the ability to do it, so there was no need to fake it.
Because of the Van Allen Belts? If that one held water, then no-one could ever go to the Moon, so there was no need to fake it.

Tell me WHY.

There is not one reason (nor could there be) ever suggested, that for a moment stands the scrutiny of a thinking, rational mind. The entire premise is so stultifyingly idiotic, I find it difficult to understand what kind of person (outside of the clinically deranged) could honestly see any value in it.

[JayUtah]

...facts speak for themselves.

Facts indeed can speak for themselves, but people first have to be made aware of them. You can't apply knowledge you don't have. Not everyone understands photographic exposure, so not everyone naturally knows why stars don't show up in photographs. Knowing what you don't know, is important.

But the issue of people being liars is an angle that cannot be ignored since it is at the core of the argument.

No. The facts are at the core of the argument. If someone turns out to be wrong about the facts, then you can try to determine what made them wrong.

Nonetheless, I'm not here to make character judgments...

Of course you are. You have told us that the government and people associated with it are untrustworthy. Therefore anything they say deserves extra scrutiny. You have further insinuated that David Percy is an expert in matters pertaining to the Apollo record and that his judgment ought therefore to be respected.

How are these not character judgments? How are they not intended to color which allegations of fact are believed and which dismissed?

...just finding if the sand really obeys the gravitational law in every respect.

How do you propose to determine whether the sand really obeys the gravitational law in every respect? Do you propose to be able to know and to investigate every respect?

[RobertD]

As I said, I made no claim whatsoever when I started posting, anyone who says that is deluded. I made some assumption, and questioned some facts. I'm not a moon landing specialist bent on winning, and armed for bear....

Now everyone and his boytoy expects me to be a mathematician astrophysicist who has viewed all and every inch of footage and read all the websites, know all the arguments pros and cons and to be absolutely accurate in all details.

Well boys you are nuts.

All I want is to know if the sand falls at precisely moon gravity, that's all. Wires, no wires? I don't care, 360 no 360? I don't give a pfft about it. If no one as calculated the sand, with numbers to show, then I don't have an answer, and if someone has and can provide an answer, then that's good, one less cover-up to debunk.

Next thing you know, you're going ballistics, and pretend I said I was an astrophysiscist with a degree in mathematics.... (Quote: "You, like all HB's, make wild, sweeping, unsubstantiated claims and assumptions")

I did not make any assumption. The assumption that it's a hoax is in the title, I didn't make it up. And I ask the question, one simple question: Does the sand obey lunar gravity? If you cannot answer that question, don't blame me. And don't fall off your rockers.

If I don't get an answer, then you "experts" are not able to answer my question, and I won't have an answer. I won't rest until I have an answer, if not here, then maybe somewhere else some other day.

[Musashi]

Why can't you answer the question, why must others do it for you?

[RobertD]

...facts speak for themselves.

Facts indeed can speak for themselves, but people first have to be made aware of them. You can't apply knowledge you don't have. Not everyone understands photographic exposure, so not everyone naturally knows why stars don't show up in photographs. Knowing what you don't know, is important.

But the issue of people being liars is an angle that cannot be ignored since it is at the core of the argument.

No. The facts are at the core of the argument. If someone turns out to be wrong about the facts, then you can try to determine what made them wrong.

Nonetheless, I'm not here to make character judgments...

Of course you are. You have told us that the government and people associated with it are untrustworthy. Therefore anything they say deserves extra scrutiny. You have further insinuated that David Percy is an expert in matters pertaining to the Apollo record and that his judgment ought therefore to be respected.

How are these not character judgments? How are they not intended to color which allegations of fact are believed and which dismissed?

...just finding if the sand really obeys the gravitational law in every respect.

How do you propose to determine whether the sand really obeys the gravitational law in every respect? Do you propose to be able to know and to investigate every respect?

Oh dear.... :liar: look at the smilie I found....;) It's against the rules to call anyone a liar, but it's OK To have a smilie with a growing nose.... :)

I'm not a photographer never claimed to be. Your explanation satisfies me, and I understand perfectly about exposure, I don't know why you keep raising this up, Fixed aperture, daylight setting is good enough for me. Wires are a little more problematic, especially that the astronaut's foot is lifting and dragging forward in the shot where he is purportedly helped on his feet by his pardner. The physical reaction of a body being lifted from a low center of gravity causes the legs to lift and move forward. If the lifting was done by his pardner, both legs would dig into the sand. That too should be mathematically parsed, to establish lift point accurately, it can be reasonably estimated from the video. You cannot help a person to his feet by lifting his extended arm and have both his lefts lift and drag forward, that is a physical impossibility. Here too I would like to see some rigor in analysis.

And of course I do character judgment, that's what this is all about. Governments have been proven to be untrustworthy, and yes the mob lies all the time. Not some of the time, it lies all the time, that's how they know each other. It's like a ;) and :liar: :whistle: :shhh:

[Musashi]

All I want is to know if the sand falls at precisely moon gravity, that's all. Wires, no wires? I don't care, 360 no 360? I don't give a pfft about it. If no one as calculated the sand, with numbers to show, then I don't have an answer, and if someone has and can provide an answer, then that's good, one less cover-up to debunk.




What happened to not caring about wires? Anyway, there is a reason I suggested you answer the question yourself. That way you know you can trust the answer. Otherwise you will just be saying "Well JayUtah told me," or "so-and-so says." If you do the work, you not only learn how, you know that it was done properly and will not be swayed be someone telling you your source is wrong/a disinfo agent/etc.

[JayUtah]

I don't know why you keep raising this up...

Because you do.

Fixed aperture, daylight setting is good enough for me.

That was mentioned very early in the discussion, yet you pressed on. Can we finally put it to bed?

The physical reaction of a body being lifted from a low center of gravity causes the legs to lift and move forward.

What do you mean by lifted from a low center of gravity?

I do wire work at my theater, where we built our own wire-flying rig. What would you say if I told you my experience differed? Have you ever done any theatrical wire work?

Could anything else cause the legs to appear to lift and move forward?

...it can be reasonably estimated from the video.

Begging the question.

You cannot help a person to his feet by lifting his extended arm and have both his lefts lift and drag forward, that is a physical impossibility.

What if the person only weighed 60 pounds? What if, in the semi-prone position, most of that weight was concentrated forward?

David Percy goes on and on about how wires relieve the actors' weight. He doesn't do anything to distinguish between the apparent relief of weight due to wires, and the apparent relief of weight due to diminished gravity. This is typical of Percy's style of argumentation. He offers a hypothesis at the beginning of a section, then repeats it and repeats it until by the end it seems like an established fact.

Here too I would like to see some rigor in analysis.

And you, of course, have no burden of proof whatsoever? You just get to declare that something is a physical impossibility, and then you're done?

I'd love to see some rigor in the objection first. You just beg questions left and right, just like David Percy.

And of course I do character judgment, that's what this is all about.

Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop. Flip. Flop.

So one the one hand it's all about the facts -- if anyone's a liar it will come out in the end. On the other hand governments always lie, so we can therefore reliably assert the converse of whatever a government claims, all facts aside.

Okay, when you finally figure out what you believe and why, let us know.

[DogsHead]

All I want is to know if the sand falls at precisely moon gravity
The answer is yes. I am satisfied that others have demonstrated this. Why do you not accept this answer?

[PhantomWolf]

*blah* JAQ *blah*

where do they clone these people?

[Occam]

And I ask the question, one simple question: Does the sand obey lunar gravity? If you cannot answer that question, don't blame me. .


And if it is proven, beyond any shadow of rational doubt that the dust DOES fall at the rate dictated by lunar gravity...
a/ How will you know, since by your own admission you don't actually have any knowledge in the subject?
b/ What will it ultimately prove to you, other than that THIS part of the hoax was accurately faked?

Once again, you use the HB ploy of fixating upon a tiny little facet and demanding PROOF that very few people could actually supply and that you would be quite incapable of appreciating.

Similarly, your absolute belief that wires had to have been used is due to your ignorance of how mass behaves under one sixth Earth gravity and your failure to grasp what it is you are actually seeing without colouring it with your beliefs and expectations.

Now, as has been pointed out already, calling someone a liar is not acceptable here. Suffice it to say that your story changes sufficiently to make believing what you say somewhat imprudent.

[JayUtah]

As I said, I made no claim whatsoever when I started posting, anyone who says that is deluded.

Claims you made in your first post (#590):

1. It would be easy to pick out the landing site with a good-sized telescope.

2. "They" took "the video" out of circulation.

3. Astronauts walking in space clearly show stars.

And you have made many claims since.

Now everyone and his boytoy expects me to be a mathematician astrophysicist who has viewed all and every inch of footage and read all the websites, know all the arguments pros and cons and to be absolutely accurate in all details.

Straw man. We expect you to be informed commensurate with the claims you make. For example, you came here asserting that the Apollo video had been taken out of circulation, and then you asked for links. Your propensity to make claims regarding things you haven't researched is, unfortunately, a matter of self-evident fact. That's what we object to, not your deplorable lack of utter genius.

Wires, no wires?

You brought it up, and fairly early in the discussion. Clearly you do care. If you want to talk about it, fine. If you don't want to talk about it, fine. If you want to postpone it, fine. But stop flip-flopping on whether or not you're really interested in it.

I don't care, 360 no 360? I don't give a pfft about it.

Again, you brought it up.

Next thing you know, you're going ballistics, and pretend I said I was an astrophysiscist with a degree in mathematics...

You do seem to talk an awful lot about what is physically possible and impossible. You do seem to assert quite a bit about what can and can't be determined from video evidence.

You either have a basis for that kind of judgment or you don't. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If you aren't confident in the relevant sciences, then don't oblige us to take your word for it when you say what should or shouldn't be the case. If you are competent to analyze these results, then provide an analysis.

And I ask the question, one simple question: Does the sand obey lunar gravity? If you cannot answer that question, don't blame me.

You originally proposed to answer it yourself. What responsibility do we have?

I won't rest until I have an answer, if not here, then maybe somewhere else some other day.

You're certainly the passive-aggressive one. You won't rest until you have an answer, but you seem to believe it's our responsibility to provide it for you just because you asked. Most of us have done enough BOE (Back Of Envelope) computations to be satisfied ourselves. But no, you want chronometers and frame-by-frame video analysis. If you want it, do it.

[RobertD]

The answer is yes. I am satisfied that others have demonstrated this. Why do you not accept this answer?

I am satisfied that others have demonstrated that man is actually a monkey. Why don't you accept that answer?
Do you have a link?

RobertD: Wires are a little more problematic, especially that the astronaut's foot is lifting and dragging forward in the shot where he is purportedly helped on his feet by his pardner. The physical reaction of a body being lifted from a low center of gravity causes the legs to lift and move forward. If the lifting was done by his pardner, both legs would dig into the sand.

JayUtah answers with a quad followed by a fantastic triple lutz: "What if the person only weighed 60 pounds? What if, in the semi-prone position, most of that weight was concentrated forward?

What if... my aunt had balls? Would she be my uncle?

I may not be able (or inclined) to calculate parabolaes, but I can estimate a center of gravity reasonably well enough to know that if you lift a man by his center of gravity, both legs will tend to go up. If you lift a man by one end, the other end will go down, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out. That alone is enough to cast an ominous shadow on the matter. So in my mind this foot dragging in the sand is a cinch... for me, that's enough proof to establish falsification.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQTNLaUE&mode=related&search=

Just like the 9-11 WTC beam cut at a perfect 45 degree as with a demolition charge. Another hoax because crushing support beams don't break at perfect 45 degree, they bend out of shape. One sure lie and a multitude of ?s is enough to discredit a story.

Like those who defend the JFK magic bullet, argumentation is not about facts, but about deception.
We all know it was Jackie who fired the fatal shot.

[DogsHead]

I am satisfied that others have demonstrated that man is actually a monkey. Why don't you accept that answer?
Do you have a link?

I think you will find that, unlike some of your other claims, most people do accept that Man is a primate. As to whether I have a link, well - I can point you to many sources, if you would like, but I am not going to do so if all I get in return is purile, adolescent attempts at humour.
Now will you answer my question?

[JayUtah]

What if... my aunt had balls? Would she be my uncle?

Evasion noted. Did you or did you not consider those things before rendering your unassailable opinion that what you saw was physically impossible? If so, how would those things change the appearance of a rising astronaut?

I may not be able (or inclined) to calculate parabolaes, but I can estimate a center of gravity reasonably well enough...

Begging the question.

You said something about being lifted by a low center of gravity, which doesn't even make sense in a mechanics context. Are you going to explain yourself, or are you going to keep demanding that you are somehow right?

...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

I asked you a direct question, which you evaded. Have you personally ever done any theatrical wire work? Yes or no.

...for me, that's enough proof to establish falsification.

Of course it is. That's because it's based on a premise that you simply asserted to be true -- your personal, uncanny ability to know the proper dynamics of a fully-equipped astronaut in lunar gravity. And heaven forbid anyone should ask you any detailed questions about that ability; you respond only with rudeness.

Just like the 9-11 WTC beam...

Subject-changing noted. And 9/11 discussions are strictly verboten here.

Like those who defend the JFK magic bullet...

Subject-changing noted. Don't expect to last much longer here; the moderators do tend to enforce the rules strictly.

[R.A.F.]

RobertD...you really should aquire some manners...

Unfortunately, I don't think you'll have the opportunity to do that here...

[AGN Fuel]

I question the mob in power, the mob lies all the time and that I know. There are people who lie all the time, and they are many, the mob is half the people in the states. So I'm not interested in convincing liars, they will never see, because they are the three monkeys.

Which mob in power would that be then? The Eisenhower administration? JFK, LBJ, Nixon, through which the entire evolution of the Apollo landings can be traced in intricate detail? Every administration since?

If the mob is half the people in the States, where does that place the many members of this board of don't live in the States? (Yes, believe it or not, people do exist beyond the US borders).

You see, I (and many others here) don't fit this rather paranoid worldview of yours. Personally, I'm an Aussie with no affiliation whatever to the US government. I view the current US administration with equal parts mixture of incredulity, amusement and horror. I view our own present Federal government with a sense of depression and deep frustration. I have no imperative reason whatsoever to believe anything issuing from the US.

Yet, I have no doubts about the moon landings, because I have not once seen any evidence at all that stands up to scrutiny with respect to the hoaxing of the Apollo missions. What then does that make me?

[RobertD]

What if... my aunt had balls? Would she be my uncle?

Evasion noted. Did you or did you not consider those things before rendering your unassailable opinion that what you saw was physically impossible? If so, how would those things change the appearance of a rising astronaut?

You said something about being lifted by a low center of gravity, which doesn't even make sense in a mechanics context. Are you going to explain yourself, or are you going to keep demanding that you are somehow right?

I asked you a direct question, which you evaded. Have you personally ever done any theatrical wire work? Yes or no.

Of course it is. That's because it's based on a premise that you simply asserted to be true -- your personal, uncanny ability to know the proper dynamics of a fully-equipped astronaut in lunar gravity. And heaven forbid anyone should ask you any detailed questions about that ability; you respond only with rudeness.


Getting rude and impatient.... with personal attacks instead of answering questions, yes. You bob and weave like a pro. Obviously you don't have a clue about science, or you're bombarding me with questions to change the subject. Like why do I have to have been hanging by a wire to know what hanging by a wire is? Tell you what buddy, a body will rotate around it's center of gravity always. Unless the weight is resting on a surface.

Have you seen the movie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQ...elated&search=

about 3/4 of the way down, you see the astronaut lifting his buddy, and you can clearly see his right foot dragging forward. And the stiff costume can easily seen to rotate about the waist while the right foot drags forward and probably the buddy lifts the hand, which is what causes the foot to drag.

Do you see that Jay....?
Do you see the right foot dragging, while the other foot is in the air?

[RobertD]

Which mob in power would that be then? The Eisenhower administration? JFK, LBJ, Nixon, through which the entire evolution of the Apollo landings can be traced in intricate detail? Every administration since?


All of the above.... perhaps.


Yet, I have no doubts about the moon landings, because I have not once seen any evidence at all that stands up to scrutiny with respect to the veracity of the Apollo missions. What then does that make me?

Take a look at this movie, and tell me if you see that 3/4 of the way towards the end, the left foot is in the air, while the right foot dragging forward when the buddy helps him get on his feet.

Do you see the right foot dragging forward?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQ...elated&search=

[Peter B]

Have you seen the movie?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQ...elated&search=

about 3/4 of the way down, you see the astronaut lifting his buddy, and you can clearly see his right foot dragging forward. And the stiff costume can easily seen to rotate about the waist while the right foot drags forward and probably the buddy lifts the hand, which is what causes the foot to drag.

Do you see that Jay....?
Do you see the right foot dragging, while the other foot is in the air?

G'day RobertD

Are you *sure* that the only possible explanation of the video is that the astronauts are on wires?

Have you ruled out other possibilities? Do you know how stiff the spacesuits are? Do you know how much the astronaut and spacesuit would weigh on the Moon?

[sts60]

Downlinks are no proof because part of the deception would be to fake transmissions coming from the moon. That's where the dummy rocket comes into play to act as a relay, sending radio signals up one frequency, via, and bounding them back down another, the one everyone is sure to be looking for.

There are several problems with this claim.

First, what dummy rocket? Where is your evidence for any such "dummy rocket"?

Second, there is no way to fake transmissions from, to, around, and on the Moon without a transmitter from, to, around, and on the Moon. If you can place a spacecraft with a transmitter in those trajectories, and on the Moon, why can you not place humans on those spacecraft?

Third, the real-time conversations with astronauts cannot be properly faked with an unmanned transmitter "on scene" and astronauts back at the Earth. The time delays would be all wrong.

Fourth, where is your evidence for any such plan at all? We have abundant evidence for Apollo, but no evidence for such a hoax plan.

I find your argument very weak, you jump to conclusions hastily. Circular reasoning is not stating that a hoaxter makes preparation, that is not circular reasoning, it's common sense.

Pointing out that Apollo transmissions from translunar trajectories, and from the Moon, are evidence for Apollo's success is not circular.

I find it odd that no 360 degree shot was made, the mars rover did that and it seems to be only natural thing to do.

It was. That's why plenty of 360 degree panoramas were shot by the Apollo crews.

No sir, an elaborate hoax performed by professional government employees would be very accurate in all aspects, very accurate but not perfect.

In other words, "very accurate" in all aspects, accurate enough to fool scientists and engineers around the world with regards to the rocketry and tracking and science data and lunar samples and everything, but not enough to fool people like you who see the obvious problems in the motion imagery. Is that a correct statement of your view?

[JayUtah]

...especially that the astronaut's foot is lifting and dragging forward in the shot where he is purportedly helped on his feet by his pardner.

The astronauts' procedure for righting themselves in this situation called for getting their legs underneath them. They can push against something, lift against something, or even do a kind of push-up. Once thus lifted, they are supposed to flex at the hips and knees as they rotate vertical. The legs in this case are not dragging; they're being intentionally flexed.

The musculature developed for operating a 180-pound body in Earth gravity is rather overdeveloped for lunar weights.

The human body's center of gravity is normally around the navel. A fully-equipped astronaut's center of gravity is between his shoulder blades and behind him. If he's prone or semi-prone, his arms are appropriately positioned to exert a purely linear force, without much rotation.

The physical reaction of a body being lifted from a low center of gravity causes the legs to lift and move forward.

Strangely, no. The actor's instinct in this case is to raise his legs in Superman fashion. This is why I asked whether you'd done any wire work. Human beings are not inanimate sacks of meat. There's a brain that responds to stimulus.

If the lifting was done by his pardner, both legs would dig into the sand.

Only if the assisting astronaut is tipping him upright, which is not the case.

[RobertD]

Second, there is no way to fake transmissions from, to, around, and on the Moon without a transmitter from, to, around, and on the Moon. If you can place a spacecraft with a transmitter in those trajectories, and on the Moon, why can you not place humans on those spacecraft?

[b] well these transmissions can be done from earth, there is always a delay, who knows how long it can be the question comes from earth, it can be uploaded, at the same time as the answer is uploaded, since both are made from earth, that's easy enough



Fourth, where is your evidence for any such plan at all? We have abundant evidence for Apollo, but no evidence for such a hoax plan.

I have no evidence whatsoever, that's what I'm here for, to find evidence for or against, and so far, I have found one evidence against, the foot dragging incident.


In other words, "very accurate" in all aspects, accurate enough to fool scientists and engineers around the world with regards to the rocketry and tracking and science data and lunar samples and everything, but not enough to fool people like you who see the obvious problems in the motion imagery. Is that a correct statement of your view?

No



Did the US send probes to the moon before? Then they could have taken 360 degree shots, and use them with a little doctoring. Maybe that's why they lost the originals, so they can't be analyzed.

But do you see the astronaut right foot dragging forward while his left foot is in the air on this video?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdMvQ...elated&search=

[JayUtah]

Obviously you don't have a clue about science, or you're bombarding me with questions to change the subject.

I'm trying to keep you on the subject. I'm asking how you know what you claim to know. These are pertinent questions. And the rules here require you to answer them within 48 hours or be banned.

Like why do I have to have been hanging by a wire to know what hanging by a wire is?

No one is obliged to consider you informed on the nature of theatrical wire work unless you have done any.

Have you done any theatrical wire work? Yes or no.

Have you seen the movie?

Many, many times. More times than you, and more times than David Percy.

Do you see the right foot dragging, while the other foot is in the air?

Of course I see it. I don't have to ignore it in order to reject your unsubstantiated explanation for what's causing it.

[JayUtah]

Di the US send probes to the moon before?

Yes.

Then they could have taken 360 degree shots, and use them with a little doctoring.

Not on 70mm color film. There is no precedent for that in spacefaring.

Maybe that's why they lost the originals, so they can't be analysed.

What is your evidence for the claim that the "originals" have been lost?

But do you see the astronaut right foot dragging forward while his left foot is in the air on this video?

Of course. Where is your evidence that your explanation for this observation is the correct one?

[peter eldergill]

Obviously you don't have a clue about science, or you're bombarding me with questions to change the subject

That made me laugh out load...I'm glad I wasn't actually drinking my beer when I read that, else the beer be sprayed all over the keyboard.

Pete

[ToSeek]

Well boys you are nuts.


You've already been warned once to be polite. Consider this your second warning. You won't get a third.

ToSeek
BAUT forum moderator

[sts60]

I find it odd that no 360 degree shot was made, the mars rover did that and it seems to be only natural thing to do.

I'm going back to this statement. Some of us have a longer perspective.

Robert, you apparently accept that we can get to Mars with unmanned craft. And land on Mars with no pilot to handle terminal guidance.

OK, well, we did that back in the '70s, on the heels of Apollo. The Viking landers soft-landed on Mars and took such panoramas. Their development overlapped Apollo. So if the Vikings could get there, and land without benefit of a pilot (Mars Polar Lander would have landed safely with human guidance), why couldn't we land on the Moon?

But more than that. Several Surveyor spacecraft landed on the Moon before the Apollo landings and took such panoramas. (See here (http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000856/) for some nice examples.)

Since we could navigate spacecraft to the Moon, and land spacecraft on the Moon, successfully, why could we not send men to the Moon and land them there? Especially with the benefit of some of Earth's most elite pilots at the controls teamed up with computing and control technology which was already proven equal to the task?

[AtomicDog]

Di the US send probes to the moon before?


Yes, and this is what they looked like:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/history/hires/1968/surveyor7_moon.jpg
Surveyor 7 photo

I think that it would take more than a little doctoring.

[JayUtah]

The movie is substantiated evidence, hum sir.

But what caused the movie is not.

So why don't you tell us how his buddy managed to drag his right foot forward, while the left foot was in the air, and cause him to rotate about the waist.... splain this one to me, Jay.

I did.

Show me why you can't imagine why I'm not an expert in theatrical wire, and why a first year mechanical engineer can't figure this out without being a theatrical (farcical) high wire artist...?

I'm a professional engineer, trained in mechanical engineering. I also fly people on wires in a commercial theater. You don't know what you're talking about.

I got my answer buddy, and it was not the one I was looking for...

Of course it was.

[Edit: the original post was deleted. This one can go too, at the moderators' discretion.]

[ToSeek]

I deleted RobertD's last post, which contained several instances of language inappropriate for this forum. This is why JayUtah appears to be talking to himself in the previous post.

And I'm going to close this thread. Any new HBers can start a new one, of course. :rolleyes: