Moon landing hoax

Wibbs

Hang on. So you're seriously suggesting that the exposure quality and latitude of a late 60's era black and white video camera transmitting live is the same as a 70mm hassleblad? Seriously? Because if you are you're ignoring major facts, understanding of photography and optics here and you are effectively suggesting you can film the chariot scene from ben hur on your nokia phone. A cheap crappy stills camera nowadays will capture more light and detail than a security camera.

OK.... Look, outside of the absence of light, "darkness" is not a set value. It's only a value depending on exposure length and sensitivity of the film/video in question. Its also dependent on viewing point.

Text diagram


(darker) object (brighter)--- light source.

Now darker and brighter in film/video cameras depends on sensitivity of film stock and the video light collecting tech and aperture of the lens(a few other things but basically that). Ditto with the human eye. It changes its aperture(iris) in response to low or high light conditions(and pot:)). Can you see in the "dark"? No but a cat can. Why? Bigger iris(aperture) and more sensitive retina(film stock)

Now we take in reflected light.

reflected light ---(less dark) object (brighter)--- light source.

Lets look at your example

Any camera set to expose for bright light when pointed at an area of subdued light will not register detail. Look again at the video. Armstrong is bathed in bright light in the background. If the camera was set for low light he would have been completely washed out(and the camera may have been damged too).

Now look at the still picture. Look at the areas in the background. They're over exposed when one compares it to pictures of the surface exposed correctly. This is a surface like asphalt. a low to mid tone. In that picture its brighter. The film stock has more sensitivity, its exposed for a lower light condition and accordingly you can see the astronaut.

Before believing this stuff learn about exposures and f stops and get a camera and see for yourself.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

Before believing this stuff learn about exposures and f stops and get a camera and see for yourself.

As I said it's been done. The comparison has been made etc.

Wibbs wrote: »

you're ignoring major facts,

See who is now ignoring stuff?

Wibbs wrote: »

A cheap crappy stills camera nowadays will capture more light and detail than a security camera.

Yeah, and the'll both still tell me about light and shade funnily enough. We've been over this. No facts have not changed, the photos don't match up. Your argument just doesn't stand up.

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

As I said it's been done. The comparison has been made etc.

in la la land. Where a very basic knowledge of cameras and how they work is lacking.

See who is now ignoring stuff?

So you are saying that the exposure quality and latitude of a late 60's era black and white video camera transmitting live across a radio signal is the same as a 70mm colour hassleblad stills camera? All these photographers over the years shouldn't have bothered spending so much on cameras and lenses, when a box brownie would have sufficed.

Yeah, and the'll both still tell me about light and shade funnily enough. We've been over this. No facts have not changed, the photos don't match up. Your argument just doesn't stand up.

You keep ignoring the fact that "Light" and "shade" are relative terms.

OK tonight, go outside and take a picture of your, I dunno car/garden/whatever with your phone camera. Better yet if it has the facility take video of it. Then tell me you can't see more detail and light with your eyes, even if you're in a town under street lights. And that's a lot "darker" than the surface of the moon and video capture technology has come on in leaps and bounds(far more than film technology). Actually its about the same "brightness" as the surface of Titan and yet they were able to get still shots of that. The surface of Mars is about the same light levels as dusk here on earth, yet it looks "bright" in the photos from the various rovers. Try running a modern standard video camera without light intensification hardware on Mars and you'll get little detail. The photos wont "match up"

While myself and uprising2 dont agree on a few things as a photographer he'll tell you much the same.

Basically you're not comparing like with like to a bull headed degree.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

in la la land. Where a very basic knowledge of cameras and how they work is lacking.

None of your posts has come close to explaining that photo. Not even close. The aastronaught is in darkness.
Even your magic hasselblad theory can't explain the reflected secondary lightsource seen as a hotspot on the asstronaughts boot. I suggest the original photo may have been taken in lala land. By the people who would fall for this kind of thing.

Wibbs

He is not in darkness. He's in relative darkness to the low res video camera. Why cant you see or understand this?

hassleblad stills camera with wide angle lens stopped down for lower light(as can be seen in the overexposed background)--- reflected light---astronaut--- shadow---low res video camera.

The "hotspot" isnt one. For a few reasons. In order to have a hotspot on his boot the secondary light source would have to be close. Indeed the "expert" who was measuring angles of such secondary light source said the same(which was also noodling BS too). Now a light source that could cause such a hot spot would not cause just the one and the shadows of the fill in would be much harsher. If it was a bigger secondary light source, the background behind the LEM would not be over exposed as it plainly is(about a stop if not a little more from what I can see). It was a bigger secondary light source. The moon surface itself.

While the moon has a reflectivity similar to asphalt on earth and that seems low, its the only reflectivity source on the moon. Depending on camera setting, such a reflectivity would bounce light off objects relative to the source light.

If I build a huge room and paint it mid tone grey. Then have a single light source from above, any photos I take will be set for that. As I said it would be easier to meter a shot for the moon than on earth, where many more reflective surfaces with wildly varying reflective indexes are present.

The photos themselves how this. When they take photos in the full sun, the moons surface appears darker as they are exposing for sunlit objects. In more shaded areas it appears brighter as they are exposing for less sunlit objects. Indeed someone with time and knowledge could work out the exposure settings based on the near constant reflectivity of the lunar surface.

OK better example. heres a photo of pete conrad exiting the LEM taken with a hassleblad. from the same perspective lightwise of the video camera .

Look at him. He's in shadow. Pretty much full shadow. But you can see much more detail than in a grainy black and white video image. Well duh of course you can. Now look at the exposure of the surface behind. It's relatively "brighter".

Now look at al bean coming out from the other perspective.

The left hand side is massively overexposed. Look at the relative brightness of the lunar surface. But the same lighting conditions as the very first shot. Same "magic" :rolleyes: hassleblad, yet oh look he's not in "darkness".

Now this shot. Same mission.

Now the surface looks more like asphalt reflectivity wise. But look at how overexposed the suit is. It's completely washed out.

There's nothing "magic" about this. Though science imperfectly understood may appear like magic(If I may paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke).

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

OK better example. heres a photo of pete conrad exiting the LEM taken with a hassleblad. from the same perspective lightwise of the video camera .

Look at him. He's in shadow. Pretty much full shadow. But you can see much more detail than in a grainy black and white video image. Well duh of course you can. Now look at the exposure of the surface behind. It's relatively "brighter".

Now look at al bean coming out from the other perspective.

The left hand side is massively overexposed. Look at the relative brightness of the lunar surface. But the same lighting conditions as the very first shot. Same "magic" :rolleyes: hassleblad, yet oh look he's not in "darkness".

FFS Wibbs, you're essentially making my point for me here again. These photos were discussed here before and probably on every conspiracy wesite for donkeys years. No fact has changed. No one has reproduced these shots and no one has reproduced the hot spot.

If we're to make the comparisson with your previous argument;

Wibbs wrote: »

Again anyone out there on the CT side, post one video, just one, that was done as a special effect in a movie or documentary, that is as good as the Apollo movie footage. say 30 seconds long. Not even the 100+ hours of footage from apollo. Just one.

There is no similar recreation of the photo of the aastonaught on the steps of the lander. We can see from the above quote that only the impossible will satisfy you. That's simply not going to happen. Believe in whatever fairy story you choose, but asking someone else to believe the same story is.......... well, I dunno.

Sometime after 2020 the first manned moon landing will take place. I suggest then the faked photos, the moonwood and all the other guff and nonsense will be clear to everyone.

Ping Chow Chi

Didnt myth busters recreate the shots in the desert on one of their shows, I'll try and dig it out

squod

Ping Chow Chi wrote: »

Didnt myth busters recreate the shots in the desert on one of their shows, I'll try and dig it out

They did try and that's my point.

Wibbs

So rather than respond to the points laid out we change the goalposts yet again and again you're avoiding discussion of those points raised. It hardly helps the pro hoaxer case.

Early on in this debate, the pro Apollo side were asked by yourself IIRC to put forward their angles on this. I think we've done this. With as good, indeed IMHO much better science, logic and knowledge too.

The responses from the pro hoaxer side hasnt changed. You're wrong/its been "discussed" before/you don't get it/You're easily duped/You dont understand[insert dubious science here]. Delete as applicable.



Hotspots? There's a "hotspot" on the first pete conrad shot above.There are a few. The buttons on the lower left and another on the left of his chest control panel. Another fill in/secondary light. Jeez they're all over the place now. There are "hotspots" on the second shot too. My contention is simply this. They're not hotspots from a secondary light source(excepting reflected light).

Here's an earth orbit EVA, which the hoax camp feel did happen(beyond the minority loony fringe)

Light is coming from the top left about 11 o clock as far as his or her suit shadows are concerned. Yet details are clearly visible in the "shaded" areas. Indeed there are hotspots on the rails behind them in the same shadow areas.



In full "shadow" and there are hotspots on the astronaut. Shoulder area for one.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/ISS_Expedition_18_EVA_2.jpg

Very big shot of russian guy in same conditions where the light is much more diffuse and not as stark as its exposed for the shadow areas.. Indeed can even spot his omega mechanical EVA watch. How come he's not in darkness. After all he's not in direct light and there's no large surface to act as a reflector. Exposure settings. That's why.



Yet another where the astronaut is in direct light, yet the shadow details are full of perfectly visible detail. Including oh look another "hotspot" in shadow. The top of his chest control panel. Fill in light here too its seems.

An even better example



Russian bloke again in full shadow out of direct sunlight and full details visible. With yet another "hotspot" in his visor.


Russian in even more stark light. Spot the over exposure in the left hand side where details are washed out. Now look at the detail still remaining in the shadow areas. Similar to the LEM shots.


Here's a shot almost identical to the LEM shots as far as light direction and taking a photo in shadow, without the moon to reflect any light and detail is still perfectly fine and indeed there are hotspots here too. On the toe of the guy on the right for a start. Granted its not a heel but....

You could fill a hard drive with similar images, that if picked over with little knowledge of photography and a fervent wish to believe it's fake, would yield "smoking guns" aplenty.

By your posts so far, it seems you feel it near impossible to capture detail in shadow and that B&W video is the same as 70mm colour film in light capture. They must all be fake then or hassleblad should be renamed the Harry Potter Magic Camera Company.

OK TL;DR? alright clear straightforward question?

In your opinion is the amount of information and light captured by a low res black and white 1960s video camera the same as the amount of light captured by a 70mm film format stills camera of the same vintage? Yes or no should pretty much cover this.

SkepticOne

squod wrote: »

Yeah, and the'll both still tell me about light and shade funnily enough. We've been over this. No facts have not changed, the photos don't match up. Your argument just doesn't stand up.

They will both tell you about light and darkness but with different characteristics.

The important concept here is dynamic range. For example all thermometers tell you about temperature but each of them have a specific range within which they are accurate. Some will measure between -10 and 105 C. Some will have wider ranges and some narrower. If you have one with a narrow range, say, 10 C to 90 C then if the temperature you are measuring is 100 C, all you can say using your thermometer is that it is above 90 C. The information that you need is simply not there.

Similarly with photographic equipment. The video cameras of that day had a very narrow dynamic range. The cosequence of this is that the bright areas come out white and the dark areas come out black. An instrument with a greater dynamic range would show information in those white and black areas.

Take the photo someone posted earlier.



Here's the same photo with the dynamic range reduced. I also added in a bit of blurring to reduce the resolution as you would expect from the video camera but the main effect is the lowering of the dynamic range. See how it starts to resemble the television pictures.



Even today, film such as would have been used in the cameras of the day has a higher dynamic range than the the best digital still cameras let alone the very crude video cameras of the late 60s and early 70's.

Wibbs

Perfect example and explanation from SkepticOne. It even looks like the B&W video in the brighter areas.




And even with that crappy range you can still see he's not "dark". He's darker than the overexposed detailless background in full light, but that's not the issue.

Wibbs

Another comparison;

Video


Similar shot, different mission with a stills camera.

squod

Video camera
.

Magic hasselblad

Wibbs

Nothing is getting through here. And again you move the goalposts to suit what little argument is there.

You pick a movement frame from the sequence. Why not this one from the same sequence?


Oh that's right, because even on the low res B&W crappy video he's clearly not dark and thats the side with little or no reflected light from the moon. Doesnt really suit your argument, does it?

From what I've seen so far, when the moon hoaxers are called on this stuff, they twist themselves in knots yet never answer direct questions, or enter debate on these points, preferring to link to ever more fringe youtube links, or blatantly ignore the points.

Again my question to you; In your mind is the amount of information and light captured by a black and white 1960s video camera the same as the amount of light captured by a 70mm film format stills camera of the same vintage? Yes or no?

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

Nothing is getting through here. And again you move the goalposts to suit what little argument is there.

You pick a movement frame from the sequence. Why not this one from the same sequence?


Oh that's right, because even on the low res B&W crappy video he's clearly not dark. Doesnt really suit your argument, does it?

From what I've seen so far, when the moon hoaxers are called on this stuff, they twist themselves in knots yet never answer direct questions, or enter debate on these points, preferring to link to ever more fringe youtube links, or blatantly ignore the points.

Again my question to you; In your mind is the amount of information and light captured by a black and white 1960s video camera the same as the amount of light captured by a 70mm film format stills camera of the same vintage? Yes or no?

They are not the same! Your frame is clearly brighter. Mine was just capped directly from the MP4. The highlighted text is exactly what you are doing. Putting foward a fairy tale and then loosing the rag when people won't believe it. You were asked to put foward your case some time ago.
You haven't done that. Again, as I said, none of your arguments hold up.

Wibbs

I'm not losing any rag. Admittedly frustrated at times with your wriggling away from direct debate and alternative answers to the pro hoax questions. Your response seems to be constantly defaulting to "you're wrong!" or defaulting to not comparing like with like. Rather than just saying me or the pro apollo people are wrong, why not engage with debate?


OK then, vid cap that exact frame from the mp4. Though why use a crappy mp4 as the original is crappy enough? You do know how video compression works? Why use the mid movement frame one? Why not the same frame as I've shown even at that crappy mp4 compression?


But I'll bite....

Yes mine is brighter(big shock). Its a better base image from the original video feed. Regardless of "brightness" it has more information in it. You can see more detail. No matter how light you make an image if the original info is not there you will not see it. Don't believe that either? OK go back up to SkepticOne's second picture. Brighten it up as much as you like and you wont get back to a B&W version of his first image, will you?

Still havent answered my simple direct question re the cameras I note....

SkepticOne

squod wrote: »

Video camera

Magic hasselblad

They are both what you would expect given the different equipment and the angles of the picture. I think one important aspect of the video picture there is that it was taken by a camera mounted on the leg of the vehicle and the image you see is of the astronaut facing into the lunar module. This means that he is not only in the shadow of the sun, but most of the illumination that you would get from the surface of the moon is also gone. Therefore the surface of the moon in the picture, though in reality dark gray, appears completely washed out in the video image. Not only would you have dynamic range issues but the surface of the astronaut facing inwards would have been quite dark. It is quite likely that the camera may not have had the ability to adjust for the image in the first place.

The photographic image, on the other hand, not only has a wider dynamic range but also is being some distance away from the lunar module and facing towards it. You are not getting the illumination of the sun, of course, but you are getting far greater illumination from the surrounding surface.

Here's what I think the television image would have looked like had it been taken from the same vantage point as the photograph. Not that the surface of the moon is still washed out but you can see a small amount of detail.

Wibbs

Had a notion so I looked it up;

Lack of blast crater under the LEM?

LEM descent engine thrust. 10000 foot pounds at full tilt.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module#Descent_stage

Harrier jump jet thrust. 23500 foot pounds at full tilt. Over double the LEM, In atmosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrier_Jump_Jet#Specifications

When was the last time we saw a harrier jump jet fall into a crater of its own making?

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes mine is brighter(big shock). Its a better base image from the original video feed.

Post it, it looks like TV cap to me. (TV caps are so superior to MP4:rolleyes: ) This fairly puts your 'rubbishy video camera' claim into perspective. The cap is from a webpage which 'debunks moon conspiracies', or it used to.

Wibbs wrote: »

When was the last time we saw a harrier jump jet fall into a crater of its own making?

Aha, so harriers make a disturbance, throw up dust etc.... go for a walk on the dust left under it when a harrier lands. There isn't any!:rolleyes: So you'd hardly expect to see your own boot print. Much less likely to see your boot print in one-sixth gravity so.

squod

SkepticOne wrote: »

Here's what I think the television image would have looked like had it been taken from the same vantage point as the photograph. Not that the surface of the moon is still washed out but you can see a small amount of detail.

Not without a second light source it wouldn't!

SkepticOne

squod wrote: »

Not without a second light source it wouldn't!

That's why there is a second light source: the surface of the moon!

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

Post it, it looks like TV cap to me. (TV caps are so superior to MP4:rolleyes: )

Clearly you neither understand the difference nor the terms involved. Quality is down to source quality, plus any compression that may be added afterwards(inc losses in duplication). MP4 is compressed. SWF moreso(both depending on compression applied). If it was a cap from youtube it'll be the latter.

This fairly puts your 'rubbishy video camera' claim into perspective.

OK so now the video camera you claim is dark, now shows extra detail and this brings it up to 70mm film levels? Again the question stands. Is a 60's video camera able to pick up the same detail as a 70mm stills camera?

The cap is from a webpage which 'debunks moon conspiracies', or it used to.

Even better for my argument.

It also depends from which source you take the pictures. See above the variability. This is a common theme among pro hoaxers. Take a crappy picture and claim it shows fall off etc.

Aha, so harriers make a disturbance, throw up dust etc.... go for a walk on the dust left under it when a harrier lands. There isn't any!:rolleyes: So you'd hardly expect to see your own boot print. Much less likely to see your boot print in one-sixth gravity so.

Do they make a crater?

With double the amount of thrust(actually nearly 3 times as much as the LEM is at 80% thrust on approach as the weight has dropped burning fuel and the jump jet is at full tilt). So simple question, simple answer.

So we've established they dont make a crater so the LEM crater theory is pretty much out the window.

As for dust? The lunar surface is not like a beach or desert. The grains are different. They're sharper and knit together unlike grains in an atmosphere(EG Mars would be more like earth). Secondly the colour remains pretty consistent as you down through them. They also go deep. Very deep. They've built up over billions of years with no atmosphere to disturb them. This was a worry for making any sort of landing as there was a good chance the object would simply sink. BTW all this was established by probes, both from the US and the USSR. The top layer was blown off to varying degrees as can be seen from the landing videos. That still left the rest where the concentrated pressure of a boot compared to the diffuse pressure of a descent engine would put enough pressure to make an imprint.

squod wrote: »

Not without a second light source it wouldn't!

There is a "second light source". The moon. You're missing the point yet again. The "dark" video is taken from the darkest side of the object being viewed. The still is taken from the brighter side. I have already shown a still photo of another astronaut from that side and he's pretty dark.

OK lets look at this another way. The surface reflectivity is 12%. The spacesuit being pure white is going to be what 70% The light hitting the moon unflitered by an atmosphere is brighter than the sun in the sahara(and you have earthshine such as it was. Must be close enough to moon shine? Blue yes but bigger).

How could you not take that picture? That's a better question.

Earlier you looked for debate from the other side and all you do is stick rigidly to your position or avoid questions you cant or wont answer.

Wibbs

SkepticOne wrote: »

That's why there is a second light source: the surface of the moon!

But, but...its as dark as tarmac you know!!

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly you neither understand the difference nor the terms involved. Quality is down to source quality, plus any compression that may be added afterwards(inc losses in duplication). MP4 is compressed. SWF moreso(both depending on compression applied). If it was a cap from youtube it'll be the latter.

OK so now the video camera you claim is dark, now shows extra detail and this brings it up to 70mm film levels? Again the question stands. Is a 60's video camera able to pick up the same detail as a 70mm stills camera? Even better for my argument.

It also depends from which source you take the pictures. See above the variability. This is a common theme among pro hoaxers. Take a crappy picture and claim it shows fall off etc.
Do they make a crater?

With double the amount of thrust(actually nearly 3 times as much as the LEM is at 80% thrust on approach as the weight has dropped burning fuel and the jump jet is at full tilt). So simple question, simple answer.

So we've established they dont make a crater so the LEM crater theory is pretty much out the window.

As for dust? The lunar surface is not like a beach or desert. The grains are different. They're sharper and knit together unlike grains in an atmosphere(EG Mars would be more like earth). Secondly the colour remains pretty consistent as you down through them. They also go deep. Very deep. They've built up over billions of years with no atmosphere to disturb them. This was a worry for making any sort of landing as there was a good chance the object would simply sink. BTW all this was established by probes, both from the US and the USSR. The top layer was blown off to varying degrees as can be seen from the landing videos. That still left the rest where the concentrated pressure of a boot compared to the diffuse pressure of a descent engine would put enough pressure to make an imprint.

There is a "second light source". The moon. You're missing the point yet again. The "dark" video is taken from the darkest side of the object being viewed. The still is taken from the brighter side. I have already shown a still photo of another astronaut from that side and he's pretty dark.

OK lets look at this another way. The surface reflectivity is 12%. The spacesuit being pure white is going to be what 70% The light hitting the moon unflitered by an atmosphere is brighter than the sun in the sahara(and you have earthshine such as it was. Must be close enough to moon shine? Blue yes but bigger).

How could you not take that picture? That's a better question.

Earlier you looked for debate from the other side and all you do is stick rigidly to your position or avoid questions you cant or wont answer.

This, all of this. Rubbish. Look Wibbs its been fun or whatever. Here's where the debate turns into a pissing contest. If you want to continue the debate let me know, but posting rubbish like this is a fuhken total waste of time.

Wibbs

So it's rubbish if you cant answer? The stuff Ive posted is pretty rational argument. You may not agree, or you may not think it rational, but it deserves better than just "you're wrong". I would and have extended that courtesy to the pro hoax side and yourself.

What about SkepticOne's posts? Measured and informative. What about his explanations?

Ok lets dial it back. You post your own proofs or doubts and we'll all take it from there. You asked for same a few pages back so fairs fair.

*EDIT* sorry you were right on one point, the refelctive index of the moon surface is between 7 and 10% not 12%

nij

You guys are looking at the wrong videos. The only thing that looks funny to me is the moving flag video. And I DON'T mean the one they looked at on mythbusters. Here's the one I mean:

It's at 2:37

Also, they now say that man can survive the Van Allen radiation belt. I'd like to know: Is the basis for that assumption simply that the Apollo astronauts went through it? If so, there's a problem with that logic.

Wibbs

The guy walked right by the flag. How big is the flag? How close is he to it? Its probably a standard sized flag and you can work out his size, so that would tell you if he was feet away from it or he brushed into it.

The Van allen belts thing was discussed early on in the thread. The Hoax side say you would be fried, the anti side say no.

Van allen himself said no, you wouldnt be fried. I'd agree. It's down to the type of radiation, the intensity and how long you're in it(and in the case of the VA belts which part of the field you pass through as radiation intensity varies quite a bit).

Ditto with the moons surface. A broadly similar effect can be seen on earth. Take a beach in Spain in summer around noon. Lots of UV radiation. Walk up the beach in shorts for 20 minutes. You'll get some UV exposure, but maybe only a red nose effect Walk up the beach in a pair of shorts for two hours and you'll get sunburnt. The UV level has remained the same, but exposure has gone up.

Going to the moon will carry some risk, but staying on the moon(or going to Mars) increases that risk the longer you're there.

The idea that you need 6 foot of lead to stop the radiation is just a little OTT. After all satellites work outside the VA belts as have every probe we've sent out. Sensitive electronics in all of them, yet no lead shielding. If the radiation was so intense that you'd fry going to the moon in a week, how would a probe/satellite survive years in the same environment? Give your laptop a chest xray and see the result.

squod

There's some videos on White Jarrahs page you could watch. They show the flag move away from the aastronaught initially.

There's three parts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr76qSQ9ZQQ

Wibbs

That white jarrah guy has quite the most irritating voice. I think we can all agree on that score

OK look at his video again. He makes the point that bits of this sequence were used by the pro apollo camp as proof that an astronaut walking by the flag didnt disturb it, yet seconds later another astronaut does disturb it? Simple answer; he bumped it.

Show me one video with no astronaut in frame where the flag moves.

Wibbs

Another take which I put more store in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOA_JXDnZgQ&feature=related I advise switching off sound though..

The Jarrah guy is a classic example of not comparing like with like and moving goalposts. His flag static experiment is kinda laughable. What level static charge is he building up? What's his flag made of? A cotton flag will be attracted less than a nylon one. Then again I do agree with him that static charge is a non starter. Though his use of his bedsheets as part of the footfall experiment cracked me up.

I still say, we can know the size of the flag. We can know the size of the astronaut. If we can find out the focal length of the camera we can then work out relative distance(wide angles increase appaerent distances between objects, telephotos decrease apparent distances). Then we could put the notion of whether or not he brushed it to bed once and for all.

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

His flag static experiment is kinda laughable. What level static charge is he building up? What's his flag made of? A cotton flag will be attracted less than a nylon one. Then again I do agree with him that static charge is a non starter. Though his use of his bedsheets as part of the footfall experiment cracked me up.

This is pretty much another example of people not listening (although his voice is annoying).

squod wrote: »

They show the flag move away from the aastronaught initially.

The static charge argument is the first to bite the dust. Static would draw the flag toward the aastronaught! No doubt I will, yet again, have to explain every detail on the video.......over..... and over ......and over again. Such fun.:mad:

Wibbs

The "he brushed into it" is still the most obvious and compelling arguement. A minute earlier in that same sequence the other astronaut bounced right by the flag. Missing it by inches yet it didnt move.

I'll be honest when I first came into this, I did have some "huh?" issues with some of the apollo stuff from the hoaxer side. Now? Those issues are getting less and less and less the more you look at the logic and the science behind them. The pro Apollo guys have the odds so much more on their side. The hoaxers have little leg to stand on.

This guy is a good start for some stuff not acknowledged by the hoaxer side.

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

No doubt I will, yet again, have to explain every detail on the video.......over..... and over ......and over again. Such fun.:mad:

Nope allyou seem to do is repeat the mantra of the hoaxer or avoid the debates or simply say "you're/they're wrong".

OK Simple questions again to anyone on the hoax side;

Does a 70mm film camera with a zeiss lens capture the same information as a i960's video camera over a video feed?

Does the Harrier with 3 times the thrust of the LEM on landing leave a crater?

Why not fake a crater if they expected it even in their visual representations before hand and why bring attention to the lack of crater?

How do satellites and probes survive the intense radiation for years in space with no lead shielding?

How could they have collected moon rocks in antarctica, when the origin of such rocks want known until the late 70's and even since then when such rocks are incredibly scientifically financially valuable, they're extremely rare?

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

The hoaxers have little leg to stand on.

I take it by hoaxers you mean NASA. As regards odds & probability this has been discussed many times by the conpiracy theorist. Apollo has outstanding, nay fantastic odds compared with other space missions. Which further endorses the conspiracy argument.

Edit. In a quick response on the video; Practise dude. Hundreds of hours of fuhking around on video is proof of this. Funny walks, strange flag movement, aastronaughts appearing to be tied to wires etc.... etc.

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

I take it by hoaxers you mean NASA.

Oh god...

As regards odds & probability this has been discussed many times by the conpiracy theorist.

Right so clearly this means the literally 100's of 1000's of qualified people involved and watching this must all be wrong and internet amateurs must be right. Even when their mistakes and lack of knowledge are pointed out?

Apollo has outstanding, nay fantastic odds compared with other space missions. Which further endorses the conspiracy argument.

Eh how? And BTW it doesnt have fantastic odds, unless we're back to magic cameras again. It's actually simple enough considering the money and expertise involved. The physics are well known. The same physics that allow us to send probes to land on Titan a helluva lot further away.

The "odds" of building and flying a mach 2 passenger plane were daunting too and we did that back in the 60's with 60's tech, computers and materials. It ran for nearly 30 years on a daily basis too. I'm sure some fringe head somewhere doesnt believe that either. The SR71 blackbird which is still officially the fastest aircraft ever, first flew in 1962. Plus also the first stealth plane. In 1962. The X 15 flew in 1959. We've nothing officially coming close to that today. The shuttle itself is about to be put in mothballs in museums very soon. In a few years time when NASA it appears will only be punting the odd probe up on glorified ICBM's will the CT'ers Claim that was a hoax too? After all we wont be flying space planes anymore.

Edit. In a quick response on the video; Practise dude. Hundreds of hours of fuhking around on video is proof of this. Funny walks, strange flag movement, aastronaughts appearing to be tied to wires etc.... etc.

That's not an answer or debate really. In that particular video he asks a valid question. "wires" and "practice" do not an explanation make

I still note with interest, neither you nor any other pro moon hoax types have answered any direct questions or alternative explanations that bear any sort of scrutiny. You called it a "píssing contest" earlier. Maybe the pro hoaxers have stage fright?

On the evidence of this thread alone, never mind the evidence elsewhere, the odds of a fake are getting longer and longer and longer....

Wibbs

BTW "Wires"

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

Oh god... Right so clearly this means the literally 100's of 1000's of qualified people involved and watching this must all be wrong and internet amateurs must be right. Even when their mistakes and lack of knowledge are pointed out? Eh how? And BTW it doesnt have fantastic odds, unless we're back to magic cameras again. It's actually simple enough considering the money and expertise involved. The physics are well known. The same physics that allow us to send probes to land on Titan a helluva lot further away.

The "odds" of building and flying a mach 2 passenger plane were daunting too and we did that back in the 60's with 60's tech, computers and materials. It ran for nearly 30 years on a daily basis too. I'm sure some fringe head somewhere doesnt believe that either. The SR71 blackbird which is still officially the fastest aircraft ever, first flew in 1962. Plus also the first stealth plane. In 1962. The X 15 flew in 1959. We've nothing officially coming close to that today. The shuttle itself is about to be put in mothballs in museums very soon. In a few years time when NASA it appears will only be punting the odd probe up on glorified ICBM's will the CT'ers Claim that was a hoax too? After all we wont be flying space planes anymore.

That's not an answer or debate really. In that particular video he asks a valid question. "wires" and "practice" do not an explanation make

I still note with interest, neither you nor any other pro moon hoax types have answered any direct questions or alternative explanations that bear any sort of scrutiny. You called it a "píssing contest" earlier. Maybe the pro hoaxers have stage fright?

On the evidence of this thread alone, never mind the evidence elsewhere, the odds of a fake are getting longer and longer and longer....

You're taking the stance of the black pot Wibbs. Which, as always, just shows people up for who they are. This is a perfect example of same.

Wibbs wrote: »

The "he brushed into it" is still the most obvious and compelling arguement. A minute earlier in that same sequence the other astronaut bounced right by the flag. Missing it by inches yet it didnt move.

If you had bothered to watch the videos you'd have seen that the flag moves before Scott (or the actor playing Scott) came near and the debate could move on. But you choose not to listen.

If the initial movement began before Scott came near the flag how could it have moved by physical contact with the aastronaught.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yLyiPFV05w

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

You're taking the stance of the black pot Wibbs. Which, as always, just shows people up for who they are. This is a perfect example of same.

You have only once responded to a direct question. That of the mis identification of the LRV stowage compartment.

I however have responded with examples, stills and videos when asked. More to the point I've shown how and the why. Others have done so too. The aldrin/shade/video photos for example. Your response being? Magic camera!! and There is a second light source!! and lets ignore that shhhh and insisting on calling these people "asstronaughts". So if there are less than white pots or kettles around here may I respectfully suggest looking closer to home.

Yet again and for any pro hoaxer out there. In case, you know you may have missed it the previous few times;

Does a 70mm film camera with a zeiss lens capture the same information as a 1960's video camera over a video feed? (I think at this stage only Stevie Wonder would claim they do)

Does the Harrier with 3 times the thrust of the LEM on landing leave a crater?

Why not fake a crater if they expected it, even in their visual representations before hand and why bring attention to the lack of crater?

How do satellites and probes survive the intense radiation for years in space with no lead shielding?

How could they have collected moon rocks in antarctica, when the origin of such rocks want known until the late 70's and even since then when such rocks are incredibly scientifically and financially valuable, they're extremely rare?

If you had bothered to watch the videos you'd have seen that the flag moves before Scott (or the actor playing Scott) came near and the debate could move on. But you choose not to listen.

I'll be honest and raise my hand up here. I avoided watching that one(but caught the rest). This Jarrah guy, excusing his voice, has made grossly daft and unsceintific conclusions, not comparing like with like and downright misrepresentations. One after another. Then goes on paranoid rants about people out to get him/catch him out. Also the people he seems to look up to are best described as kooks and bear in mind I like kooks. Great science often comes from such. But these were too much. So out of all his IMHO dross he's finally made a good point. I suppose the odds had to fall that way sooner or later.


Regardless, that is interesting. And the first and only evidence I've seen in this entire thread I would raise an eyebrow about.

Wibbs

A problem does arise though. What did move it? If it was wind, why no other flag nowhere near an astronaut shows any wind movement? If it was air moved by the astronaut on a sound stage it still wouldnt move before he got to it.

acurno

Have been following this thread with interest and some amusement.

However I was watching NASA's greatest missions last night on Discovery and have to ask a question to the moon landing deniers here.

How far did NASA go in your opinion to fake the landings? Where I'm going with this really is, do you think NASA sent the Apollo up ( hard to fake that! ), sent it to the moon, orbit, take a few snaps of the surface, switch camera to some studio back on earth, and fake the landing, have the 3 astronauts flown to the pacific and fake the splash in the pacific? Would this be consistent with what you believe?

Reason I'm asking this is that I was watching footage from the Apollo 13 mission where it all went pear shaped. Clearly that wasn't faked, so it can't be denied that NASA sent people to the moon with the intention to land there. Or was this mission also a conspiracy in your opinion??
I find it very hard to believe (well,impossible really), based on the well documented Apollo 13 incident, that all the landings were hoaxes. Or is it just landing number one you have a problem with?

bytey

possible something went to the moon , after the robot probes
now whether it was manned or not , or part of appolo or not is very debatable .

yes appolo went into earth orbit - that had to happen

but either way the photo record is fake and or heavily edited and possibly likely staged.

how do we know apoolo 13 had a mission failure - by what NASA tells us ?

seriously - NASA controls the whole thing - hows to say apollo 13 never had an issue ?

just went into orbit - faked an accident , and came back?

maybe as a delaying tactic, maybe they needed to avoid faking another mission

the issue I have is

I cannot believe a fcuking word that comes from NASAs mouth .

and im alot more militant about it , cos I was a HUGE space buff from early on in life.
I even wanted to be involved - reading , collecting the models , buying direct prints from NASA

I looked at the pictures one day with an open mind and realised something did not add up in many of them.
and i was gutted when it sank in.

they are lying their tits off - and its a crime against us all .

PirateShampoo

bytey wrote: »

I cannot believe a fcuking word that comes from NASAs mouth .

But you will blindly believe youtube videos with there broken explinations.

Wibbs

bytey wrote: »

possible something went to the moon , after the robot probes
now whether it was manned or not , or part of appolo or not is very debatable.

I'd be saying it's not that debatable. Unless the notion of spaceflight itself is debatable. Yes going to the moon is a major step up from near earth orbit, but the physics of it arent. Its the extra systems involved that were/are the issue. Things like docking in space(commonplace now). EVA(again commonplace now), rocket motors that are throttlable(one of the hardest nuts to crack actually, but again common now).

You could look at the building of the ISS and the shuttle and take it a different way and see that without the rush to the moon(on both sides of the iron curtain), the systems you see today wouldnt have been nearly so far along.

yes appolo went into earth orbit - that had to happen

Why though?Easier to fake that actually. Fire up a glorified ICBM and say its going into orbit. If people wont believe the russians and everyone else who followed the apollo missions to the moon, why believe they could track it in orbit back then to any degree?

but either way the photo record is fake and or heavily edited and possibly likely staged.

OK but where did you first come to this conclusion? I'll return to that.

how do we know apoolo 13 had a mission failure - by what NASA tells us ?

seriously - NASA controls the whole thing - hows to say apollo 13 never had an issue ?

just went into orbit - faked an accident , and came back?

maybe as a delaying tactic, maybe they needed to avoid faking another mission

Well yes you could argue that apollo 13 was a PR triumph. That it rekindled interest in apollo and the US. Indeed you could argue far more easily that 13 was staged or caused(without the guys themselves knowing) just for such a purpose. OK lets imagine that did happen. That some were willing to kill their own guys to get into the news and the guys up there and on the ground figured a way around that and got home for an even bigger PR coup. In one way that would prove they at least went translunar. Because that accident had all the tracking stations all over the world pointed at them. They were in the public and scientific spotlight. They were among the most looked at humans in history at that point.

the issue I have is

I cannot believe a fcuking word that comes from NASAs mouth .

Again why? What changed your mind so radically?

I looked at the pictures one day with an open mind and realised something did not add up in many of them.
and i was gutted when it sank in.

Back before the interweb basically, very very few would have had an issue with the photos. Including the half million people involved in the project. Including the beady eye of photographic experts A web movement started up about the "hoax". It became a background meme, of "its fake you know, look at the shadows etc" and entered the public consciousness. Add in a side order of suspicion of government(normally a good thing BTW) and a course of distance of time and incredulity we could go then yet never went since and it gained ground. The latter was a disappointment to me at the time. The notion of the times before the 70's of "science will always march forward and we'll be living on the moon by 2000" was proved to be wrong.

My contention is that it's easier to explain the photos than to debunk them. If you have any background in photography. An open mind also needs some knowledge or expertise or you're still relying on someone elses word. otherwise it becomes as much if not more based on "faith" as the people who believe they went.

PirateShampoo wrote: »

But you will blindly believe youtube videos with there broken explinations.

Pretty much.

Vomit

Just watched that video. There's no way he brushed off the flag. Look how tall the flag is compared to him when he stands next to it and salutes. You can judge from that how far away he is from the camera when he passes it.

noodler

If I walk up to a flag on the moon, with a massive fan, and start waving it at it with every ounce of my strength (without actually toching it) - I won't get the flag to move one iota?

robtri

noodler wrote: »

If I walk up to a flag on the moon, with a massive fan, and start waving it at it with every ounce of my strength (without actually toching it) - I won't get the flag to move one iota?

no you wouldnt... as far as i know.

Two explanations i see... static electricity or he did bump it......

the flag continues to move a lot, under normal earth atmosphere and no other wind, surely it would have come to rest much quicker???

Vomit

Is anyone here open to the possibility that NASA faked some of the footage? Let's say they filmed the flag scene on the moon but the film all came out blank. Is it possible that they recreated the scene on earth? They could even have used the real audio. They'll do anything for TV. And in the days before the internet I'm sure they were more ballsy about these kinds of things. It could be the simplest explanation.

bonkey

It could be the simplest explanation if we ignore the fact that the stuff was broadcast live.

uprising2

bonkey wrote: »

It could be the simplest explanation if we ignore the fact that the stuff was broadcast live.

Yea its funny how NASA recorded over the ORIGINAL tapes to save a few bob.

Look at the ladders from the "Live" feed, and the photo's, 2 totally different ladders.


http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/hd/apollo11.html



http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/62288main_aldrin_ladder_full.jpg

PirateShampoo

Your completely right uprising, they switched props half why threw the photo shot :rolleyes: