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

[Travis]

I must admit I have enjoyed the Mars Rising series so far. Personally I hope we do go to Mars and do it as soon as is reasonable. Imagine that the geologic discoveries alone would be phenomenal.


Thread split from:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=98678

[Radrook]

I think it could be as I alluded to earlier - the technological obstacles differentiating Earth orbital or lunar expeditions from inter-planetary are poles apart, and the upside of a Mars expedition is extremely difficult to justify in the context of those obstacles, the inherent risks (the two being related, of course) and the cost.



It's just a book refuting the Apollo manned moon landings, that's all.

So were you convinced by the book? There was a program recently on TV in which all the objections in reference to the moon landing's authenticity were examined and explanations offered which seemed convincing. Things like the supposedly impossible angle of shadows cast by the ship and the astronauts, the seemingly fluttering flag in the lunar vacuum, the objections concerning the Van Allen Radiation belts, and so forth.

[Jimcalagon]

So were you convinced by the book? There was a program recently on TV in which all the objections in reference to the moon landing's authenticity were examined and explanations offered which seemed convincing. Things like the supposedly impossible angle of shadows cast by the ship and the astronauts, the seemingly fluttering flag in the lunar vacuum, the objections concerning the Van Allen Radiation belts, and so forth.

Of course they were faked - this link proves it!
http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

:rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

So were you convinced by the book? There was a program recently on TV in which all the objections in reference to the moon landing's authenticity were examined and explanations offered which seemed convincing. Things like the supposedly impossible angle of shadows cast by the ship and the astronauts, the seemingly fluttering flag in the lunar vacuum, the objections concerning the Van Allen Radiation belts, and so forth.

I bought the book many years ago and enjoyed reading it. I thought it raised many interesting points, and presented the analysis very well in places. I've seen the TV programme that you refer to, and I've perused a few websites subsequently that refute many of the allegations in the book, and I have to say that most of them offer very superficial rebuttals based on far less analysis than is generally presented in the book. I think there are a number of allegations made in the book, and examples of points made, that have not satisfactorily been shown to be wrong, although I couldn't cite any without referring back to the book. I recall agreeing that one of the photos (I think it could be the 'famous' photo of Buzz Aldrin?!) looked extremely unlikely to have been taken using the chest-mounted camera, unless the photographer was standing appreciably higher up. Given the apparent distance between the two astronauts that seems highly unusual to me. I also think that the characteristics of many of the photos, given the complete absence of artificial lighting available and lack of atmosphere, seems highly suspect. I think that's symptomatic of people who have very fixed views and erroneously believe that supplementing those views with weak and/or hypothetical arguments is sufficient to make a case.

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon, but if I were a betting man I'd say that we probably did, although you'd have to give me good odds! I'm certainly open, indeed interested, however, in considering further evidence and explanations purporting to show whether we did or did not, and I'd be happy to participate in a debate, if that's what you're anchoring after, although I guess the subject's been flogged to death on this forum on many occasions already.

[Jimcalagon]

I bought the book many years ago and enjoyed reading it. I thought it raised many interesting points, and presented the analysis very well in places. I've seen the TV programme that you refer to, and I've perused a few websites subsequently that refute many of the allegations in the book, and I have to say that most of them offer very superficial rebuttals based on far less analysis than is generally presented in the book. I think there are a number of allegations made in the book, and examples of points made, that have not satisfactorily been shown to be wrong, although I couldn't cite any without referring back to the book. I recall agreeing that one of the photos (I think it could be the 'famous' photo of Buzz Aldrin?!) looked extremely unlikely to have been taken using the chest-mounted camera, unless the photographer was standing appreciably higher up. Given the apparent distance between the two astronauts that seems highly unusual to me. I also think that the characteristics of many of the photos, given the complete absence of artificial lighting available and lack of atmosphere, seems highly suspect. I think that's symptomatic of people who have very fixed views and erroneously believe that supplementing those views with weak and/or hypothetical arguments is sufficient to make a case.

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon, but if I were a betting man I'd say that we probably did, although you'd have to give me good odds! I'm certainly open, indeed interested, however, in considering further evidence and explanations purporting to show whether we did or did not, and I'd be happy to participate in a debate, if that's what you're anchoring after, although I guess the subject's been flogged to death on this forum on many occasions already.

I can't believe people still believe this rubbish!

For a thorough debunking look at this page... http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
or this one...
http://www.clavius.org/
or this one...
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Debunking of the photographic analysis 'evidence' here - http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
or here
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

Do you really think that if this was all a hoax the Soviets, who, don't forget were the original spur for the US to go to the moon, wouldn't have been able to expose it right away? :rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

I can't believe people still believe this rubbish!

For a thorough debunking look at this page... http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
or this one...
http://www.clavius.org/
or this one...
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Debunking of the photographic analysis 'evidence' here - http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
or here
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

Do you really think that if this was all a hoax the Soviets, who, don't forget were the original spur for the US to go to the moon, wouldn't have been able to expose it right away? :rolleyes:

Putting aside the question of whether I personally believe that man actually walked on the moon or not, at least two of the websites that you consider afford a 'thorough debunking' offer perfect examples of what I described previously, and that arguably contribute to sceptics' doubts because of their lack of counter analysis and study.

The 'redzero.demon' website includes an explanation for the seemingly anomalous position of the camera for the famous Buzz Aldrin photo. The complete analysis and explanation follows:
The answer to this question is quite straight-forward. The ground they are standing on is not flat. Armstrong was further up an incline, so he was higher than Aldrin.


Gee, that's nearly an entire line of text! Now it seems to me that that might well be a plausible explanation, but this particular website posits it as fact - no doubts or alternative ideas whatsoever. So what's the basis for this explanation? Well, it would appear that there's actually no basis, and that it's just a theory. Why? Because if you study the photo, it's clear that, whilst the foreground might well be a little uneven, there's absolutely no indication of 'inclines' that would account for what I estimate to be a difference in height of close on half a metre. Interesting, too, I've just realized, that Armstrong chose to shoot into the sun. Not the best photographic practice for lighting a subject, although in this particular case it's fortuitous that the camera's manual exposure seems to have enabled just enough light to fall on the shadowed front of Aldrin to provide a perfect exposure! Incidentally, this photo also demonstrates well the unexplainable 'hot-spot' lighting effect centred around where Aldrin is standing!

Similarly, the 'iangoddard' website includes an explanation of the seemingly anomalous lighting of objects within shadows. His little luna module and astronauts are, frankly, laughable:
The side-by-side photos show a test I conducted with a toy lunar module and astronaut placed in its shadow as in the Apollo image above. The two photos show the difference between a reflective gray-paper foreground and a less reflective black-paper foreground. Foreground reflectance from the powerful lamp above was sufficient to illuminate the toy astronaut in the shadow of the toy lunar module. This simple test demonstrates that Apollo astronauts illuminated in shadow are not an "anomaly" but a predictable result of sunlight reflecting off the lunar surface.

The toy-astronaut test shows us the difference between a reflective foreground (gray paper) and a less reflective (black paper) foreground. Apart from surface reflection, the only light source was the lamp behind the toy. These tests show that illumination of astronauts in shadow is not an anomaly but a predictable result of surface reflection. In addition to surface reflection, light from the Earth in the sky above the Moon is 68 times brighter than a full Moon seen from the Earth.

One only needs to glance at the photos to notice the remarkably stark difference in the contrast between the sunlit actual lunar surface and the shadow of the real lunar module/astronaut and the 'powerful' lamp-lit gray/black paper(!) surfaces and the shadows of the toys. Other than the completely different lighting sources and respective 'lunar' surfaces I suppose the presence or otherwise of an atmosphere can be considered irrelevant to how light behaves!

So this is a 'thorough debunking' is it? I guess my threshold for what passes as scientific testing and analysis is maybe just a little higher than whet some other people's obviously is!

[Jimcalagon]

The point is - all the supposed problems/errors etc. are easily explained -often, as you pointed out, with a simple one-liner such as 'Er - he was standing on higher ground!' All the 'anomalous light sources' photos overlook the fact that there were a number of other light-reflecting surfaces (including a 20 foot high silver and white lunar module) to provide extra illumination. And yes, light does reflect in a vacuum as well as in atmosphere, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see the moon.

The reason that the thorough debunking (and by thorough I mean that each and every hoax-theory point has been addressed and dismissed individually) is relatively short is that the alleged 'anomalies' are very easily and convincingly, to my mind at least, explained.

Are you familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor?

[Southwind17]

The point is - all the supposed problems/errors etc. are easily explained -often, as you pointed out, with a simple one-liner such as 'Er - he was standing on higher ground!'

You've hit the nail on the head here Jim. I don't wish to seem obtuse or flippant, but to precede an exclamation with 'Er ... ' tends to denote a pause before a wild guess, the latter then tending to be met with laughter, only to be followed by another wild guess, then another, then another ... Try your example above out loud jim, and make sure you hold the pause, then continue with surprise in your voice. See what I mean? I think this is telling of the way you're really thinking.

All the 'anomalous light sources' photos overlook the fact that there were a number of other light-reflecting surfaces (including a 20 foot high silver and white lunar module) to provide extra illumination. And yes, light does reflect in a vacuum as well as in atmosphere, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see the moon.

By 'other light-reflecting surfaces' do you mean those that seem to have had absolutely no impact on 'lightening' the pitch-black shadow of the lunar module, but that seem instead to have an unexplainable and amazing ability to direct just the right amount of reflected light only onto the 'subject matter' such that the part of the photo which affords it the greatest visual impact is presented nice and clear, and exposed just right?!

I'm well aware that light reflects in a vacuum, and thank you for raising this too. You'll also be aware, I assume, that light becomes scattered when passing through the atmosphere, which partially accounts for the indirect lighting of surfaces in addition to directly reflected light. Conversely, scattering of light is eliminated when passing through a (true) vacuum, hence the clarity of the images acquired by the likes of the Hubble telescope. Your pointing out that there is no atmosphere on the Moon actually serves to weaken the 'reflected' light argument!

The reason that the thorough debunking (and by thorough I mean that each and every hoax-theory point has been addressed and dismissed individually) is relatively short is that the alleged 'anomalies' are very easily and convincingly, to my mind at least, explained.

Well, to my mind 'easy' explanations of anomalies tend not to be convincing, especially when offered to counter the sceptical views and opinions of pre-eminent people within the respective applicable fields of study.

Are you familiar with the concept of Occam's Razor?

Yes I am. Thank you for reminding me, because you're actually the one who's fallen foul of it! Whereas the 'simplistic' explanations might seem to some to be the most attractive on account of their increased likelihood of being discredited, they are, in this case, ironically, the explanations that harbour the most assumptions! You see, whereas Dark Moon generally seeks to analyse the seeming anomalies to a high degree of detail, thereby systematically eliminating the need to make assumptions (but, admittedly, exposing itself to a higher likelihood of scrutinization at the detailed, albeit less relevant, level), simple explanations, almost by definition, are riddled with assumptions, especially those that are selected from a whole host of possible alternative simple explanations or combinations thereof. In such cases (like the 'inclined' surface in the Buzz Aldrin photo) the entire explanation is indeed an assumption!

As I wrote earlier Jim, I'd be inclined to conclude that, on balance, we probably have walked on the moon, if I had to bet my house. My main beef is with the contrasting shallowness of the counter-arguments put up to seek to disprove the allegations and the seemingly damning analyses and studies. Moreover, I find it intriguing that there doesn't seem to be one blatantly indisputable piece of evidence that simply blows the allegations completely out of the water, particularly given the significance of such a monumental event in history. Is there no subsequent photographic or other unfalsifiable record of the artefacts that surely remain intact on the lunar surface? It seems ludicrous to me that given that physical evidence does indeed exist, albeit some 380,000km away, that people, including yourself Jim, are forced to resort to ascribing the Soviets' backing down from the race to the moon as the main source of evidence, circumstantial at that, that supports man's landing on the Moon!

[Thabiguy]

By 'other light-reflecting surfaces' do you mean those that seem to have had absolutely no impact on 'lightening' the pitch-black shadow of the lunar module, but that seem instead to have an unexplainable and amazing ability to direct just the right amount of reflected light only onto the 'subject matter' such that the part of the photo which affords it the greatest visual impact is presented nice and clear, and exposed just right?!
I never cease to be amazed by the silliness and ignorance evident in these "arguments".

Presumably, by looking at this picture (http://members.unine.ch/thorsten.kurz/photos/africa/road_movie_mercedes_w123_car_sahara_desert.jpg), we would have to conclude that it is fake! The sun is clearly shining from the right - and yet the person in front, facing away from the sun, is sufficiently illuminated. What magical, unexplainable source of light could illuminate the person like this, without also illuminating the pitch-black shadow of the Mercedes?! This must be trickery - the picture must be doctored!

A similar picture can be seen here (http://www.kuffelcreek.com/Desert%20Portrait.jpg). The sun is shining from the left - and again, there is a mysterious source of light clearly illuminating the right side of the car - but not its dark shadow! Unexplainable and amazing!

I believe that any intelligent person will, after a while of thinking, be able to come up with the answer and explanation to this curious phenomenon. I therefore leave it as an exercise for the readers. For those without much experience with photography and lighting, a hidden hint follows.
Hint: look at the second picture. Unless your monitor is set to low contrast, you'll see that the shadows are not entirely black, but dark blue. This is because the dominant source of light is the (relatively low intensity) blue sky overhead. The tint of the right side of the car, on the other hand, hints that its dominant light source is the sunlit desert. Why do you think this is? Why does the sunlit desert illuminate the right side of the car, but not the shadow of the car?The people who come up with the explanation will also be able to answer why the picture of Buzz Aldrin on the Moon (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) looks the way it does.

But the silliness is not in being ignorant about basic aspects of photography. The silliness is in pretending knowledge, making up wildly incorrect conclusions about how a picture should look like, and when the reality (of course) differs from these erroneous expectations, claiming this to be evidence of fakery - without doing one single experiment of how it actually works in reality, or even doing a google search, any of which would quickly show the assumptions to be wrong. Being ignorant is not something to be ashamed of; we all begin with zero knowledge. But failing to educate oneself (especially when advised to), standing behind one's ignorance and waving it about as an important piece of evidence for a crazy conspiracy theory, is a disgrace.

[Radrook]

How about the difficulty in grabbing objects easily with the spacesuit gloves? The program showed a man trying to use the glove within a small vaccum chamber mimicking the conditions present on the moon and being unable to grab anything at all with it. Yet the astronauts seemed to have no difficulties at all. Has anyone an explanation for this?

[Thabiguy]

How about the difficulty in grabbing objects easily with the spacesuit gloves? The program showed a man trying to use the glove within a small vaccum chamber mimicking the conditions present on the moon and being unable to grab anything at all with it. Yet the astronauts seemed to have no difficulties at all. Has anyone an explanation for this?
My advice would be to try and come up with the explanation yourself.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc8-y14QBL8) you can see a video of NASA astronauts grabbing and manipulating objects in space - not only in vacuum, but also in 0 g, which is even more difficult - during an EVA mission at MIR. How is it possible that they successfully installed the equipment, when your TV show allegedly demonstrated that a man in vacuum should be unable to grab anything at all?

Do you think the correct answer is that the space station MIR and/or STS-76 mission were fake and the EVAs didn't happen? If not, what do you think is the best explanation for the discrepancy between events in this video and the conclusions proposed by the TV show that you had watched?

[Corsair 115]

My main beef is with the contrasting shallowness of the counter-arguments put up to seek to disprove the allegations and the seemingly damning analyses and studies. Moreover, I find it intriguing that there doesn't seem to be one blatantly indisputable piece of evidence that simply blows the allegations completely out of the water, particularly given the significance of such a monumental event in history. Two things I would suggest: 1) the 800+ pounds of rocks and soil brought back from the Moon and subsequently tested and examined by scientists from around the world (including Russian scientists), and 2) the ALSEP packages on the Moon.

[R.Mackey]

How about the difficulty in grabbing objects easily with the spacesuit gloves? The program showed a man trying to use the glove within a small vaccum chamber mimicking the conditions present on the moon and being unable to grab anything at all with it. Yet the astronauts seemed to have no difficulties at all. Has anyone an explanation for this?

Yes. Spacesuits are designed with constant volume joints, so that exercising them does not require compressing the air inside them. You might be surprised at how much a spacesuit costs.

The knucklehead who put together his "mimicking" conditions did not use such a glove, and as a result -- either through ignorance, or willful deception -- naturally found it difficult to operate. The test is absolutely meaningless. I may as well claim that, because my car cannot exceed 155 MPH, that Formula One is an extraordinarily elaborate hoax.

There is no basis for Moon Landing denial. All of the technology required to pull off Apollo verifiably existed, was built, and was integrated in the late 1960's. Why, then, would we not go ahead with it? At that point, the hoax would be riskier than doing it.

If anyone here wants to persist in Moon Landing denial, I humbly suggest you get out of here and peddle your insanity on the Conspiracy Theories subforum. That's where it belongs, and we demolish such ideas there on a regular basis. The topic of this thread is quite different and cannot benefit from such a foolish perspective.

[Radrook]

Yes. Spacesuits are designed with constant volume joints, so that exercising them does not require compressing the air inside them. You might be surprised at how much a spacesuit costs.

The knucklehead who put together his "mimicking" conditions did not use such a glove, and as a result -- either through ignorance, or willful deception -- naturally found it difficult to operate. The test is absolutely meaningless. I may as well claim that, because my car cannot exceed 155 MPH, that Formula One is an extraordinarily elaborate hoax.

There is no basis for Moon Landing denial. All of the technology required to pull off Apollo verifiably existed, was built, and was integrated in the late 1960's. Why, then, would we not go ahead with it? At that point, the hoax would be riskier than doing it.

If anyone here wants to persist in Moon Landing denial, I humbly suggest you get out of here and peddle your insanity on the Conspiracy Theories subforum. That's where it belongs, and we demolish such ideas there on a regular basis. The topic of this thread is quite different and cannot benefit from such a foolish perspective.

You say that the person who tested the defective glove might have done so to deceive us. Now, what benefit would he gain by doing that? If indeed people who say these things know them to be untrue, what is their motivation. Royalties from book sales? That's the only reason I can imagine.

BTW
Did you see the film Capricorn I? It's about the faking of a moon landing via the use of special effects. It was produced around 1975 or there abouts. I imagine it reinforced the doubts that already existed or were then emerging.

[Radrook]

My advice would be to try and come up with the explanation yourself.

Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qc8-y14QBL8) you can see a video of NASA astronauts grabbing and manipulating objects in space - not only in vacuum, but also in 0 g, which is even more difficult - during an EVA mission at MIR. How is it possible that they successfully installed the equipment, when your TV show allegedly demonstrated that a man in vacuum should be unable to grab anything at all?

Do you think the correct answer is that the space station MIR and/or STS-76 mission were fake and the EVAs didn't happen? If not, what do you think is the best explanation for the discrepancy between events in this video and the conclusions proposed by the TV show that you had watched?

That argument seems to be irrefutable and effectively tends to eliminate all doubts about the landing's veracity. Those using the glove problem reason as proof would have to find a way around that. Have they proposed a counter argument? I imagine they would claim that the gloves used on the moon landing missions are not the same gloves used on the orbital flights today. Right? Since it was the glove itself he was attributing the inflexibility to and not the person's hand per se.

[Thabiguy]

I imagine they would claim that the gloves used on the moon landing missions are not the same gloves used on the orbital flights today. Right? Since it was the glove itself he was attributing the inflexibility to and not the person's hand per se.
The video linked above has shown that it is possible for a trained astronaut to grab and manipulate objects in the vacuum of space, when wearing a proper glove. The question is not whether it is possible; we know that it is. The question is, what was wrong with the demonstration in the TV show? If they used a simple rubber glove, the answer should be obvious.

As R.Mackey remarked, real spacesuit gloves are no cheap items: just to give you an idea, a pair of modern EVA gloves can cost over $40,000, and that's just manufacturing costs (ignoring research & development costs).

Now, were the gloves worn by Apollo astronauts different from those used on orbital flights today? As a matter of fact, yes, they were different. Since the days of Apollo, spacesuit gloves have seen major improvements. But that of course does not mean that Apollo astronauts used simple rubber gloves. Here you can find (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16CMDLeftEVGlove.html) some description of the gloves that should give you an idea about them.

Is it easy to handle objects in spacesuit gloves? Definitely not. Even today's gloves are relatively cumbersome and difficult to work in. They are nothing like common gloves that you may be familiar with. The "ease" that you may think you see in the Moon videos is an illusion. In fact, astronauts complained about the Apollo gloves, reported that their hand mobility, dexterity and tactility was limited and that using the gloves required efforts that quickly led to arm fatigue. But even though using the gloves was strenuous and uncomfortable, it was not impossible. The Moon walkers were professionals with extensive training to do the assigned tasks, and they did them as expected.

The "demonstration" in the TV show is irrelevant to all of this. What exactly does it try to show? That spacesuit gloves can't work, as a matter of principle? But we know that they do work (see video above). So perhaps that Apollo gloves, specifically, can't work? But how possibly could they show that if the glove used was nothing like an actual Apollo glove? I fail to understand the purpose of this entire exercise in silliness.

[Southwind17]

Now, were the gloves worn by Apollo astronauts different from those used on orbital flights today? As a matter of fact, yes, they were different. Since the days of Apollo, spacesuit gloves have seen major improvements. But that of course does not mean that Apollo astronauts used simple rubber gloves. Here you can find (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a16/A16CMDLeftEVGlove.html) some description of the gloves that should give you an idea about them.

Is it easy to handle objects in spacesuit gloves? Definitely not. Even today's gloves are relatively cumbersome and difficult to work in. They are nothing like common gloves that you may be familiar with. The "ease" that you may think you see in the Moon videos is an illusion. In fact, astronauts complained about the Apollo gloves, reported that their hand mobility, dexterity and tacility was limited and that using the gloves required efforts that quickly led to arm fatigue. But even though using the gloves was strenuous and uncomfortable, it was not impossible. The Moon walkers were professionals with extensive training to do the assigned tasks, and they did them as expected.

The "demonstration" in the TV show is irrelevant to all of this. What exactly does it try to show? That spacesuit gloves can't work, as a matter of principle? But we know that they do work (see video above). So perhaps that Apollo gloves, specifically, can't work? But how possibly could they show that if the glove used was nothing like an actual Apollo glove? I fail to understand the purpose of this entire exercise in silliness.

What's your take on the allegation that the gloves were so cumbersome so as to have made the manual operation of the aperture ring on the chest-mount camera extremely difficult, to say the least, thereby leading, in all likelihood, to an ordinate number of incorrectly exposed photos, which is claimed not to be the case?

[Jimcalagon]

You've hit the nail on the head here Jim. I don't wish to seem obtuse or flippant, but to precede an exclamation with 'Er ... ' tends to denote a pause before a wild guess, the latter then tending to be met with laughter, only to be followed by another wild guess, then another, then another ... Try your example above out loud jim, and make sure you hold the pause, then continue with surprise in your voice. See what I mean? I think this is telling of the way you're really thinking.

OK, let me reword it to better reflect the emotion I was (apparently poorly) attempting to convey - "Well DUH! He was standing on higher ground!' :rolleyes:



Well, to my mind 'easy' explanations of anomalies tend not to be convincing, especially when offered to counter the sceptical views and opinions of pre-eminent people within the respective applicable fields of study.

Why do you need someone to concoct an unnecessarily complex explanation for something which is easily explicable. You think that the complexity of a explanation has some direct relevance to it's veracity?

Let's try a little thought experiment - my car keys went missing yesterday. I eventually found them down the back of the sofa. Consider the two following possible explanations...

1. An invisible bigfoot took them out of my pocket and borrowed my car. To cover up the fact that he'd borrowed it he filled it with petrol, wound the clock back to the milage that it showed when he borrowed it and left it on the drive. However, because I was wearing my coat at the time, he couldn't replace the keys so he put them down the back of the sofa, assuming that I'd think I dropped them there.

or...

2. I accidentally dropped them down the back of the sofa.

Invoking occam's razor, I would opt for explanation 2 - it explains the observed sequence of events without having to invent complicating factors. In the case of the Apollo photos, the 'moon hoax' is the 'invisible bigfoot' in the explanation:- it is prefectly possible to account for every observed feature of the photographs without having to invent an implausible series of events.

[re. occam's razor]Yes I am. Thank you for reminding me, because you're actually the one who's fallen foul of it! Whereas the 'simplistic' explanations might seem to some to be the most attractive on account of their increased likelihood of being discredited, they are, in this case, ironically, the explanations that harbour the most assumptions!

The main assumption is that the observable laws of physics and how they relate to the reflection of light is the same on the moon as on the earth.

You see, whereas Dark Moon generally seeks to analyse the seeming anomalies to a high degree of detail, thereby systematically eliminating the need to make assumptions (but, admittedly, exposing itself to a higher likelihood of scrutinization at the detailed, albeit less relevant, level),

So more detailed = less relevant?? I thought simple = less relevant???


simple explanations, almost by definition, are riddled with assumptions, especially those that are selected from a whole host of possible alternative simple explanations or combinations thereof.

So, if there are a 'whole host' of simple explanations, why do the hoax theory proponents need to opt for the most convoluted and least likely ones?

In such cases (like the 'inclined' surface in the Buzz Aldrin photo) the entire explanation is indeed an assumption!

Yes, but an assumption which neatly accounts for the observed properties of the photograph. Which do you think more likely - Aldrin was standing on an incline when he took the picture or the NASA hoaxers didn't realise they were standing on a step-ladder when they took the picture?


My main beef is with the contrasting shallowness of the counter-arguments put up to seek to disprove the allegations and the seemingly damning analyses and studies.

Your equation of simplicity with shallowness is a logical fallacy.

Moreover, I find it intriguing that there doesn't seem to be one blatantly indisputable piece of evidence that simply blows the allegations completely out of the water, particularly given the significance of such a monumental event in history.

You're right - there isn't one indisputable piece of evidence - there are hundreds. They have been examined in detail by scientists all over the world. They are called 'moon rocks'.



Is there no subsequent photographic or other unfalsifiable record of the artefacts that surely remain intact on the lunar surface?

Yes, there is - it is called The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment)

It seems ludicrous to me that given that physical evidence does indeed exist, albeit some 380,000km away, that people, including yourself Jim, are forced to resort to ascribing the Soviets' backing down from the race to the moon as the main source of evidence, circumstantial at that, that supports man's landing on the Moon!

Who said that it was the main source of evidence? Not I.

[Jimbo07]

What's your take on the allegation that the gloves were so cumbersome so as to have made the manual operation of the aperture ring on the chest-mount camera extremely difficult, to say the least, thereby leading, in all likelihood, to an ordinate number of incorrectly exposed photos, which is claimed not to be the case?

Astronauts take photos all the time.

I don't understand this whole issue. The moon landing hoax must be more relevant to baby-boomers or something.

Spaceflight is real. Without discussing engineering or anything else, you need merely lookup the time that the ISS is going over your head, then walk outside and see it for yourself.

It's not much of a stretch to imagine that someone strapped on an extra booster stage and went around the moon.

Meh.

Not only do moonshot deniers sound crazy, but why not spend time on other conspiracy theories?

:boggled:

[Thabiguy]

What's your take on the allegation that the gloves were so cumbersome so as to have made the manual operation of the aperture ring on the chest-mount camera extremely difficult, to say the least, thereby leading, in all likelihood, to an ordinate number of incorrectly exposed photos, which is claimed not to be the case?
My take is that the allegiation is baseless, as in, there is no basis for such a claim. I am not aware of any person ever undergoing lunar surface photography training with the A7K gloves and finding that it is "extremely difficult, to say the least" to correctly set the exposure. Having no basis, the claim is an argument from incredulity.

Those who want to learn more about the details of lunar surface photography may start here (http://www.ehartwell.com/InfoDabble/Blue_Marble:_Photography).

There is also no need to resort to other people's claims about the quality of the photographs; unabridged, high quality scans of original film magazines exposed during the lunar EVAs are freely available online (http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/) for everyone to look at.

[Southwind17]

OK, let me reword it to better reflect the emotion I was (apparently poorly) attempting to convey - "Well DUH! He was standing on higher ground!' :rolleyes:

Oh good, that clears that up then (another simplistic assumption with absolutely no scientific basis!)

Why do you need someone to concoct an unnecessarily complex explanation for something which is easily explicable. You think that the complexity of a explanation has some direct relevance to it's veracity?

And you think that because something has a plausible, simplistic, possible explanation that that's good grounds for stating that possible explanation as fact? And if it's shown to be wrong you just move along to the next plausible, simplistic, possible explanation and offer that as fact. Yes, that's a rational, scientific approach all right!

Let's try a little thought experiment - my car keys went missing yesterday. I eventually found them down the back of the sofa. Consider the two following possible explanations...

1. An invisible bigfoot took them out of my pocket and borrowed my car. To cover up the fact that he'd borrowed it he filled it with petrol, wound the clock back to the milage that it showed when he borrowed it and left it on the drive. However, because I was wearing my coat at the time, he couldn't replace the keys so he put them down the back of the sofa, assuming that I'd think I dropped them there.

or...

2. I accidentally dropped them down the back of the sofa.

Invoking occam's razor, I would opt for explanation 2 - it explains the observed sequence of events without having to invent complicating factors. In the case of the Apollo photos, the 'moon hoax' is the 'invisible bigfoot' in the explanation:- it is prefectly possible to account for every observed feature of the photographs without having to invent an implausible series of events.

Do you realize how stupid this makes you appear? Oh yes, we all fall for that one don't we, jumping to the 'invisible bigfoot' conclusion when we lose our car keys instead of assuming the obvious! Oh yes, that's a fair analogy! ;)

The main assumption is that the observable laws of physics and how they relate to the reflection of light is the same on the moon as on the earth.

And what a covenient assumption that is! One that we, except you, it seems, already know to be both factually wrong and highly significant!

So more detailed = less relevant?? I thought simple = less relevant???

You don't follow do you. The more detailed one looks at an explanation the less relevant each individual detail becomes in discrediting that explanation in its broadest sense, generally speaking. If, for example, as part of the apparent anomaly regarding the Buzz Aldrin photo the sceptic was, as part of his explanation, to assert that the angle of the horizon was, say, 10 degrees above the true horizontal plane, and you could show that it was actually 11 degrees, that's a whole different ball game from the sceptic showing that there wasn't even an incline for Armstrong to climb up! That's just a hypothetical example. I'm not asserting any of it as fact.

So, if there are a 'whole host' of simple explanations, why do the hoax theory proponents need to opt for the most convoluted and least likely ones?

Perhaps it's because something seemingly anomalous about the photos alerted them to a particular line of enquiry that could be investigated scientifically. Where would we be, I wonder, if the standard MO of forensic investigators was always to assume a simplistic explanation as fact unless proven otherwise? And why, incidentally, is 'convoluted' less likely?

Yes, but an assumption which neatly accounts for the observed properties of the photograph. Which do you think more likely - Aldrin was standing on an incline when he took the picture or the NASA hoaxers didn't realise they were standing on a step-ladder when they took the picture?

Yes, 'neatly' being the operative word. Do you realize you could have chosen 'conveniently', and still conveyed the same meaning! I wouldn't like to place odds on either of these scenarios, but I'd confidently rule out the step-ladder possibility, given that a hand-held camera at eye level would probably derive the result that we see in the photo! It seems highly likely to me that if the photo is fabricated the photographer didn't realize the implications of his viewing angle compared to that of a chest-mounted camera!

Your equation of simplicity with shallowness is a logical fallacy.

Well aren't you the very scholar. You think the mere 'possibility' of Armstrong's standing on an incline consitutes a deep and thorough analysis?!

You're right - there isn't one indisputable piece of evidence - there are hundreds. They have been examined in detail by scientists all over the world. They are called 'moon rocks'.

So-called 'moon rocks' on Earth prove that man walked on the moon? Yeah, right. I have a Mars rock right in my study here. Would you like for me to send it to you for analysis, and if it's shown to be not of this Earth you'll accept that I've walked on Mars?

Yes, there is - it is called The Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_laser_ranging_experiment)

Again, the placement of this equipment on the Moon proves that man has walked on the moon does it?!

Who said that it was the main source of evidence? Not I.

Well what else did you offer in your post #87, other than the links to the laughable 'thoroughly debunking' websites?!

[Thabiguy]

I will now quickly address the silly claims that there's anything "anomalous" about the picture of Buzz Aldrin.

First of all, I'll remark that due to the weight of the life support system, the astronauts were noticeably leaning forward (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5874.jpg) when standing. This needs to be kept in mind when considering an impression that a photograph gives.

Now, can we determine from the picture more about the circumstances of its exposure? Sure, and it is rather simple. We know that on a photograph, the horizon will intersect objects at the level of the camera lens. Therefore, when we look at the picture, we can instantly tell that when it was taken, the camera was (roughly) at the level of Aldrin's eyes, or about a foot higher than it "should be".

How could this be? Two obvious explanations come to mind: Armstrong had the camera chest-mounted, but was standing about a foot higher than Aldrin; or, Armstrong was not standing higher than Aldrin, but for some reason held the camera at his eye level.

Can we tell, just by looking at the picture, what the actual case is? Sure we can, simply by looking closer at the reflection in Aldrin's visor (reoriented color-corrected closeup (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg)). We know that the horizon will intersect Armstrong's picture at the level of camera lens, and we see that the horizon intersects Armstrong's chest, not his head. Therefore, we can conclude that the camera was in fact chest-mounted, and Armstrong, for some reason, stood about a foot higher than Aldrin.

Is there anything anomalous about Armstrong standing about a foot above Aldrin? The pictures clearly show that the ground is quite uneven, and it is obvious that for Armstrong and Aldrin to stand at exactly the same level would be an incredible coincidence. Some difference in terrain height would be expected. Is the actual height difference observed in the picture - about one foot - in any way unusual or anomalous? No, nothing in the pictures indicates that height difference of that magnitude would be unusual or anomalous in any way.

And as for the argument, "But the picture could have been manipulated, the reflection in Aldrin's visor could have been altered", all I can say is: yes, if you assume that the picture is faked, then you can conclude that the picture is faked. That doesn't tell us much, though.

[Corsair 115]

Did you see the film Capricorn I? It's about the faking of a moon landing via the use of special effects. It was produced around 1975 or there abouts.Actually, the film was about a faked landing on Mars (using a lander which looked almost identical to the lunar lander strangely enough). It was released in 1978. The IMDB page for the movie can be found here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/).

Astronauts take photos all the time.Indeed. Apogee Books has a whole series of books on the Apollo landings, and many of them come with a CD that includes the photos taken on the mission.

The CD included with the book on Apollo 17 (Apollo 17: The NASA Mission Reports) contains all 11 hours of television footage taken from the lunar surface. The number of photos included is about 2,500 if I recall correctly. The books also include materials from many technical documents, mission training guides, transcripts of the astronaut post-mission debriefings, and much more.

[Radrook]

[QUOTE=Corsair 115;3173378]Actually, the film was about a faked landing on Mars (using a lander which looked almost identical to the lunar lander strangely enough). It was released in 1978. The IMDB page for the movie can be found here (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077294/).


Thanks for setting that straight. Maybe it was the Lunar Lander similarity you mention which messed up my memory. LOL In any case, the scenario is identical to the faked Lunar landing ideas except for the presumed location. The film did make me wonder though. Of course at that time going to the moon was a very extravagant thing. But the logic went that if you could fake a Mars landing then faking a moon landing would be also possible.

But as was mentioned previously, if indeed the landing had been faked then the Soviet Union, our competitors, would have been the first to challenge the claim. Yet we have not even a peep from them in this matter--as far as I know. Then again someone might claim that the Russians cooperated with NASA in the cover-up. But anyone claiming such a thing would have to provide us with the motive for the Russians doing this and I see no believable motive that could be offered.

I surmise, however, that those who claim that we were warned by aliens not to go back to the moon would say that this would get the Russians to provide cooperation. But following this train of thought is really beyond the purpose of this thread and goes into another area altogether. I personally prefer to simply accept the moon-landing as fact though I do respect anyone else's opinion to the contrary.

[Southwind17]

I will now quickly address the silly claims that there's anything "anomalous" about the picture of Buzz Aldrin.

First of all, I'll remark that due to the weight of the life support system, the astronauts were noticeably leaning forward (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5874.jpg) when standing. This needs to be kept in mind when considering an impression that a photograph gives.

Now, can we determine from the picture more about the circumstances of its exposure? Sure, and it is rather simple. We know that on a photograph, the horizon will intersect objects at the level of the camera lens. Therefore, when we look at the picture, we can instantly tell that when it was taken, the camera was (roughly) at the level of Aldrin's eyes, or about a foot higher than it "should be".

How could this be? Two obvious explanations come to mind: Armstrong had the camera chest-mounted, but was standing about a foot higher than Aldrin; or, Armstrong was not standing higher than Aldrin, but for some reason held the camera at his eye level.

Can we tell, just by looking at the picture, what the actual case is? Sure we can, simply by looking closer at the reflection in Aldrin's visor (reoriented color-corrected closeup (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg)). We know that the horizon will intersect Armstrong's picture at the level of camera lens, and we see that the horizon intersects Armstrong's chest, not his head. Therefore, we can conclude that the camera was in fact chest-mounted, and Armstrong, for some reason, stood about a foot higher than Aldrin.

Is there anything anomalous about Armstrong standing about a foot above Aldrin? The pictures clearly show that the ground is quite uneven, and it is obvious that for Armstrong and Aldrin to stand at exactly the same level would be an incredible coincidence. Some difference in terrain height would be expected. Is the actual height difference observed in the picture - about one foot - in any way unusual or anomalous? No, nothing in the pictures indicates that height difference of that magnitude would be unusual or anomalous in any way.

And as for the argument, "But the picture could have been manipulated, the reflection in Aldrin's visor could have been altered", all I can say is: yes, if you assume that the picture is faked, then you can conclude that the picture is faked. That doesn't tell us much, though.

Ordinarily I'd agree that your assessment of the circumstances governing the characteristics of the photo seems to be sound, and could well explain what we see in the photo. If you've read Dark Moon, however, (and, no disrespect, but I suspect not, given your seeming predisposition to discount flatly any and all CTs regarding the Apollo missions), you'll be aware that there's a three page detailed study and analysis of the photo in the appendix. The study and analysis was carried out by a Dr David Groves, who is a Chartered Physicist, a member of the Institute of Physics, has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and a PhD in holographic computer measurement. By mathematical analysis and calculation he puts the difference in height between the standing positions of the two astronauts at no more than 10cm, which does not account for the height of the centre of the camera's imaging plane, calculated as being at eye level.

Now, with respect, given the choice between one possible explanation derived from supposition by a lay-person (I assume that's essentially correct, and hope, therefore, that you don't mind be calling you that) applying absolutely no scientific methodology as such and having a seeming predisposition to refute any allegations of foul play, and a scientific and mathematical analysis by an eminent person within the relevant field of study, who, incidentally, initially thought that the people presenting the images to him for analysis simply misunderstood the nature of images and was, therefore, highly sceptical about the allegations(!), which do you honestly feel I should go with? Dr David Groves, incidentally, concluded that the images, including the Buzz Aldrin photo, are:"... full of contradictions and inconsistencies".

[Thabiguy]

Ordinarily I'd agree that your assessment of the circumstances governing the characteristics of the photo seems to be sound, and could well explain what we see in the photo. If you've read Dark Moon, however, (and, no disrespect, but I suspect not, given your seeming predisposition to discount flatly any and all CTs regarding the Apollo missions), you'll be aware that there's a three page detailed study and analysis of the photo in the appendix. The study and analysis was carried out by a Dr David Groves, who is a Chartered Physicist, a member of the Institute of Physics, has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and a PhD in holographic computer measurement.
I have not read that book; it is not available in the local library. The logical fallacy that you are committing here is called appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). Claims are supported by strength of arguments, not by merits of the person making the claim.
By mathematical analysis and calculation he puts the difference in height between the standing positions of the two astronauts at no more than 10cm, which does not account for the height of the centre of the camera's imaging plane, calculated as being at eye level.
I have not seen this "mathematical analysis and calculation". I have seen a YouTube clip featuring David Groves, where he says, I quote, "The variation in height of the surface between the astronauts is typically a few inches" - without presenting any argument to support this claim, other than "we can calculate it". Because there is compelling photographic evidence that the variation in terrain height is significantly more than that, I challenge this claim as false and unsupported. Is the argument presented in the book, so that it can be followed and verified? If so, I invite anyone to present it here. Without presenting valid argumentation supporting it, the claim by David Groves is baseless.
Now, with respect, given the choice between one possible explanation derived from supposition by a lay-person (I assume that's essentially correct, and hope, therefore, that you don't mind be calling you that) applying absolutely no scientific methodology as such and having a seeming predisposition to refute any allegations of foul play, and a scientific and mathematical analysis by an eminent person within the relevant field of study, who, incidentally, initially thought that the people presenting the images to him for analysis simply misunderstood the nature of images and was, therefore, highly sceptical about the allegations(!), which do you honestly feel I should go with?
With respect, my earlier posts aren't addressed to you. I wrote them for the benefit of readers capable of critical thinking, and I wrote them because I believe that this is an opportunity for all of us to learn something here. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. I neither intend nor expect to convince you, and I have no interest in what you choose to believe.

Unlike people citing David Groves, I ask absolutely no-one to have any faith whatsoever in my education. I address the silly claims with straightforward arguments, presented clearly for everyone to consider by their strength alone. No reliance on my personal qualifications is needed.
Dr David Groves, incidentally, concluded that the images, including the Buzz Aldrin photo, are: "... full of contradictions and inconsistencies".
As no contradictions and inconsistencies have been shown, that claim is baseless.

I will now point out that the photographs clearly show that the terrain height varies all over the place. The "famous" photograph of Buzz Aldrin is not an exceptional photograph; due to uneven terrain, the horizon intersects images of objects at a wide range of heights:

Horizon intersecting Aldrin:
Very low (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5942.jpg), Low (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5929.jpg), Medium (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5963.jpg), High (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5902.jpg), Very high (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5873.jpg).
(Note that the difference in relative camera height between the first and last picture is perhaps 3 times greater than the "unexplainable" height difference in the famous picture of Aldrin, clearly indicating that it is not an unusual quirk, but indeed a consistent feature of the photographs. With the silly assumption that the ground was level, the photographer would have to kneel down for the first photograph, and actually hold the camera above their head for the last.)

Horizon intersecting US flag:
Low (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5905.jpg), Medium (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5874.jpg), High (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5885.jpg).

Changes in terrain height over distances:
Compare Aldrin 1 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5943.jpg) with Aldrin 2 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5944.jpg), or Eagle 1 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5961.jpg) with Eagle 2 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5962.jpg).

Finally, I will point out not an indirect, but direct photographic evidence that the ground near the Eagle module was sloped, invalidating David Groves' unsupported claims.

In this picture (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5875.jpg), Buzz Aldrin is standing next to the US flag. We see that the top of Aldrin's spacesuit reaches slightly over the half of the blue rectangle in the flag. In this picture (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5886.jpg), which is a rare shot of Armstrong, not Aldrin, the horizon intersects the flag at more or less the same level as the top of Aldrin's spacesuit in the previous picture - but it goes some 2 feet above the top of Armstrong's spacesuit. This directly shows that the ground next to the module is about 2 feet below the ground next to the flag, which conclusively demonstrates a downward slope in the general direction of the sun. (Also, if you look at the latter picture, you'll note that the silly conspiracy theorists would have to claim that the photographer held the camera on a 2-feet pole above his head.)

[R.Mackey]

If you've read Dark Moon, however, (and, no disrespect, but I suspect not, given your seeming predisposition to discount flatly any and all CTs regarding the Apollo missions), you'll be aware that there's a three page detailed study and analysis of the photo in the appendix. The study and analysis was carried out by a Dr David Groves, who is a Chartered Physicist, a member of the Institute of Physics, has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and a PhD in holographic computer measurement. By mathematical analysis and calculation he puts the difference in height between the standing positions of the two astronauts at no more than 10cm, which does not account for the height of the centre of the camera's imaging plane, calculated as being at eye level.


Ooh! A three-page detailed study, you say? Three whole pages? And in the appendix of a book, rather than in a scientific journal?

And you dare to stack this up against tens of thousands of images, video including live video from the landings themselves, hundreds of pounds of recovered material, tens of thousands of scientists and engineers, hundreds of thousands who witnessed the launches, remaining hardware in museums, remaining blueprints (some of which are even now being modified for future use as part of Project Constellation), robotic exploration beforehand, follow-up robotic exploration by the Soviets, radar tracking data, radio communication and ranging...

Something tells me you're a wee bit biased.

Now, with respect, given the choice between one possible explanation derived from supposition by a lay-person (I assume that's essentially correct, and hope, therefore, that you don't mind be calling you that) applying absolutely no scientific methodology as such and having a seeming predisposition to refute any allegations of foul play, and a scientific and mathematical analysis by an eminent person within the relevant field of study, who, incidentally, initially thought that the people presenting the images to him for analysis simply misunderstood the nature of images and was, therefore, highly sceptical about the allegations(!), which do you honestly feel I should go with?

Well-poisoning. Those who made the Moon Landings possible are not "lay-persons." You're simply ignoring them.

I'll give you an example. The Apollo mapping camera imagery of the Lunar surface, particularly portions of the back side of the moon, are still the best mapping data we have for many regions of interest. To this date. However, some of it can only be corroborated with later data, such as that from Clementine -- and it does. JAXA has a mission there now. The Chinese will be there soon. No hoax would last for long.

Were there people on board? Of course there were. Apollo 13 would have been unrecoverable if there had not. None of the LM landers would have functioned without a pilot. QED.

This is just the barest beginning. And against this, you have some yahoo who thinks a single image looks slightly wrong, appearing in a book designed to extract profits from other conspiracy believers, where I'm sure it received all the critical and scientific verification it deserved. :rolleyes: Well, color me unimpressed.

And please take your off-topic nonsense elsewhere. I won't ask again. This is a derail, and it's contrary to your Membership Agreement.

[Belz...]

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon

I believe that this is what people mean when they say "you just went down a notch."

Sheesh. Feel free to join reality, any time.

ETA: Sorry, Mack. Didn't see your request to move this to CT.

[Radrook]

So-called 'moon rocks' on Earth prove that man walked on the moon? Yeah, right. I have a Mars rock right in my study here. Would you like for me to send it to you for analysis, and if it's shown to be not of this Earth you'll accept that I've walked on Mars?....

Again, the placement of this equipment on the Moon proves that man has walked on the moon does it?!....


This is just to say that I understand your argument and agree that those things alone do not prove a manned moon landing. But if there is a conspiracy to deceive, how do you explain the Soviet Union's silence? Are we to believe that the Soviet Union is in on this proposed cover-up? If so--why? What explanation is given about this silence by those who believe that we never landed on the moon?

[Southwind17]

I have not read that book; it is not available in the local library.

Say what? If the local library don't have it then what the hell, that's good enough reason to ignore it!

The logical fallacy that you are committing here is called appeal to authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority). Claims are supported by strength of arguments, not by merits of the person making the claim.

I absolutely knew you, or somebody, would come back with this old chestnut. You just couldn't resist unleashing it at the first opportunity could you? There should be a categorized fallacy for the fallacious use of any of the many other categorizations of fallacy that many 'scholarly' people on this Forum so hastily deploy in their defence, or as a counter argument. Perhaps there already is. If not, maybe we could call it: 'The Fallacy of Fallacious accusation of Fallacy', or 'Triple-F' for short! Well big guy, I think you'll find, if you care to think about it 'critically' for a second, that my quoting David Groves' eminence, backed by his relevant qualifications, is secondary to the main basis of my argument, being the scientific, mathematical study and analysis that he conducted and that is presented in Dark Moon; the book that you haven't taken the time to consider because 'it's not available in your local library'! The primary basis of my argument is the said scientific, mathematical study and analysis that you've never even set eyes on. In other words, to paraphrase you from above, David Groves' strongly supported argument.!

I have not seen this "mathematical analysis and calculation".

Evidently, and how unfortunate!

I have seen a YouTube clip featuring David Groves, where he says, I quote, "The variation in height of the surface between the astronauts is typically a few inches" - without presenting any argument to support this claim, other than "we can calculate it".

That wouldn't fall into the 'Reliance on YouTube Clip' fallacy category by any chance, would it?! I think Groves might just possibly be alluding to the said scientific, mathematical study and analysis to which I refer above, when he says: "we can calculate it"!

Because there is compelling photographic evidence that the variation in terrain height is significantly more than that, I challenge this claim as false and unsupported.

I'd be inclined to hold my tongue, if I were you, before claiming something to be 'unsupported' after I've already been informed that an authoritative study and analysis exists. Moreover, I'd also be inclined to hold my tongue, if I were you, before claiming something to be false when I already know that an authoritative study and analysis exists that convincingly demonstrates otherwise, especially if I've never even read the study and analysis!

Notwithstanding the existence of an authoritative scientific, mathematical study and analysis contradicting your opinion, on what basis have you actually determined the photographic 'evidence' to be 'compelling' as regards the 'significantly' higher terrain? Have you, by any chance, gone beyond simply 'looking' at the photo?!

Is the argument presented in the book, so that it can be followed and verified?

Absolutely.

If so, I invite anyone to present it here. Without presenting valid argumentation supporting it, the claim by David Groves is baseless.

I'll do that tomorrow, unless somebody beats me to it. (Does anybody know if I'm allowed to scan and post an extract from a copyrighted book?)

With respect, my earlier posts aren't addressed to you.

With respect, this is an open forum!

I wrote them for the benefit of readers capable of critical thinking ...

Why thank you kind sir.

... and I wrote them because I believe that this is an opportunity for all of us to learn something here. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

That's admirable. I hope you'll enjoy reading the study and analysis.

I neither intend nor expect to convince you ...

That's understandable, given the basis of your argument!

... and I have no interest in what you choose to believe.

I'm sorry?:
I believe that this is an opportunity for all of us to learn something here. :boggled:

Unlike people citing David Groves, I ask absolutely no-one to have any faith whatsoever in my education.

Who's seeking 'faith' from others in their 'education'?! :boggled:

I address the silly claims with straightforward arguments, presented clearly for everyone to consider by their strength alone.

How, exactly, have you determined Groves' claims to be 'silly'? What, exactly, does your 'argument' comprise?

No reliance on my personal qualifications is needed.

Do you have any qualifications relevant to the subject matter?

As no contradictions and inconsistencies have been shown, that claim is baseless.

The authoritative scientific, mathematical study and analysis excepted?

I will now point out that the photographs clearly show that the terrain height varies all over the place.

You don't need to; it's evident from the Buzz Aldrin photo itself. The pertinent question is: By how much between where the two astronauts were allegedly standing?

Finally, I will point out not an indirect, but direct photographic evidence that the ground near the Eagle module was sloped, invalidating David Groves' unsupported claims.

Completely erroneous. Again, the pertinent question is: By how much between where the two astronauts were allegedly standing?

You might feel that I'm being unduly mean to you, but if you're being honest when you say:
I believe that this is an opportunity for all of us to learn something here.

I sincerely hope you will understand and appreciate my comments, even if only in the context of how to present a solid argument.

[Southwind17]

Ooh! A three-page detailed study, you say? Three whole pages? And in the appendix of a book, rather than in a scientific journal?

And you dare to stack this up against tens of thousands of images, video including live video from the landings themselves, hundreds of pounds of recovered material, tens of thousands of scientists and engineers, hundreds of thousands who witnessed the launches, remaining hardware in museums, remaining blueprints (some of which are even now being modified for future use as part of Project Constellation), robotic exploration beforehand, follow-up robotic exploration by the Soviets, radar tracking data, radio communication and ranging...

Something tells me you're a wee bit biased.

Something tells me you're a wee bit over-reactive! I'm simply 'stacking it up' (to use your phrase) against thabiguy's assessment, and contrasting the relative degrees of scientific methodology. That's actually the point of my argument on this thread; not so much trying to disprove that we walked on the moon. Hell, if the likes of Groves can't convince you (I assume you've read the study(?!)) then what chance would I stand?! :boggled:

That said, you won't mind if I play devil's advocate for a moment will you?:

I'll give you an example. The Apollo mapping camera imagery of the Lunar surface, particularly portions of the back side of the moon, are still the best mapping data we have for many regions of interest. To this date. However, some of it can only be corroborated with later data, such as that from Clementine -- and it does. JAXA has a mission there now. The Chinese will be there soon. No hoax would last for long.

That proves we walked on the moon?!

Were there people on board? Of course there were. Apollo 13 would have been unrecoverable if there had not. None of the LM landers would have functioned without a pilot. QED.

You know some of them personally do you? And which LM 'landers' would that be then?!

This is just the barest beginning.

You're telling me!

And against this, you have some yahoo who thinks ...

has shown!

... a single image looks slightly wrong ...

to be inconsistent with physics!

... appearing in a book designed to extract profits from other conspiracy believers, ...

That might be the cynic's view.

... where I'm sure it received all the critical and scientific verification it deserved. :rolleyes:

Like the laughable websites cited above?

And please take your off-topic nonsense elsewhere. I won't ask again. This is a derail, and it's contrary to your Membership Agreement.

Will you come along for the ride if I do? Please?! ;)

[Belz...]

You know some of them personally do you? And which LM 'landers' would that be then?!

So, point a laser at the moon and then tell me what's reflecting it. Moon dust ?

to be inconsistent with physics!

Which photograph would that be ?

I hope it's not like the "no stars" argument. :rolleyes:

[Thabiguy]

I'll do that tomorrow, unless somebody beats me to it. (Does anybody know if I'm allowed to scan and post an extract from a copyrighted book?)
If you post it, I will comment on it, and if the errors are obvious, I will explain to you what's wrong with the analysis. (I leave it as an exercise to readers to figure out why I can presume the analysis to be flawed even though I haven't seen it.) But I would suggest you do that in a different section, preferrably Conspiracy Theories.
I sincerely hope you will understand and appreciate my comments, even if only in the context of how to present a solid argument.
I understand your comments. It should be obvious to any rational person why I will not bother to reply to them.

[Jimbo07]

That proves we walked on the moon?!


No. Nor does my ISS (again, which you can see with your own eyes) example. What they do prove is that spaceflight is real and that we are going to the moon, even now.

What I still don't understand is the... I don't know... mystical difference that suggests we can't have walked on the moon!

[uruk]

What's your take on the allegation that the gloves were so cumbersome so as to have made the manual operation of the aperture ring on the chest-mount camera extremely difficult, to say the least, thereby leading, in all likelihood, to an ordinate number of incorrectly exposed photos, which is claimed not to be the case?

You do know that exposure problems can be fixed in the darkroom. There were many tricks that you could use on film to correct exposure problems. And the Astronauts were trained to use the cameras.

The cameras used on Apollo were Hasselblads:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-hass.html

The focus on the cameras were fixed to infinity and due to the amount of light that was expected to be on the moon, the aperature was also fixed. Seeing as there would only be one environment present, namely high contrasting blacks, greys and whites, It does not take a genius to figure out what apperature setting to fix the cameras at.

And there were quite a few bad pictures taken that post processing could not fix. particularly When the sun was in the frame. Take a look at the Panoramas on this website.:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/images11.html#Mag40

[uruk]

I will now quickly address the silly claims that there's anything "anomalous" about the picture of Buzz Aldrin.

First of all, I'll remark that due to the weight of the life support system, the astronauts were noticeably leaning forward (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5874.jpg) when standing. This needs to be kept in mind when considering an impression that a photograph gives.

Now, can we determine from the picture more about the circumstances of its exposure? Sure, and it is rather simple. We know that on a photograph, the horizon will intersect objects at the level of the camera lens. Therefore, when we look at the picture, we can instantly tell that when it was taken, the camera was (roughly) at the level of Aldrin's eyes, or about a foot higher than it "should be".

How could this be? Two obvious explanations come to mind: Armstrong had the camera chest-mounted, but was standing about a foot higher than Aldrin; or, Armstrong was not standing higher than Aldrin, but for some reason held the camera at his eye level.

Can we tell, just by looking at the picture, what the actual case is? Sure we can, simply by looking closer at the reflection in Aldrin's visor (reoriented color-corrected closeup (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11-5903aldrin-view.jpg)). We know that the horizon will intersect Armstrong's picture at the level of camera lens, and we see that the horizon intersects Armstrong's chest, not his head. Therefore, we can conclude that the camera was in fact chest-mounted, and Armstrong, for some reason, stood about a foot higher than Aldrin.

Is there anything anomalous about Armstrong standing about a foot above Aldrin? The pictures clearly show that the ground is quite uneven, and it is obvious that for Armstrong and Aldrin to stand at exactly the same level would be an incredible coincidence. Some difference in terrain height would be expected. Is the actual height difference observed in the picture - about one foot - in any way unusual or anomalous? No, nothing in the pictures indicates that height difference of that magnitude would be unusual or anomalous in any way.

And as for the argument, "But the picture could have been manipulated, the reflection in Aldrin's visor could have been altered", all I can say is: yes, if you assume that the picture is faked, then you can conclude that the picture is faked. That doesn't tell us much, though.

Also Neil is a bit taller than Buzz. Couple that with standing on higer ground and you get the hieght difference:
http://www.medaloffreedom.com/Apollo11NYC.jpg

And don't you think it is kind of stupid to think that the picture was taken at Neil's eye height? You can see Neil's reflection in Buzz's visor.

[uruk]

Maybe what you describe is simply a harsh reflection of the magnitude of the technical difficulties that space exploration beyond Earth orbit presents, tempered by the disproportionate benefit to mankind as a whole that such exploration is likely to derive. You don't seriously believe there's merit in pursuing the colonization of other planets within our solar system do you?!

I'm sure you only think that because you do not think much of the space program.
Haven't really givin any thought or looked into all the benefits we have gained from the space program.
But that's ok. Why think about about things you really don't care much about.

[drzeus99]

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon....


Oh, OK...

This explains alot about your posts. Gotcha.


Cheers,
DrZ

[drzeus99]

Southwind17....Now I realize why you think it's a DREAM for man to get to Mars in 5-7 years. You actually seriously question the moon landings!! Conspiracy theorists and kooks are all over the place. The only thing they show is their gullibility in believing a *VERY FEW* like minded kooks who present a seemingly "credible evidence". They fall in with the fringe group and deny the 99.99% of the population who knows otherwise...yet SOMEHOW think THEY are right and the 99% are wrong!!
Did you ever think when 99.99999% of a humungous group believes something to be factual based on credible evidence that it's true?
If you tell your non belief to people you meet in person, with a serious face, they're gonna think you're off your rocker.
Word of advice. Stop the silly childishness and be an intelligent person and just accept the obvious fact as being fact.

But I'm sure you'll come back with some, what you think is, some whitty smart commen,
claiming that YOU'RE right and everyone else is wrong. You might even name s scientist (they can be kooks too, ya know) or a doctor (yikes) who says or wrote that. Not that the 10,000 reputable scientests who all agree that it happened means anything to you. You seem to enjoy the odd person who has the strangely differring view point from everyone else, even when incredible amounts of verifiable evidence is presented to him.

Oh....but I forgot. There's them bigfoots and Nessies out there too that people have seen. They all GOTTA be real, right? Too many eye witnesses (even if there isn't any scientific evidence to back it) But I know..you saw a show on TV that said so and so...

If you want, you can have the last word. It's useless presenting you with facts.


Cheers,
DrZ

[Southwind17]

If you post it, I will comment on it, and if the errors are obvious, I will explain to you what's wrong with the analysis. (I leave it as an exercise to readers to figure out why I can presume the analysis to be flawed even though I haven't seen it.) But I would suggest you do that in a different section, preferrably Conspiracy Theories.

If I determine that it's OK to post it I will, as a separate thread, and we can then have a debate about that single aspect of the CT if you wish. I have to say, though, at this stage of the proceedings, that given your apparent lack of relevant experience and qualification in the applicable fields of science (I assume you're not holding something back!), any notion on your part that the 'errors' could be 'obvious' and that you will convincingly (I assume it would be convincing!) explain what's 'wrong' with the analysis, well, frankly, I find that both arrogant and presumptuous in the extreme. But let's hope I can make the post and we'll let Groves' analysis and the deployment of your analytical skills speak for themselves.

As I wrote, I'm not trying to present the sceptics' case all over again. I'm simply contesting that a vast amount of contradictory information and analyses concerning the Apollo program has been presented by many critics over the years, and in my opinion, whilst some of it has clearly been debunked, much of it has not; well not satisfactorily, in my opinion. It's all very well offering a counter-argument that's based on supposition and assumptions to an allegation . We can all do that pretty well, I'm sure. But when the argument being countered derives from an authoritative, scientific, mathematical study and analysis, well, as I wrote earlier, which way would the critical thinker lean? If you're happy to let all of the associated emotional and vast circumstantial factors associated with the Apollo program get in the way of an otherwise objective assessment of an isolated piece of contradictory information, such as the Buzz Aldrin photo, I'm OK with that. I understand that. Indeed, I allow myself to do exactly that, to a degree, which is why I say that, on balance, I'd be inclined to bet that we have been to the moon. But I'm focusing here on the contrasting degree of consideration and depth of analysis applied to the contradictory information by the sceptics and the convinced.

I understand your comments. It should be obvious to any rational person why I will not bother to reply to them.

I'm sure it is! :rolleyes:

[uruk]

Ordinarily I'd agree that your assessment of the circumstances governing the characteristics of the photo seems to be sound, and could well explain what we see in the photo. If you've read Dark Moon, however, (and, no disrespect, but I suspect not, given your seeming predisposition to discount flatly any and all CTs regarding the Apollo missions), you'll be aware that there's a three page detailed study and analysis of the photo in the appendix. The study and analysis was carried out by a Dr David Groves, who is a Chartered Physicist, a member of the Institute of Physics, has a BSc (Hons) Class 1 in Applied Physics and a PhD in holographic computer measurement. By mathematical analysis and calculation he puts the difference in height between the standing positions of the two astronauts at no more than 10cm, which does not account for the height of the centre of the camera's imaging plane, calculated as being at eye level.


Does Groves take into account the local topology of the landing site or does he assume that the astronauts are level with each other. How about the height difference between Neil and Buzz?

[Southwind17]

Does Groves take into account the local topology of the landing site or does he assume that the astronauts are level with each other. How about the height difference between Neil and Buzz?

Groves estimated a 'typical' value for the variation in height of the surface between the astronaut and the photographer by reference to the shadow line cast by the outside of the astronaut's left leg, which can be seen to be curved owing to the eneven ground. Groves carried out a detailed calculation and concluded that the maximum height between the two surfaces is in the order of only 10cm.

The complete calculation is in the Appendix to Dark Moon (see - full transparency - no hiding of supporting details!). I'll try to post the full analysis later today.

[Southwind17]

Southwind17....Now I realize why you think it's a DREAM for man to get to Mars in 5-7 years. You actually seriously question the moon landings!! Conspiracy theorists and kooks are all over the place. The only thing they show is their gullibility in believing a *VERY FEW* like minded kooks who present a seemingly "credible evidence". They fall in with the fringe group and deny the 99.99% of the population who knows otherwise...yet SOMEHOW think THEY are right and the 99% are wrong!!
Did you ever think when 99.99999% of a humungous group believes something to be factual based on credible evidence that it's true?
If you tell your non belief to people you meet in person, with a serious face, they're gonna think you're off your rocker.
Word of advice. Stop the silly childishness and be an intelligent person and just accept the obvious fact as being fact.

But I'm sure you'll come back with some, what you think is, some whitty smart commen,
claiming that YOU'RE right and everyone else is wrong. You might even name s scientist (they can be kooks too, ya know) or a doctor (yikes) who says or wrote that. Not that the 10,000 reputable scientests who all agree that it happened means anything to you. You seem to enjoy the odd person who has the strangely differring view point from everyone else, even when incredible amounts of verifiable evidence is presented to him.

Oh....but I forgot. There's them bigfoots and Nessies out there too that people have seen. They all GOTTA be real, right? Too many eye witnesses (even if there isn't any scientific evidence to back it) But I know..you saw a show on TV that said so and so...

If you want, you can have the last word. It's useless presenting you with facts.

Allow me to present you with some 'facts' from Wikipedia:

Many commentators have published detailed rebuttals to the hoax claims. According to a 1999 poll conducted by the The Gallup Organization, what Gallup termed an "overwhelming majority" of the US public, some 89 percent, did not believe the landing was faked, while 6 percent did, while 5 percent were undecided.

So that's 11% of the US population who remain to be convinced. What's that in numbers of people?

Doesn't quite equate to the 99%, 99.99% or 99.99999% (would you care to posit 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999%?) that you state, presumably as fact, above does it.

Would you like a napkin with that runny egg sir?! :rolleyes:

[articulett]

At TAM they gave a good conference where they discussed the supposed documentary that seemed to make a pretty convincing case that man didn't walk on the moon-- it appears to have made doubters out of a lot of people... But it was silly pseudoscience made to hone in on peoples' penchant for conspiracy-- always a big seller-- and it does make astronauts very angry because this is a real live scientific marvel and like always-- lies are getting the glory while the aspersions are cast as science and truth.

Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy book and website give a thorough debunking of that documentary but he also gave a fabulous talk and demonstration at TAM5 and the guys from the Onion were hysterical. I have students come up to me all the time asking about the shadows or the waving flag, and I'm glad to have the answers-- this silliness seems to have convinced a lot of people. The lack of stars is another one. When you believe in a conspiracy, it seems so easy to invent evidence.

The problem with conspiracy theorists is that when you ask what would convince them, they don't have an answer. They have silly questions... and then when they don't like your explanation, they have another silly query. And it becomes clear that no amount of evidence could convince them-- therefore, they have a faith based claim. On the other hand, what would it take to convince me scientists didn't walk on the moon-- one astronaut involved in the "plot" confessing details of how they did what. Conspiracy theorists like creationists want you to "explain this" or "explain that" (as if they had the basic scientific understanding to understand your explanations)-- but they never explain anything regarding their alternative theories... it's just one more unlikely proposition upon another. You'd think it we were going to fake a moon landing than one of the hundred or more people involved that would need to be in it on would give detailed explanations of what was done and how rather than kooks examining things closely for hints of things we can't explain. Think of the money that could be made. But humans love their mysteries and conspiracies and don't have time for learning facts about the real wonders brought to us by science. When someone believes something and they cannot tell you what it would take to change that belief-- then you are dealing with faith. And faith isn't really amenable to logic or reason is it?

Before discussing the topic with someone, I think you can save a lot of time by asking what it would take to convince a person. I think it's important to have both parties concede that there is one truth and that the aim should be to find that truth. The truth isn't open to debate-- it can only be discovered and understood. And lots of people would rather believe they understand that truth rather than find out they may have been fooled.

I don't like the way belief systems make people trust "nonsense" and distrust science. They question the wrong sources. Scientific facts and evidence are available to everyone, after all.

[Belz...]

Alright then, Southwind. Let's start over. What, exactly, makes you unconvinced, now ?

[uruk]

Groves estimated a 'typical' value for the variation in height of the surface between the astronaut and the photographer by reference to the shadow line cast by the outside of the astronaut's left leg, which can be seen to be curved owing to the eneven ground. Groves carried out a detailed calculation and concluded that the maximum height between the two surfaces is in the order of only 10cm.

The complete calculation is in the Appendix to Dark Moon (see - full transparency - no hiding of supporting details!). I'll try to post the full analysis later today.

So in other words he made a guess-timation based on his interpretation of a picture. Right, Highly scientific.

Maybe he should have tried to locate a topological map of the area for more accurate calculations.
He could have tried here if he was serious about his work.
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/apollosci.htm

[Southwind17]

You'd think it we were going to fake a moon landing than one of the hundred or more people involved that would need to be in it on would give detailed explanations of what was done and how rather than kooks examining things closely for hints of things we can't explain. Think of the money that could be made.

I consider this aspect probably the most compelling against the CT. But I don't consider it impossible that a cover up could occur. The chances of this happening are very slim, but not impossible. Hence my slight doubt, as I expressed earlier.

I don't think you're in a good position to talk.

I'm sorry Belz, I'm struggling to see the immoral, unethical tactics in my style of argument. Did I miss something?

You still said you weren't convinced. I don't see how the rest of your paragraph makes you more convinced than you said you were.

As I wrote before, conviction is an absolute. I'll be convinced when I get to 100% (and that's your version of 100%, not mine, so don't interpret that as my suggesting that I'm incapable of becoming convinced, I am).

Reported.

Fair enough. I guess some people are of a more sensitive disposition than others. But take the time to review your own infractions before calling foul!

Seems you missed every single one of my posts, so far.

Good to see you agree with my analysis of your personality!

Funny, your contributions in the intelligent evolution thread seemed to indicate a different person. You wouldn't be suffering from MPD, would you ?

No, that thread had some good, sensible, intelligent, civil debate. When I join a thread that has posters like this one does (let's just call them: hyper-reactive, hyper-sensitive, unobjective, condescending, sarcastic, patronizing, and with a predisposition to criticize (or any combination thereof)), well, I guess I just get drawn into 'going with the flow', to a degree! And it's strange how they can't stand the taste of their own medicine!

Alright then, Southwind. Let's start over. What, exactly, makes you unconvinced, now ?

By 'start over' do you mean a sensible, civil debate like the Intelligent Evolution thread (and I mean the useful debating part when I say that) with all the unhelpful features listed above removed? If so, I'm happy to do that, but as I've written above, I'm not here to try to make the CT case again. My focus is on the analysis of some of the evidence that the CT has presented, i.e. those aspects that cause my slight doubt. I suppose if we were to debunk all of those satisfactorily then I'd probably become convinced. Your call buddy. We could 'start over' with the Aldrin photo first, if you like?

So in other words he made a guess-timation based on his interpretation of a picture. Right, Highly scientific.

OK, if you want to be cynical and call it a guess-timate fair enough. But please realize that any estimate of absolutely anything is not 100% accurate by definition. The difference between something labelled as an estimate and a guess-timate usually just boils down to the inherent level of accuracy. I assume you've studied Groves' analysis?!?

And as for Groves using the picture as a basis for analyzing the picture(!!!), well, I'm sure he'd hate to miss the opportunity to beg your pardon! Exactly what, instead of the picture, do you reasonably expect could be used to prove or disporove an apparent anomaly within the picture? Let's see shall we:
Maybe he should have tried to locate a topological map of the area for more accurate calculations.
He could have tried here if he was serious about his work.
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/apollosci.htm

We're talking about a topological variation over a horizontal distance of only 3.847m on a position of the lunar surface that isn't known exactly. I'll check out your link later, but does it afford the necessary information for a more accurate calculation than Groves' i.e. something other than a 'guess-timate'? I'll tell you what, why don't you go ahead and perform the calculation for us (we don't need Groves to do it, do we, his background, experience and qualifications clearly count for nothing!). I look forward to studying your results!

[Belz...]

Fair enough. I guess some people are of a more sensitive disposition than others.

There has to be a name for that fallacy.

Good to see you agree with my analysis of your personality!

Dammit, Southwind, what is it with you and people who tell you your opinions are ridiculous ? Never happened before ? Well, get ready, because on this forum it's bound to happen. A lot. Happens to me, all the time.

My focus is on the analysis of some of the evidence that the CT has presented, i.e. those aspects that cause my slight doubt. I suppose if we were to debunk all of those satisfactorily then I'd probably become convinced. Your call buddy. We could 'start over' with the Aldrin photo first, if you like?

Which "Aldrin" photo would that be ?

Just as a side note, I've never seen any evidence brought about by moon hoaxers that has ever even made me doubt that man has gone to the moon. Every picture or factoid I've seen I've either been able to debunk on my own or with 5 minutes of googling. I hope your 'evidence' will be more convincing.

[Southwind17]

There has to be a name for that fallacy.

What 'fallacy'?

Dammit, Southwind, what is it with you and people who tell you your opinions are ridiculous ? Never happened before ? Well, get ready, because on this forum it's bound to happen. A lot. Happens to me, all the time.

Belz, you're getting yourself unnecessarily het up. Calm down. I don't have any problem whatsoever with anybody telling me my opinions are ridiculous. I do, however, tend to become irritated, though, when such people:
quote me essentially out of context to try to discredit me or my opinions; and/or
seek to ridicule my opinions simply based on their opinions; and/or
believe it's my opinions that they're seeking to ridicule when, actually, I'm asserting something other than my opinions; and/or
harbour such strong convinctions that they're incapable of allowing for the possibility, regardless of how remote, that my opinions might actually have some merit; and/or
harbour such strong convictions that they default to an extremely defensive position that precludes them from even considering the possibility that they might not be 100% correct themselves; and/or ...
I could go on, but hopefully you get the message.

I have noticed that there are some subjects inevitably arising on these forum for which, on certain suggestions associated therewith, the ensuing 'debate' on the part of those refuting such suggestions very quickly, if not immediately, becomes obviouly driven almost wholly by passion and high emotion, as opposed to rational, logical, civilized objectivity. This usually manifests as mockery, sarcasm, condescension, ad hominem comments and derogation. Two such subjects are homosexuality and conspiracy theories. Interestingly, theism, deism, agnosticism and the like seem not to solicit such responses, at least not to the same degree.

After I cited the Wikipedia poll earlier I realized that, given the propensity for Americans' belief in god, a large proportion, possibly the majority, of respondents who registered their belief that man has landed on the Moon probably also believe in god. In any event, I would like to bet that the proportion of those who registered their belief that man has landed on the Moon who also believe in god is far higher than those who registered otherwise. What does this suggest? It suggests, at least to me, that a large proportion of people who believe man landed on the Moon have formed that belief not on any rational, objective consideration of the pros and cons in the light of a possible conspiracy, but on blind faith; faith in the US Government of the time, and by extension NASA, not wishing to deceive the World in pursuit of immeasurable political gain. To such people, the idea that such a conspiracy could even be contemplated by the Government is wholly implausible and outrageous. The patriotism that the Apollo Moon landings instil in most Americans is comparable with the faith that belief in god instils, and any suggestion, let alone evidence, that the Moon landings were staged is, to many, tantamount to presenting evidence for the non-existence of god. Faith is what holds the belief, no matter how compelling the nature or weight of evidence.

Now, you'll probably throw another fallacy category at me (you seem to like your fallacy pidgeon holes, as they ostensibly afford a ready-made defence), probably along the lines of belief on god or otherwise having absolutley no relationship or correlation with belief in Apollo. Technically, you'd probably be right, if you did, but what I'm trying to show here, is not that a high proportion of 'informed' disbelievers necessarily equates to falsity, but what drives the resistance to allegations of foul play in connection with the Apollo Moon landings.

Allow me to summarize my position, in the context of the foregoing, based on what I've written earlier in the thread:
Evidence has been presented by various people that identifies seeming anomalies in some of the Apollo records and data. Some of that evidence seems valid.
Such evidence has been challenged and refuted by various people. Much of the refutation relies on study and analysis of a far lesser degree than the original evidence presented, or is refuted on theoretical grounds only.
Taking into account the claims and counterclaims there seems to be some doubt as to the genuineness of some of the Apollo records and data.
On balance, with regard to the evidence for and against, and the circumstances, I'd say man has probably landed on the moon. I'd give it a 95% probability to show my degree of 'conviction', but as a meaningful measure that's a somewhat arbitrary figure.
I'd like to see further objective analysis and debate regarding the evidence presented against the Apollo Moon landings that has not been conclusively refuted.That's all; nothing more.

Which "Aldrin" photo would that be ?

It would be the one introduced by me in Post #86, discussed (and linked to) in Posts #87 and #88 and again specifically linked to very kindly by Thabiguy in Post #91 (Thanks Thabiguy, that's a beautiful full-colour reproduction).

Just as a side note, I've never seen any evidence brought about by moon hoaxers that has ever even made me doubt that man has gone to the moon. Every picture or factoid I've seen I've either been able to debunk on my own or with 5 minutes of googling. I hope your 'evidence' will be more convincing.

I can only draw your attention to or re-present evidence already in existence. As I've said, I'm not here to try to present the case again, or my own case. I believe you've never seen the Groves study and analysis of the Aldrin photo though, have you? I've asked the Forum organisers if it's OK to post it. If they say yes you'll be able to see it on Sunday.

[Southwind17]

Maybe he should have tried to locate a topological map of the area for more accurate calculations.
He could have tried here if he was serious about his work.
http://www.geocities.com/bobandrepont/apollosci.htm

I've just perused this website, which essentially just contains links to documents. Working down the list of linked documents, it's not obvious which comprise or contain the detailed topographical maps of the loction where the Aldrin photo was taken to which you allude. Would you be so kind as to direct me to it/them, to save me having to open and examine the long list of linked documents. Thank you in anticipation.

[Belz...]

What 'fallacy'?

Saying "Fair enough. I guess some people are of a more sensitive disposition than others.", instead of just "fair enough", when I mentioned I had reported your post. Obviously, you seem to think it serves your "side" to insinuate that I reported your post because I have a "more sensitive disposition" than you do, rather than for violation of the forum rules.

quote me essentially out of context to try to discredit me or my opinions

Out of context ? You said you were unconvinced. What exactly does that mean, if not exactly what it says ? I did read the rest of your paragraph, but it in no way nullifies or alters the first sentence.

seek to ridicule my opinions simply based on their opinions

So you... have no problem with me telling you that your opinion is ridiculous... but you have a problem when I ridicule your opinion ? Is there a difference ?

And, no. It's not because it's MY opinion. It's a fact.

believe it's my opinions that they're seeking to ridicule when, actually, I'm asserting something other than my opinions

If it's not what you believe, then perhaps you shouldn't say "I" when saying it.

harbour such strong convinctions that they're incapable of allowing for the possibility, regardless of how remote, that my opinions might actually have some merit

I did consider the possibility, and rejected it, several years ago. Moreover, I don't know how you can tell how strong my convictions are by reading a single sentence like "feel free to join reality".

harbour such strong convictions that they default to an extremely defensive position that precludes them from even considering the possibility that they might not be 100% correct themselves

Oh, that was not a defense, trust me. It was an attack.

I could go on, but hopefully you get the message.

Yes. You have a problem with people telling you your opinions are ridiculous.

I have noticed that there are some subjects inevitably arising on these forum for which, on certain suggestions associated therewith, the ensuing 'debate' on the part of those refuting such suggestions very quickly, if not immediately, becomes obviouly driven almost wholly by passion and high emotion, as opposed to rational, logical, civilized objectivity.

We call those woo-woos. Seriously, though. I have no passion about any of those subjects, though I suppose you could say that ignorance does get me somewhat emotional.

This usually manifests as mockery, sarcasm, condescension, ad hominem comments and derogation.

Unfortunately for you, any number of reasons result in mockery, sarcasm, condescension, ad hominem comments and derogation, so I don't think they indicate that I, or anybody else, has no argument. I'm sure you realise that, when confronted with a claim that has been debunked over and over and over, someone like me might be inclined to answer in short strikes rather than long posts. Something along the lines of "read a book", for example.

Two such subjects are homosexuality and conspiracy theories.

I can't remember the last time homosexuality caused such a ruckus while I was there.

After I cited the Wikipedia poll earlier I realized that, given the propensity for Americans' belief in god, a large proportion, possibly the majority, of respondents who registered their belief that man has landed on the Moon probably also believe in god.

Well, isn't that a nice, plump tautology, since most respondents were Americans !

What does this suggest? It suggests, at least to me, that a large proportion of people who believe man landed on the Moon have formed that belief not on any rational, objective consideration of the pros and cons in the light of a possible conspiracy, but on blind faith

That is indeed a possibility. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of non-skeptical atheists out there. They were simply raised that way just like theists were. However, since I'm sure you are aware of the argument from belief, you must know that it works both ways. Just because someone doesn't have reasons to believe in something, doesn't mean that something isn't true, so the belief itself is not an argument, either way.

faith in the US Government of the time, and by extension NASA, not wishing to deceive the World in pursuit of immeasurable political gain.

That amounts to the CTers argument that goes like this "well, I guess you think goverments never lie, right ?". Of course, it's a dodge, designed to draw attention away from the argument. The evidence shows we went to the moon. Politics has nothing to do with it.

Now, you'll probably throw another fallacy category at me (you seem to like your fallacy pidgeon holes, as they ostensibly afford a ready-made defence)

The only people who don't like fallacies being mentioned are those who use them.

On balance, with regard to the evidence for and against, and the circumstances, I'd say man has probably landed on the moon. I'd give it a 95% probability to show my degree of 'conviction', but as a meaningful measure that's a somewhat arbitrary figure.

95% and you're still "uncertain" ? I suppose, if you think "certain" means that you're 100%, ironclad sure, then you're uncertain about everything, making the word completely worthless.

That's all; nothing more.

Well, that clears it up.

[uruk]

OK, if you want to be cynical and call it a guess-timate fair enough. But please realize that any estimate of absolutely anything is not 100% accurate by definition. The difference between something labelled as an estimate and a guess-timate usually just boils down to the inherent level of accuracy. I assume you've studied Groves' analysis?!? To be honest, no. Ive been waiting to see if you will be able to post his work. The point I was making is that if his initial numbers are off so will the results.

[qoute]And as for Groves using the picture as a basis for analyzing the picture(!!!), well, I'm sure he'd hate to miss the opportunity to beg your pardon! Exactly what, instead of the picture, do you reasonably expect could be used to prove or disporove an apparent anomaly within the picture? Let's see shall we:[/quote] Well the problem is that what can be seen from a single picture limits you. You are missing information, depth being one. Its easy to missinterpret.
Did he use other pictures of the area where the picture was taken to help extapolate the height?


We're talking about a topological variation over a horizontal distance of only 3.847m on a position of the lunar surface that isn't known exactly. I'll check out your link later, but does it afford the necessary information for a more accurate calculation than Groves' i.e. something other than a 'guess-timate'? I'll tell you what, why don't you go ahead and perform the calculation for us (we don't need Groves to do it, do we, his background, experience and qualifications clearly count for nothing!). I look forward to studying your results! There were at least three small craters near the landing site. I'd have to look deeper into the documentation to find the measurments.

Hey, you don't have to get upset. I'm just questioning his assumptions.
It would be good if you could post his calculations

[Southwind17]

To be honest, no. Ive been waiting to see if you will be able to post his work. The point I was making is that if his initial numbers are off so will the results.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'initial numbers', but hopefully I can post the analysis tomorrow and we can take it from there. I'm as keen as anybody to hear what people have to say about the analysis.

Well the problem is that what can be seen from a single picture limits you. You are missing information, depth being one. Its easy to missinterpret. Did he use other pictures of the area where the picture was taken to help extapolate the height?

I agree, but I suspect, given that Aldrin and Armstrong were the only two astronauts allegedly on the moon at that time taking photos, that no other photos exist that can be used to help corroborate the photo under question. Groves' analysis is rather thorough, though.

Hey, you don't have to get upset. I'm just questioning his assumptions.
It would be good if you could post his calculations

I'm not getting upset in the slightest. Whilst you'd now like it to be seen that you're 'just questioning his assumptions', your earlier wording does, clearly, infer an absence of sincerety, which I consider disingenuous given that you have yet to set eyes on the analysis:
So in other words he made a guess-timation based on his interpretation of a picture. Right, Highly scientific.

Maybe he should have tried to locate a topological map of the area for more accurate calculations.
He could have tried here if he was serious about his work.

[Belz...]

So, Southwind. I'm still waiting ...

[VonNeumann]

At TAM they gave a good conference where they discussed the supposed documentary that seemed to make a pretty convincing case that man didn't walk on the moon-- it appears to have made doubters out of a lot of people... But it was silly pseudoscience made to hone in on peoples' penchant for conspiracy-- always a big seller-- and it does make astronauts very angry because this is a real live scientific marvel and like always-- lies are getting the glory while the aspersions are cast as science and truth.

I worked for NASA during the Apollo program. Of course all the stupid stuff I more recently saw suggesting conspiracy can easily be dismissed out of hand. But then when I am challenged by a CT-ist, I always bring up the fact that it would be impossible to fool the people working on the project - I was there. Subsequently, I worked on development of the communications switch that replaced the earlier communications switch that went (1975) into Cheyenne Mountain. I watched data from ALSEP (Apollo Lunar Scientific Experiment Package) come through there -- that would have been hard to fake. Nevertheless, I believe we should all be vigilant and prepared to be skeptical of baloney we are fed because there ARE conspiracies. Beware those who say "there are NO conspiracies". Although I think Rush Limbaugh says that just to keep people from calling him a kook. I know of a couple good war stories from those days but I think it could just be categorized at "politics as usual" rather than "conspiracy".

On this OP, I think one thing I didn't see mentioned that is important w.r.t. a trip to Mars is the potential of heavy nuclei bombarding the astronauts at near light speed. Just how many holes can you stand to have in your brain and body before you go nuts or get cancer? The few years round trip allows a lot of time for severe damage and the nuclei may already render the astronauts useless before they get to Mars.

[drzeus99]

Allow me to present you with some 'facts' from Wikipedia:



So that's 11% of the US population who remain to be convinced. What's that in numbers of people?

Doesn't quite equate to the 99%, 99.99% or 99.99999% (would you care to posit 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999%?) that you state, presumably as fact, above does it.

Would you like a napkin with that runny egg sir?! :rolleyes:

I know I said I'd give you the last word, but you did ask me a question, and
I feeled compelled to explain something to you, along the lines of logic and reason.

No runny eggs at all. My statement claiming 99% would be of *reasonable,
intelligent people". Sorry I didn't clarify that. I wrongly assumed you would know what I meant. No reason to include the dummies..makes no sense.

Your numbers would come out to:
Umm...33 million misinformed people? (but the poll doesn't include the
children of the population, so that number might be 20 million misinformed
people). Doesn't surprise me one bit. Even if it was that much, there's a certain % of the population that are plain old dummies. A rather sizeable % at that too.

But 99% would be of intelligent people. I'd hardly call every poll taker "intelligent" or even reasonable.,


You state that some Gallup poll of Americans claim that 5% of Americans are not convinced that man landed on the moon, and another 6% were undecided, correct?

First off, the day I let OTHERS do the thinking for me is the day I'm dead. IOW, NEVER. What type of simple minded sheep would let OTHERS decide what they should think or what they should believe in? Answer me that!

2nd, I don't think any poll in the history of the world, when asked of a large enough # of people (let's say 10,000 or even as little as 100 people) has EVER or WILL EVER result in a 100% similar response. If you polled 10,000 random people on the streets of any major city and asked them if they believed the world was flat or round, you STILL WOULDN'T GET 100% of the people to agree.

If you didn't know, not everyone has a stable mind, and many more people have stable minds but are irrational. It's delusional to think that you would get a 100% (or even 98%) response when asking ANY question, let alone one that is already part of a mythical "conspiracy theory".

(Hence my not including this % of the population when I came up with my estimate.)

If you randomly sampled a large number of people, you can present them with any question that has entered the conspiracy theory world and NEVER EVER get more than 98% to go along with the popular, accepted believe.

You could ask if Elvis is still alive, if aliens abduct people, if <insert your favorite mysterious creature here> exists, if spirits exist, if people can bend spoons with their mind, if people can contact the dead, if people can use their minds to levitate, if psychics can truly defy the laws of physics....etc.

You can even ask people if blood is red, and still not get 100% of the respondents to agree. You'll have people SWEAR that blood is blue (look
at the veins in their arms) and claim that "when it hits oxygen, it turns red in color, but it, in fact, is really blue.

Does that make the minorities claims valid? Of course not!

It is a FACT that you will NEVER EVER get a consensus of 100% of the people to say any particular one does not exist.

People LOVE conspiracy theories. That's a FACT too. People LOVE to have faith in the supernatural and unknown. And not with any proof, mind you, but just because it's fun and cool to believe in.

People have always been known to be easily duped. Just watch any Penn & Teller episode that has them presenting some form of known woo to people and watch them turn into mindless sheep just believing anything they are told that's presented as factual and true by someone who who appears to know what they are talking about. This is FACT, not specualtion.

People, by nature, are gullible and naive. The human population,as a whole, has a sheep mentality. They tend to be easily duped, tricked, taken advantage of, and scammed. People tend to take information they receive as factual, without any bearing to truth. When people are told something is true, especially by anyone with authority, they tend to, in general, believe what they are told.

Tell people that Dihydrogen Monoxide is dangerous, and ask them to sign a petetion to ban it, and in the VAST majority of cases, people will do it. Now, ask them the same question when in a group environment, and they see others signing the petetion, they becoming even more suseptable to just becoming part of the group "sheep" mentality. Those who might have had reservations or questioned whether they should sign the petition will GREATLY be influenced by the overall mentality of the group as a whole, and even reasonable, logical, and critical thinking people have been known to have been caught up in this "sheep" mentality.

That's the nature of humans. Simple as that. People (in general) are content to be sheep and just go along with what others tell them. Because of this, when they hear woo, they treat it with the same level of respect as everything else they hear. Being that most of the time people are simply told facts at work and from the news, they give the same level of credence to EVERYTHING they hear, rather than sorting out the woo from the truth.

With that said, it's clear that: (when surveying large groups):

1. You will NEVER get 100% of people to agree on anything, ESPECIALLY anything that "might" be considered to be part of some conspiracy.
2. No one should EVER base THEIR opinions on any polls or surveys because
there are simply too many mis/un/ill informed people out there.
3. People should use their OWN minds to formulate opinions. To reach an
opinion, one would be wise to employ critical thinking, logic, common sense,
research, and maybe even getting opinions from others. But, to make other
people's opinions more vaild (yes, there is such a thing), it would be
smart to question people of a higher education and those professionals
that are in the field of work that one wishes to gain information on.
4. Just because not 100% of a group agrees in something, that fact can
NEVER be used to say something isn't factual or not. With a large enough
group, someone will always disagree with the majority.
5. Failure to reach 100% consensus on any issue does NOT mean something
isn't true or factual. Never has, never will.
6. Because the world is full of dummies and idiots, it's simply insane to let
their opinions have ANY basis in what's true or not.
7. Why in the world would anyone think a poll of the US population would
be a reliable indicator as to what the facts are?????


You see. Your argument has come to picking a statement and playing semantics with it. You full well knew what I was saying. You'd get an almost
certain consensus between intelligent adults that the moon landings occurred.
I'll grant you that a certain % will ALWAYS fall into a fringe group.
I'll say once more...there misinformed thoughts have NO bearing on what the TRUTH is.

Now, people have given you MUCH information that answered many of your questions (or pointed you to sites that did). A reasonable, rational, intelligent person would listen to, what turns out to be, I think, 100% of the replies to your questioning the facts behind the moon landings. Unless another person from the very small fringe conspiracy group replied, I didn't see it. Excuse me in that case. Here, you have a large group of some VERY intelligent people, being respectful (mostly) and answering your doubts and pointing you to places that would be of great assistance

Hopefully you will have taken this information and formulated an opinion based on true facts, and not sensationalism based of wrong information.

How you can't be aware that everyone of the conspiracy questions has been long ago answered and explained away just amazes me. You don't think that if there was one grain of truth into this ridiculous claim that journalists would be on this like no other story in the world. Discovering a conspiracy regarding the moon landings would be a BIGGER STORY than the moon landings themselves. They'd certainly get international recognition, fame, fortune, and become known throughout the world as those who uncovered a REAL conspiracy. They'd be written down in all the history books to be immortalized forever. But you know what...not gonna happen.

Even if I did have runny eggs, it's better than eating cereal with a fork and having milk dribble down my face :rolleyes:


Cheers,
DrZ

[Southwind17]

I know I said I'd give you the last word, but you did ask me a question, and
I feeled compelled to explain something to you, along the lines of logic and reason.

Now, something's making me think that it was never your intention to allow anybody to have the last word. I wonder what that could be? Let's take a look shall we:
No runny eggs at all. My statement claiming 99% would be of *reasonable,
intelligent people". Sorry I didn't clarify that. I wrongly assumed you would know what I meant. No reason to include the dummies..makes no sense.

Your numbers would come out to:
Umm...33 million misinformed people? (but the poll doesn't include the
children of the population, so that number might be 20 million misinformed
people). Doesn't surprise me one bit. Even if it was that much, there's a certain % of the population that are plain old dummies. A rather sizeable % at that too.

But 99% would be of intelligent people. I'd hardly call every poll taker "intelligent" or even reasonable.,


You state that some Gallup poll of Americans claim that 5% of Americans are not convinced that man landed on the moon, and another 6% were undecided, correct?

First off, the day I let OTHERS do the thinking for me is the day I'm dead. IOW, NEVER. What type of simple minded sheep would let OTHERS decide what they should think or what they should believe in? Answer me that!

2nd, I don't think any poll in the history of the world, when asked of a large enough # of people (let's say 10,000 or even as little as 100 people) has EVER or WILL EVER result in a 100% similar response. If you polled 10,000 random people on the streets of any major city and asked them if they believed the world was flat or round, you STILL WOULDN'T GET 100% of the people to agree.

If you didn't know, not everyone has a stable mind, and many more people have stable minds but are irrational. It's delusional to think that you would get a 100% (or even 98%) response when asking ANY question, let alone one that is already part of a mythical "conspiracy theory".

(Hence my not including this % of the population when I came up with my estimate.)

If you randomly sampled a large number of people, you can present them with any question that has entered the conspiracy theory world and NEVER EVER get more than 98% to go along with the popular, accepted believe.

You could ask if Elvis is still alive, if aliens abduct people, if <insert your favorite mysterious creature here> exists, if spirits exist, if people can bend spoons with their mind, if people can contact the dead, if people can use their minds to levitate, if psychics can truly defy the laws of physics....etc.

You can even ask people if blood is red, and still not get 100% of the respondents to agree. You'll have people SWEAR that blood is blue (look
at the veins in their arms) and claim that "when it hits oxygen, it turns red in color, but it, in fact, is really blue.

Does that make the minorities claims valid? Of course not!

It is a FACT that you will NEVER EVER get a consensus of 100% of the people to say any particular one does not exist.

People LOVE conspiracy theories. That's a FACT too. People LOVE to have faith in the supernatural and unknown. And not with any proof, mind you, but just because it's fun and cool to believe in.

People have always been known to be easily duped. Just watch any Penn & Teller episode that has them presenting some form of known woo to people and watch them turn into mindless sheep just believing anything they are told that's presented as factual and true by someone who who appears to know what they are talking about. This is FACT, not specualtion.

People, by nature, are gullible and naive. The human population,as a whole, has a sheep mentality. They tend to be easily duped, tricked, taken advantage of, and scammed. People tend to take information they receive as factual, without any bearing to truth. When people are told something is true, especially by anyone with authority, they tend to, in general, believe what they are told.

Tell people that Dihydrogen Monoxide is dangerous, and ask them to sign a petetion to ban it, and in the VAST majority of cases, people will do it. Now, ask them the same question when in a group environment, and they see others signing the petetion, they becoming even more suseptable to just becoming part of the group "sheep" mentality. Those who might have had reservations or questioned whether they should sign the petition will GREATLY be influenced by the overall mentality of the group as a whole, and even reasonable, logical, and critical thinking people have been known to have been caught up in this "sheep" mentality.

That's the nature of humans. Simple as that. People (in general) are content to be sheep and just go along with what others tell them. Because of this, when they hear woo, they treat it with the same level of respect as everything else they hear. Being that most of the time people are simply told facts at work and from the news, they give the same level of credence to EVERYTHING they hear, rather than sorting out the woo from the truth.

With that said, it's clear that: (when surveying large groups):

1. You will NEVER get 100% of people to agree on anything, ESPECIALLY anything that "might" be considered to be part of some conspiracy.
2. No one should EVER base THEIR opinions on any polls or surveys because
there are simply too many mis/un/ill informed people out there.
3. People should use their OWN minds to formulate opinions. To reach an
opinion, one would be wise to employ critical thinking, logic, common sense,
research, and maybe even getting opinions from others. But, to make other
people's opinions more vaild (yes, there is such a thing), it would be
smart to question people of a higher education and those professionals
that are in the field of work that one wishes to gain information on.
4. Just because not 100% of a group agrees in something, that fact can
NEVER be used to say something isn't factual or not. With a large enough
group, someone will always disagree with the majority.
5. Failure to reach 100% consensus on any issue does NOT mean something
isn't true or factual. Never has, never will.
6. Because the world is full of dummies and idiots, it's simply insane to let
their opinions have ANY basis in what's true or not.
7. Why in the world would anyone think a poll of the US population would
be a reliable indicator as to what the facts are?????


You see. Your argument has come to picking a statement and playing semantics with it. You full well knew what I was saying. You'd get an almost
certain consensus between intelligent adults that the moon landings occurred.
I'll grant you that a certain % will ALWAYS fall into a fringe group.
I'll say once more...there misinformed thoughts have NO bearing on what the TRUTH is.

Now, people have given you MUCH information that answered many of your questions (or pointed you to sites that did). A reasonable, rational, intelligent person would listen to, what turns out to be, I think, 100% of the replies to your questioning the facts behind the moon landings. Unless another person from the very small fringe conspiracy group replied, I didn't see it. Excuse me in that case. Here, you have a large group of some VERY intelligent people, being respectful (mostly) and answering your doubts and pointing you to places that would be of great assistance

Hopefully you will have taken this information and formulated an opinion based on true facts, and not sensationalism based of wrong information.

How you can't be aware that everyone of the conspiracy questions has been long ago answered and explained away just amazes me. You don't think that if there was one grain of truth into this ridiculous claim that journalists would be on this like no other story in the world. Discovering a conspiracy regarding the moon landings would be a BIGGER STORY than the moon landings themselves. They'd certainly get international recognition, fame, fortune, and become known throughout the world as those who uncovered a REAL conspiracy. They'd be written down in all the history books to be immortalized forever. But you know what...not gonna happen.

Even if I did have runny eggs, it's better than eating cereal with a fork and having milk dribble down my face :rolleyes:


Cheers,
DrZ

And what was it that started all this population statistics malarkey:
They fall in with the fringe group and deny the 99.99% of the population who knows otherwise...yet SOMEHOW think THEY are right and the 99% are wrong!!
Did you ever think when 99.99999% of a humungous group believes something to be factual based on credible evidence that it's true?

Now allow me to explain something to you 'along the lines of logic and reason':

If somebody who clearly likes to harp on about the importance of factual information is predisposed to pulling figures out of the air, wildly exaggerated figures at that, in support of an argument, then that peson should not be surprised to be met with some empirical data that purports to challenge such figures.

Having been presented with such data, to then post a diatribe on the ins and outs of data collection and interpretation, well, that does raise certain key questions, in addition to questions regarding the initial 'data', about that person's ability to form any sort of logical argument.

[Southwind17]

So, Southwind. I'm still waiting ...

Well, with posts like this it's obvious you're spoiling for some sort of a spat. Ordinarily, I'd be inclined to ignore you and let you wallow in your own self-attribution bias, but on this occasion I'll undulge you, given the incredulity of your response that you're enticing me to comment on. Unfortunately for you, though, I intend to be civil and fair, which you might have difficulty assimilating, but here goes (I might have to let slip with a little sarcasm mind, because your response, with respect, is simply crying out for some. I trust you will see this as fair game, though, when one actively seeks out a spat, and that you won't find it offensive. I will keep in mind your apparent sensitivity, though!):

Saying "Fair enough. I guess some people are of a more sensitive disposition than others.", instead of just "fair enough", when I mentioned I had reported your post. Obviously, you seem to think it serves your "side" to insinuate that I reported your post because I have a "more sensitive disposition" than you do, rather than for violation of the forum rules.

I'll ask again: What fallacy? What part, exactly, of what I wrote, as quoted by you above, do you believe is 'fallacious'?

Also, I don't understand your reference to 'side', and what purpose you think my 'insinuation' seeks to 'serve'. Are you able to clarify?


Out of context ? You said you were unconvinced. What exactly does that mean, if not exactly what it says ? I did read the rest of your paragraph, but it in no way nullifies or alters the first sentence.
Please, allow me to quote the original 'first sentence':
I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon, but if I were a betting man I'd say that we probably did, although you'd have to give me good odds!
Now let's remind ourselves exactly of the 'first sentence' you quoted:
I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon

Other than the fact that you seem to mistake commas for full stops, your selective quote was clearly intended to set you up for a well-timed attempt at sarcasm:
I believe that this is what people mean when they say "you just went down a notch."

Sheesh. Feel free to join reality, any time.

I believe that quoting the full sentence not only would have stolen your irresistible thunder, but would also have put paid to the false impression that you clearly sought to give by quoting only the selective portion. It would be very difficult for any reasonable person to believe that the partial quote and the full quote paint an equal picture of what I truly believe.


So you... have no problem with me telling you that your opinion is ridiculous... but you have a problem when I ridicule your opinion ? Is there a difference ?

I wrote that I tend to find it irritating when people seek to ridicule my opinion based solely on their own opinions. Unless there is more to an argument than opinion then it can hardly be considered a sound basis to ridicule others' opinions, unless derogation is the aim. Accordingly, I might tend to find it irritating if somebody were either to 'tell' me my opinion is ridiculous or were to 'ridicule' my opinion. I'm not sure there really is much of a difference, but one thing's for sure, I certainly wouldn't find your telling or ridiculing my opinions irritating, given the extent to which you've discredited your own credibility in this post particularly, but also by your seeming tendency to selectively quote for nothing more than personal gratification.


And, no. It's not because it's MY opinion. It's a fact.

What, exactly, are you referring to when you write: 'it's'? What's 'a fact'?


If it's not what you believe, then perhaps you shouldn't say "I" when saying it.

What, exactly, are you referring to when you write: 'it's'? What do you believe I have I stated I don't believe?


I did consider the possibility, and rejected it, several years ago.

Oh, so we're all entitled to consider the possibility are we, but because some of us might start later, or take longer, until we've reached a conclusion, as you obviously did, then until such time we have to sustain the wrath of your discrediting tactics do we? The very fact that you 'considered the possibility' demonstrates that there was a time when you remained to be convinced (I wonder what cast the doubt in your mind!). Are you saying that everybody should accept whatever conclusion you drew and toe the line, or are we entitled to pursue our own enquiries and form our own opinions based on the information that we obtain, some of which, clearly, you haven't even set eyes on?


Moreover, I don't know how you can tell how strong my convictions are by reading a single sentence like "feel free to join reality".
Well, I'd be very surprised to see somebody posting sarcastic comments as an attempt at derrogation if there was a chance such comments and inference could be turned back on that person if they were to show any doubt in their convictions later, wouldn't you? Your sarcy comments demonstrate exactly your degree of conviction, no different in principle from the plethora of bible-bashers out there.


Oh, that was not a defense, trust me. It was an attack.

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you write: 'that'. Are you able to clarify?


Yes. You have a problem with people telling you your opinions are ridiculous.

I believe I've clarified this above, for your benefit.


We call those woo-woos. Seriously, though. I have no passion about any of those subjects, though I suppose you could say that ignorance does get me somewhat emotional.

I'm sorry, who, exactly, is 'we'? And who, exactly, do these 'we' people refer to as 'woo-woos'?

You have no passion? But one of the very subjects to which I allude, and subsequently refer, is CTs, of which the Apollo Moon landings is one. You seem pretty passionate to me, which, as I pointed out, can tend to colour one's objective judgement.

By 'ignorance' do you mean your own, or other people's, seriously? You'll be champing at the bit to see the Groves study and analysis, presumably?


Unfortunately for you, any number of reasons result in mockery, sarcasm, condescension, ad hominem comments and derogation, so I don't think they indicate that I, or anybody else, has no argument. I'm sure you realise that, when confronted with a claim that has been debunked over and over and over, someone like me might be inclined to answer in short strikes rather than long posts. Something along the lines of "read a book", for example.

If you have an argument, as you imply, so make it, instead of resorting to the evasive and cheap alternative strategies that we both seem to recognize. Yes, I do recognize what you describe, and I've given my perceived reasons why some people resort to these tactics. The better debaters out there avoid this immature behaviour, though, and try to pass on in an objective and convincing fashion the information, arguments and reasons that they've acquired through their, presumably, extensive study of the subject, and that's led them to their conclusions. It's a little like teaching. Any teacher could simply instruct students to 'go read a book'. That's not a very intelligent and tuitional approach, though, is it. Given that you've clearly shown here which category you fit into I suppose there's an argument to say that you can be forgiven for your comments. Incidentally, would books such as 'Dark Moon', including Groves' study and analysis, happen to be one of the 'books' to which your example alludes, or would you just advocate books that seek to show the side of the argument that reflects your own convictions?


I can't remember the last time homosexuality caused such a ruckus while I was there.

I assume you're referring to the Forum! You see, Belz, this is what happens with selective quoting. You can just see that one headlining a broadsheet, can't you?!

Well, you couldn't have participated in this one then, which is still current: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2982605#post2982605


Well, isn't that a nice, plump tautology, since most respondents were Americans !

I can see why you might consider what I said to be tautological. What I'm getting at, however, is that the reason why many Americans believe in god, in my opinion, accounts for why so many Americans shudder at the thought of even considering the possibility that the Apollo Lunar landings could have been faked. Therefore, any straw poll of Americans regarding their position on the matter that might be used to gauge any likelihood of truth based on popular opinion (see below) is fundamentally flawed, leading to an artificially high proportion of 'believers'.


That is indeed a possibility. After all, I'm sure there are plenty of non-skeptical atheists out there. They were simply raised that way just like theists were. However, since I'm sure you are aware of the argument from belief, you must know that it works both ways. Just because someone doesn't have reasons to believe in something, doesn't mean that something isn't true, so the belief itself is not an argument, either way.

I am aware of that argument (is it a fallacy?), and we will both, no doubt, agree that it puts paid nicely to the good doctor's fidgety figures, doesn't it:
They fall in with the fringe group and deny the 99.99% of the population who knows otherwise...yet SOMEHOW think THEY are right and the 99% are wrong!!
Did you ever think when 99.99999% of a humungous group believes something to be factual based on credible evidence that it's true?

I'd like to bet that the proportion of Americans who've taken longer than a second even to consider whether the Apollo Moon landings could have possibly been faked is inversely proportional to the figure(s) that the good doctor posits as the number of Americans who have no doubts, notwithstanding that the good doctor posits his figures as based on 'fact' derived from 'credible evidence'! I wonder which 'facts' and 'credible evidence', exactly, he's alluding to? Blind faith!


That amounts to the CTers argument that goes like this "well, I guess you think goverments never lie, right ?". Of course, it's a dodge, designed to draw attention away from the argument. The evidence shows we went to the moon. Politics has nothing to do with it.

I'm not sure what you mean when you write: 'the argument'. What 'argument', exactly, are you referring to?

Are you saying that if it were to be shown at some point that the whole thing was a conspiracy (if you can even imagine that concept, that is!), that it wasn't driven by political gain?! Moreover, are you saying that politics had nothing to with the 'space race' period?!


The only people who don't like fallacies being mentioned are those who use them.

That's surely only your opinion (again), but I think you mean 'those who commit them'. I don't mind fallacies being mentioned, provided they're cited legitimately and honestly. In my opinion, the 'Fallacy of Fallacious Fallacy Calling' is commited far too frequently around these parts by people all too eager to seek to discredit a valid argument because they often don't have as strong a counter-argument to offer in their defence.


95% and you're still "uncertain" ? I suppose, if you think "certain" means that you're 100%, ironclad sure, then you're uncertain about everything, making the word completely worthless.

This refers back to what I wrote earlier, you'll recall.

No, 95% cannot mean 'certain' by any reasonable person's analysis of such measure. If you really want to appreciate what 95% certainty feels like, or better still 5% uncertainty, consider playing Russian Roulette with one round and just two 10-chamber revolvers - just one pull of the trigger. I reckon the look on your face, not to mention the sweat running down your back, would reveal better than anything what 95% certainty really looks like!


Well, that clears it up.

I think it certainly rounds things off nicely! Was it worth waiting for? ;)

[Belz...]

Unfortunately for you, though, I intend to be civil and fair

Why would that be unfortunate ? What I find unfortunate is that one comment, admittedly a little harsh, resulted in a reaction I'd expect from someone I nearby beat to death in an alley. I think you overreacted.

I'll ask again: What fallacy? What part, exactly, of what I wrote, as quoted by you above, do you believe is 'fallacious'?

You're trying to make the reason for reporting your post emotional rather than simply the rules of the forum. And you're doing it deliberatly. Sounds somewhat like an ad hom to me, though it's not exactly it. So it's probably a fallacy, though I don't know the name.

Also, I don't understand your reference to 'side', and what purpose you think my 'insinuation' seeks to 'serve'. Are you able to clarify?

Actually, if you don't understand then it means I'm probably wrong, so that's good.

Now let's remind ourselves exactly of the 'first sentence' you quoted:

Other than the fact that you seem to mistake commas for full stops, your selective quote was clearly intended to set you up for a well-timed attempt at sarcasm:

Oh, it wasn't sarcasm, as I told you before. It was a simple attack. Saying that there's 75% chance of humans having set foot on the moon, for example, would support your claim that, if you were a betting man, you'd go for the "Aye"s. But you STILL say you're unconvinced, and that's nay-saying it me. You were caught saying something silly, and now you're wiggling, plain and simple.

I believe that quoting the full sentence not only would have stolen your irresistible thunder, but would also have put paid to the false impression that you clearly sought to give by quoting only the selective portion.

Not at all. Look:

I remain unconvinced that man has actually walked on the moon, but if I were a betting man I'd say that we probably did, although you'd have to give me good odds!

I believe that this is what people mean when they say "you just went down a notch."

Sheesh. Feel free to join reality, any time.

And, by the way, "you'd have to give me good odds" implies that you don't think the odds are that good.

I wrote that I tend to find it irritating when people seek to ridicule my opinion based solely on their own opinions.

Then worry no more. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence that we went to the moon, so it's far from being an opinion.

given the extent to which you've discredited your own credibility in this post particularly, but also by your seeming tendency to selectively quote for nothing more than personal gratification.

And again you try to probe my mind. Stay away from psychology.

What, exactly, are you referring to when you write: 'it's'? What do you believe I have I stated I don't believe?

That you are unconvinced that we went to the moon.

Oh, so we're all entitled to consider the possibility are we, but because some of us might start later, or take longer, until we've reached a conclusion, as you obviously did, then until such time we have to sustain the wrath of your discrediting tactics do we?

You DID say you had researched the subject, didn't you ? Haven't you already reached your conclusion ? If you haven't, then fine, I retract what I said, though I don't understand what's taking so long. Otherwise, it stands.

The very fact that you 'considered the possibility' demonstrates that there was a time when you remained to be convinced (I wonder what cast the doubt in your mind!).

Nope. I'm a skeptic. When presented with evidence, I examine it first. I did, and rejected it. I was never "unconvinced".

By 'ignorance' do you mean your own, or other people's, seriously?

Anybody's, including my own.

If you have an argument, as you imply, so make it

Simple: sarcasm doesn't mean the other person doesn't have a point.

Given that you've clearly shown here which category you fit into

Say, I'll bite. What category would this be ?

Incidentally, would books such as 'Dark Moon', including Groves' study and analysis, happen to be one of the 'books' to which your example alludes, or would you just advocate books that seek to show the side of the argument that reflects your own convictions?

Read them all, if you want to. When I look for information on a controversial subject, I look at both sides, and examine their arguments.

Well, you couldn't have participated in this one then, which is still current: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2982605#post2982605

Ah! I seem to remember this old beast, now. Though the only thing I remember posting in it was about religion.

I am aware of that argument (is it a fallacy?), and we will both, no doubt, agree that it puts paid nicely to the good doctor's fidgety figures, doesn't it:

When someone puts more than one zero after the decimal point, I tend to be highly skeptical of the claim. :D

I'd like to bet that the proportion of Americans who've taken longer than a second even to consider whether the Apollo Moon landings could have possibly been faked is inversely proportional to the figure(s) that the good doctor posits as the number of Americans who have no doubts, notwithstanding that the good doctor posits his figures as based on 'fact' derived from 'credible evidence'! I wonder which 'facts' and 'credible evidence', exactly, he's alluding to? Blind faith!

I don't see where you're going with this, except maybe a reverse argument from popularity, which is odd. Shouldn't we be looking at the evidence ?

Are you saying that if it were to be shown at some point that the whole thing was a conspiracy (if you can even imagine that concept, that is!), that it wasn't driven by political gain?! Moreover, are you saying that politics had nothing to with the 'space race' period?!

No, I'm saying that I don't trust governments, and that doesn't mean I disbelieve everything they say. I'm also saying that your claim didn't adress the argument, but the arguer, instead.

That's surely only your opinion (again)

It is.

but I think you mean 'those who commit them'.

Yes, thanks for the correction. English isn't my first language, so I still stumble, once in a while.

I don't mind fallacies being mentioned, provided they're cited legitimately and honestly. In my opinion, the 'Fallacy of Fallacious Fallacy Calling' is commited far too frequently around these parts by people all too eager to seek to discredit a valid argument because they often don't have as strong a counter-argument to offer in their defence.

How can you have a counter argument for something that isn't an argument ? That's the whole point of naming fallacies. They're non sequiturs, and they need to be shot down, not adressed.

No, 95% cannot mean 'certain' by any reasonable person's analysis of such measure. If you really want to appreciate what 95% certainty feels like, or better still 5% uncertainty, consider playing Russian Roulette with one round and just two 10-chamber revolvers - just one pull of the trigger. I reckon the look on your face, not to mention the sweat running down your back, would reveal better than anything what 95% certainty really looks like!

I suppose it would come as a surprise to you if I told you that the required amount of certainty varies with the subject we're discussing...

I think it certainly rounds things off nicely! Was it worth waiting for? ;)

Well, yes.

[Southwind17]

Belz - your last post responding to my last post misses some points made by me and shows some misunderstandings of what I've written. I see little merit, however, in taking our little side debate any further, but I'd be happy to clarify any points further if you're not satisfied with what I've written. Let me know if that's the case please.

[Corsair 115]

Simple question: how did the ALSEP packages get onto the Moon if not by the Apollo astronauts?

[Belz...]

Belz - your last post responding to my last post misses some points made by me and shows some misunderstandings of what I've written. I see little merit, however, in taking our little side debate any further, but I'd be happy to clarify any points further if you're not satisfied with what I've written. Let me know if that's the case please.

Sure thing, Wind. Why would you want to adress any of those misunderstandings, anyway...

[Southwind17]

Simple question: how did the ALSEP packages get onto the Moon if not by the Apollo astronauts?

I think you might have asked this before. I'm not familiar with ALSEP, and I haven't had chance to look into this yet, but the key questions I'll be asking myself when I do are:


What, exactly, are the ALSEP packages?
Is there conclusive proof that they're actually on the Moon?
Is it possible for them to get onto the moon remotely, i.e. in the absence of an astronaut also being on the Moon.

If the answers to 2 and 3 are 'yes' and 'no' respectively, I suppose I'd find it very difficult then justifying my scepticism.

Do you know the answers? I'd be interested to learn your views.

Thanks

[Southwind17]

Why would you want to adress any of those misunderstandings, anyway...

Well, I don't like to think that I've simply brow-beaten somebody into accepting my view, or saying they accept it. I like to know that they understand and appreciate my views and opinions. I genuinely see the Forum as a vehicle for learning, and I'd like to think that most other participants do too.

[Corsair 115]

Do you know the answers? I'd be interested to learn your views.I'm not an expert on the subject, but I have at least some knowledge of it, plus I can always dig up relevant info from books I have on hand or from internet sources.

I suggest you read up on the subject yourself and then post your analysis for myself and others to critique.

[VonNeumann]

I think you might have asked this before. I'm not familiar with ALSEP, and I haven't had chance to look into this yet, but the key questions I'll be asking myself when I do are:


What, exactly, are the ALSEP packages?
Is there conclusive proof that they're actually on the Moon?
Is it possible for them to get onto the moon remotely, i.e. in the absence of an astronaut also being on the Moon.

If the answers to 2 and 3 are 'yes' and 'no' respectively, I suppose I'd find it very difficult then justifying my scepticism.

Do you know the answers? I'd be interested to learn your views.

Thanks
Maybe you missed my post #144 above. I'll add on to it here:

I worked at NASA (Houston) in the 1972 to 1975 timeframe. I was at a party (a sort of reunion) with some NASA people a few weeks ago. I had not seen most of them in more than 25 years. I worked with them in Houston during the end of the Apollo program. Why don't you go Google ALSEP. I actually talked to one of my friends at the party who worked on ALSEP. ALSEP was left on the moon to allow experiments to be run for years afterward. It is nuclear powered and may still be functioning now! I think the money ran out more than a decade ago to assign personnel to it though-- I think my friend told me but I forgot already.

So to me it is funny to see CTs running around who believe we didn't send people to the moon. Do you think we had such high level secret clearances (the thousands of us?) and we are all lying about it to this day? ...or do you think we could have been fooled by a handful of insiders?

The community of engineers, mathematicians (most programmers in those days majored in math, not computer science), and scientists were/are ordinary people. We worked, we raised families, and we partied ... we lived ordinary lives. Many of us had ordinary clearances as it would have been cost prohibitive to have given high level secret clearances to everyone.

Not only did I have access to the secondary MOCR (mission operation control room) during missions, I had access to the data distribution and computing equipment during some of the missions. Under the primary and secondary MOCR, is the RTCC (real time computer complex) in which were three IBM 360/75 mainframes and two Cyber 73 mainframes. Originally the 3 IBM360s were supposed to run triple redundancy but after a few missions, we ran one in real-time, one in shadow and the 3rd was running batch jobs. I remember seeing ALSEP data being a regular batch job run in the RTCC way after the Apollo mission that put it up there. I knew some of the people who were involved with the ALSEP data. What do you think they were doing? Faking what they did? Or you think some insiders were making up data and feeding it to the people I knew, in order to dupe them? Later I worked as a contractor to the Air Force, involved in the design, testing and deployment of the communications multiplexer that is inside a hollowed-out mountain in Colorado. I saw data streaming through there from all over the place. To my knowledge, every bit of mission data, any data from space, came through that switch before it got sent elsewhere. There were BMEWS (ballistic missle early warning system) data and ALSEP data and I could see where it was coming from. I knew people who worked all over the world on the downlink communications systems, like Goldstone, etc.

There is no way that there could have been some small core of insiders who were faking out the rest of us. Impossible. Ludicrous!

But, I've read a bit of the CT stuff on the internet and I've read the NASA rebuttal. If you lack the scientific common sense to see that the CT claims are idiotic, then at least the NASA rebuttal should help you. You may not often come across some old fart who actually worked for NASA during the Apollo program, so if it helps you.... Dude! Wake up! We put people on the moon!

[Thabiguy]

Some accept evolution by natural selection and recognize ID as nonsense, but question the authenticity of Apollo space program. Some accept the fact of manned lunar missions and dismiss moon hoax accusations as ludicrous, yet reject the theory of evolution by natural selection in favor of intelligent design. And everyone is the hardcore skeptic.

The mind boggles.

How's the Groves analysis coming, Southwind17?

[Southwind17]

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I have at least some knowledge of it, plus I can always dig up relevant info from books I have on hand or from internet sources.

I suggest you read up on the subject yourself and then post your analysis for myself and others to critique.

Hang on a second Corsair. You've asked a very leading question (which I've responded to, albeit indirectly for the reason given therein), to which I can only assume you believe you know the answer. As such, it seems not unreasonable to me that you should provide that answer, which should, if conclusive, clear up in an instant this whole matter of your wishing to dispel my skepticism. I don't quite follow your thinking that I should research the subject so that I may then post my analysis for you and others to critique. If the information that you're suggesting I should discover constitutes conclusive evidence that man walked on the moon, why on Earth(!) would you, and others, wish to critique it. Do you remain doubtful yourself?!

If you're intention is simply to play cat & mouse then I'm afraid you'll just have to look for a more willing feline. What's it to be Corsair?

[Belz...]

Well, I don't like to think that I've simply brow-beaten somebody into accepting my view, or saying they accept it. I like to know that they understand and appreciate my views and opinions. I genuinely see the Forum as a vehicle for learning, and I'd like to think that most other participants do too.

Way to not answer...

[Southwind17]

Maybe you missed my post #144 above. I'll add on to it here:

I worked at NASA (Houston) in the 1972 to 1975 timeframe. I was at a party (a sort of reunion) with some NASA people a few weeks ago. I had not seen most of them in more than 25 years. I worked with them in Houston during the end of the Apollo program. Why don't you go Google ALSEP. I actually talked to one of my friends at the party who worked on ALSEP. ALSEP was left on the moon to allow experiments to be run for years afterward. It is nuclear powered and may still be functioning now! I think the money ran out more than a decade ago to assign personnel to it though-- I think my friend told me but I forgot already.

So to me it is funny to see CTs running around who believe we didn't send people to the moon. Do you think we had such high level secret clearances (the thousands of us?) and we are all lying about it to this day? ...or do you think we could have been fooled by a handful of insiders?

The community of engineers, mathematicians (most programmers in those days majored in math, not computer science), and scientists were/are ordinary people. We worked, we raised families, and we partied ... we lived ordinary lives. Many of us had ordinary clearances as it would have been cost prohibitive to have given high level secret clearances to everyone.

Not only did I have access to the secondary MOCR (mission operation control room) during missions, I had access to the data distribution and computing equipment during some of the missions. Under the primary and secondary MOCR, is the RTCC (real time computer complex) in which were three IBM 360/75 mainframes and two Cyber 73 mainframes. Originally the 3 IBM360s were supposed to run triple redundancy but after a few missions, we ran one in real-time, one in shadow and the 3rd was running batch jobs. I remember seeing ALSEP data being a regular batch job run in the RTCC way after the Apollo mission that put it up there. I knew some of the people who were involved with the ALSEP data. What do you think they were doing? Faking what they did? Or you think some insiders were making up data and feeding it to the people I knew, in order to dupe them? Later I worked as a contractor to the Air Force, involved in the design, testing and deployment of the communications multiplexer that is inside a hollowed-out mountain in Colorado. I saw data streaming through there from all over the place. To my knowledge, every bit of mission data, any data from space, came through that switch before it got sent elsewhere. There were BMEWS (ballistic missle early warning system) data and ALSEP data and I could see where it was coming from. I knew people who worked all over the world on the downlink communications systems, like Goldstone, etc.

There is no way that there could have been some small core of insiders who were faking out the rest of us. Impossible. Ludicrous!

But, I've read a bit of the CT stuff on the internet and I've read the NASA rebuttal. If you lack the scientific common sense to see that the CT claims are idiotic, then at least the NASA rebuttal should help you. You may not often come across some old fart who actually worked for NASA during the Apollo program, so if it helps you.... Dude! Wake up! We put people on the moon!

With great respect, I hope you will understand when I say that what you've written here, and in your Post #144, offers absolutely no proof, certainly to a lay-person, that man has actually walked on the Moon, UNLESS, of course, it can be shown without any doubt that the ALSEP packages could only be transmitting data from the surface of the Moon or that there are indeed redundant ALSEP packages sitting on the surface of the Moon, AND that it would be impossible to deploy the ALSEP packages from an un-manned mission. Can those all be shown, without any doubt, to be the case?

Reverting to your Post #144, I find your comment regarding heavy nuclei bombardment very interesting:
On this OP, I think one thing I didn't see mentioned that is important w.r.t. a trip to Mars is the potential of heavy nuclei bombarding the astronauts at near light speed. Just how many holes can you stand to have in your brain and body before you go nuts or get cancer? The few years round trip allows a lot of time for severe damage and the nuclei may already render the astronauts useless before they get to Mars.

This phenomenon (or general radiation, if different) was certainly cited in Dark Moon as: "one of the biggest show stoppers in mankind's exploration of the Universe" (as apparently quoted by an 'expert' at the Defence and Research Agency, UK). I'd be interested to hear your take on the implications of his phenomenon, not in relation to a potential manned mission to Mars, but in relation to the Apollo lunar landings.

[Southwind17]

Way to not answer...

I'm sorry Belz. Are you suggesting that you would like me to address your misunderstandings, whether that's because you feel there's some mileage in my doing that or not? If so, and it means so much to you, I'd be more than happy to do so. I'm just not quite sure what your comment above is intended to infer.

[Southwind17]

Some accept evolution by natural selection and recognize ID as nonsense, but question the authenticity of Apollo space program. Some accept the fact of manned lunar missions and dismiss moon hoax accusations as ludicrous, yet reject the theory of evolution by natural selection in favor of intelligent design. And everyone is the hardcore skeptic.

The mind boggles.

How's the Groves analysis coming, Southwind17?

I'm not sure it's appropriate to contrast one's differing beliefs in two totally unrelated matters and suggest that that indicates some sort of contradiction. I think that one's belief, or doubt, in something should be derived from the evidence available, preferably scientific, which, obviously, can vary considerably between different, unrelated subjects. I firmly believe that ID is nonsense, and that some small doubt remains over the authenticity of the Apollo Moon landings, and my mind doesn't boggle at all :)

Unfortunately, Darat has advised that my desired posting of the Groves analysis 'seem[s] to be against Rule 4'. Given the inconclusivity of that response I'm minded to post it, as my interpretation of Rule 4 leads me to think that it isn't in breach. It's just over three pages of an appendix to the book. What do you think?

[Thabiguy]

Unfortunately, Darat has advised that my desired posting of the Groves analysis 'seem[s] to be against Rule 4'. Given the inconclusivity of that response I'm minded to post it, as my interpretation of Rule 4 leads me to think that it isn't in breach. It's just over three pages of an appendix to the book. What do you think?
I cannot recommend that you break forum rules or go against the advice of forum administrators. You are responsible for your own actions. In light of Darat's response, I will not hold it against you if you decide not to post it and I will agree that you were prevented from doing so through no fault of your own.

If you're just interested in my opinion on the analysis, I guess you could also share it with me privately, thus avoiding any potential conflict with the forum rules. Obviously that has its drawbacks, but there's nothing I can do to help that; even if I had the book, there would be the very same drawbacks.

Other than that, and possibly rewriting Groves' analysis in your own words, I can't think of anything.

[Belz...]

With great respect, I hope you will understand when I say that what you've written here, and in your Post #144, offers absolutely no proof, certainly to a lay-person, that man has actually walked on the Moon, UNLESS, of course, it can be shown without any doubt that the ALSEP packages could only be transmitting data from the surface of the Moon or that there are indeed redundant ALSEP packages sitting on the surface of the Moon, AND that it would be impossible to deploy the ALSEP packages from an un-manned mission. Can those all be shown, without any doubt, to be the case?

Probably not to your satisfation. Ever.

I don't think you're unconvinced, at all.

[VonNeumann]

With great respect, I hope you will understand when I say that what you've written here, and in your Post #144, offers absolutely no proof, certainly to a lay-person, that man has actually walked on the Moon, UNLESS, of course, it can be shown without any doubt that the ALSEP packages could only be transmitting data from the surface of the Moon or that there are indeed redundant ALSEP packages sitting on the surface of the Moon, AND that it would be impossible to deploy the ALSEP packages from an un-manned mission. Can those all be shown, without any doubt, to be the case?

Reverting to your Post #144, I find your comment regarding heavy nuclei bombardment very interesting:


This phenomenon (or general radiation, if different) was certainly cited in Dark Moon as: "one of the biggest show stoppers in mankind's exploration of the Universe" (as apparently quoted by an 'expert' at the Defence and Research Agency, UK). I'd be interested to hear your take on the implications of his phenomenon, not in relation to a potential manned mission to Mars, but in relation to the Apollo lunar landings.
Proof? You just had the fortunate opportunity to hear from someone who was there when it was happening so you're doubting could be taken by me to be an insult to my sincerity or to my sanity. However, you are well mannered so I do not take you wrongly.

Where do you get gasoline for your car? It comes from oil, right? Oil comes from the ground, right? I've stood right next where oil was being drilled and watched gases come out of the ground and be detected electronically. I've seen gas and oil be produced out of the ground. But just because I was there, I have to tell you I have absolutely no proof that there was no conspiracy to fake me out. There could have been a pipe fed in to the system from below the ground. Some people could have gone to great expense to have made me think that oil comes from the ground. I might actually be a big-time sucker ... a real fool. I believe oil comes from the ground yet I have no proof!

But I have no reason to believe otherwise. I realize it would cost more money to fake me out than to just drill for the oil and get it -- unless oil really comes from somewhere else. Maybe gasoline is really made by fusing CH4 that evaporates from trees! It could happen! ..... NOT!

If you cannot evaluate the scientific argument already available on the internet, you are not sufficiently savvy to come to your own conclusion. Therefore, you will have to rely on experts and witnesses. That's your only choice when you are not endowed with the required resources to determine for yourself (...pure fact and I regret it may come across as insulting).

One thing I think I remember about ALSEP though from thirty plus years ago, was that we shined a laser from earth to the moon and got back a signal from ALSEP. That is proof it is there to those who worked on ALSEP project. You might believe that ALSEP (which is a fairly small box) was dropped from moon orbit or jettisoned from Earth and it softly landed somehow on the moon, if you don't believe it was carefully put in place by US astronauts -- I don't know what you need for proof.

But I imagine it has been a waste of my time to have presented you with a little bit here. You will believe what you wish. Have you ever visited the USA? Perhaps you need proof that the USA exists!

[uruk]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'initial numbers', but hopefully I can post the analysis tomorrow and we can take it from there. I'm as keen as anybody to hear what people have to say about the analysis. As far as I can tell you said Groves used the angle of a shadow. How can he be sure of the angle? Wasn't the landing site on a incline? What was he using as a refrence point to determine the angle?

I am also asuming he is making a guess on the distance between the Buzz and Neil. You can never tell the distance in a photograph because you don't know if the picture was croped and knowing that the focus was set to infinity doesn't help much. There is very little depth perception in a two dimensional picture.

The more unsure of the numbers you are using to base you calculation the more inaccurate the results of the calculation will be.
There is a saying:" garbage in, garbage out".



I agree, but I suspect, given that Aldrin and Armstrong were the only two astronauts allegedly on the moon at that time taking photos, that no other photos exist that can be used to help corroborate the photo under question. Groves' analysis is rather thorough, though. There was a film camera mounted in the cockpit of the lunar lander that was aimed downward toward the EVA site. It took one frame every second.
There was a video camera mounted on the decent stage equipment bay door that swung open and amied at the ladder so the we got the video coverage of Neil taking his first step.
There was also a video camera that neil mounted on a tripod (of sorts) a short distance away from the EVA site and amied toward the Lunar Lander.

So there was at least three other cameras from which to gain information. Do you know if Groves used those or just that one photograph to corroberate his calculations?



I'm not getting upset in the slightest. Whilst you'd now like it to be seen that you're 'just questioning his assumptions', your earlier wording does, clearly, infer an absence of sincerety, which I consider disingenuous given that you have yet to set eyes on the analysis: Sorry if I missinterpreted your statement as frustration. I admit that my response was a bit flippant. I am just wondering exactly how thourogh his investigation was.

Just using the photograph alone when there are other sources of information available seems a bit disingenuous to me.

[Southwind17]

Probably not to your satisfation. Ever.

I make no apologies for not being as gullible as you. But never say never (or is that never say 'ever'?!).

I don't think you're unconvinced, at all.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

[Southwind17]

Hypothetically speaking, if I were to PM the Groves analysis to people, who would be interested in seeing it?

[uruk]

Hypothetically speaking, if I were to PM the Groves analysis to people, who would be interested in seeing it?

If the Mods have no objection, I wouldn't mind.

[Southwind17]

Proof? You just had the fortunate opportunity to hear from someone who was there when it was happening so you're doubting could be taken by me to be an insult to my sincerity or to my sanity. However, you are well mannered so I do not take you wrongly.

Again, with great respect, what part if 'it' did you actually witness? Were you standing on the Moon witnessing the critical part?

Where do you get gasoline for your car? It comes from oil, right? Oil comes from the ground, right? I've stood right next where oil was being drilled and watched gases come out of the ground and be detected electronically. I've seen gas and oil be produced out of the ground. But just because I was there, I have to tell you I have absolutely no proof that there was no conspiracy to fake me out. There could have been a pipe fed in to the system from below the ground. Some people could have gone to great expense to have made me think that oil comes from the ground. I might actually be a big-time sucker ... a real fool. I believe oil comes from the ground yet I have no proof!

But I have no reason to believe otherwise. I realize it would cost more money to fake me out than to just drill for the oil and get it -- unless oil really comes from somewhere else. Maybe gasoline is really made by fusing CH4 that evaporates from trees! It could happen! ..... NOT!

I don't recall anybody suggesting that oil comes from anywhere other than the ground, and having presented evidence to back up their claims. Do you?

If you cannot evaluate the scientific argument already available on the internet, you are not sufficiently savvy to come to your own conclusion. Therefore, you will have to rely on experts and witnesses. That's your only choice when you are not endowed with the required resources to determine for yourself (...pure fact and I regret it may come across as insulting).

I have reached my own conclusion, for the time being (which I expressed earlier). It's just different from your own. Don't worry, I don't feel insulted in the slightest.

One thing I think I remember about ALSEP though from thirty plus years ago, was that we shined a laser from earth to the moon and got back a signal from ALSEP. That is proof it is there to those who worked on ALSEP project. You might believe that ALSEP (which is a fairly small box) was dropped from moon orbit or jettisoned from Earth and it softly landed somehow on the moon, if you don't believe it was carefully put in place by US astronauts -- I don't know what you need for proof.

Well if a lunar module can land 'softly' I'm sure an ALSEP package can!

But I imagine it has been a waste of my time to have presented you with a little bit here. You will believe what you wish. Have you ever visited the USA? Perhaps you need proof that the USA exists!

It's not a waste of time at all, but what you've posted here isn't sufficient to sway me any. Actually, I haven't visited the USA, but I do believe it exists. Put it this way, I haven't noticed anybody presenting any evidence to suggest otherwise, have you?!

[Southwind17]

Proof? You just had the fortunate opportunity to hear from someone who was there when it was happening so you're doubting could be taken by me to be an insult to my sincerity or to my sanity. However, you are well mannered so I do not take you wrongly.

Again, with great respect, what part if 'it' did you actually witness? Were you standing on the Moon witnessing the critical part?

Where do you get gasoline for your car? It comes from oil, right? Oil comes from the ground, right? I've stood right next where oil was being drilled and watched gases come out of the ground and be detected electronically. I've seen gas and oil be produced out of the ground. But just because I was there, I have to tell you I have absolutely no proof that there was no conspiracy to fake me out. There could have been a pipe fed in to the system from below the ground. Some people could have gone to great expense to have made me think that oil comes from the ground. I might actually be a big-time sucker ... a real fool. I believe oil comes from the ground yet I have no proof!

But I have no reason to believe otherwise. I realize it would cost more money to fake me out than to just drill for the oil and get it -- unless oil really comes from somewhere else. Maybe gasoline is really made by fusing CH4 that evaporates from trees! It could happen! ..... NOT!

I don't recall anybody suggesting that oil comes from anywhere other than the ground, and having presented evidence to back up their claims. Do you?

If you cannot evaluate the scientific argument already available on the internet, you are not sufficiently savvy to come to your own conclusion. Therefore, you will have to rely on experts and witnesses. That's your only choice when you are not endowed with the required resources to determine for yourself (...pure fact and I regret it may come across as insulting).

I have reached my own conclusion, for the time being (which I expressed earlier). It's just different from your own. Don't worry, I don't feel insulted in the slightest.

One thing I think I remember about ALSEP though from thirty plus years ago, was that we shined a laser from earth to the moon and got back a signal from ALSEP. That is proof it is there to those who worked on ALSEP project. You might believe that ALSEP (which is a fairly small box) was dropped from moon orbit or jettisoned from Earth and it softly landed somehow on the moon, if you don't believe it was carefully put in place by US astronauts -- I don't know what you need for proof.

Well if a lunar module can land 'softly' I'm sure an ALSEP package can!

But I imagine it has been a waste of my time to have presented you with a little bit here. You will believe what you wish. Have you ever visited the USA? Perhaps you need proof that the USA exists!

It's not a waste of time at all, but what you've posted isn't sufficient to sway me any. Actually, I haven't visited the USA, but I do believe it exists. Put it this way, I haven't noticed anybody presenting any evidence to suggest otherwise. Have you?!

[uruk]

{snip} Put it this way, I haven't noticed anybody presenting any evidence to suggest otherwise, have you?!
The question, I think, is both the quantity and quality of the evidence being presented against.

There is mountains of circumstantial and secondary evidence that exists to support that man landed on the moon. All the scientific documentation, engineering documentation, the astronaut's mission reports and debriefing. The thousands of people involved and thier personal experiances. The moon rocks and soil, film and photographs from the lunar surface.
The video from the lunar rovers that ventured several miles from the landing sites in subsequent missions. (that would have been one huge studio) The scientific equipment left behind. The films, videos and documentries made during the development of the equipment and systems by all the universities and corporations involved, The micrometeroid and radiation damage done to the EVA suits. The reluctant congradulations and silence of the Russians concerining the space race. Russia abandoning thier Lunar landing efforts. The telemtry data recieved and recorded by all the communication sites around the world. (including Australia. They even made a movie about an incident {The Dish} that happened at the Australian site during the Apollo 11 mission. All the telemetry recieved covering the historic first step was relayed by the Australian site).

Hundreds of engineers, scientists, technicians, corporate executives, college professors, employees or soviet spies all keeping silent. Not one slip up or whistle blower come forth in this time of conspiracy thoeries and "soldiers" who have come forth about UFO's to blow the lid on the biggest hoax in history.

And you dismiss all that because of one photograph (or one book) that someone made some "calculations" from? And he may very well may be mistaken at that.
What kind of evidence is that in comparison? What does that say about how you come to your beliefs?

[VonNeumann]

Again, with great respect, what part if 'it' did you actually witness? Were you standing on the Moon witnessing the critical part?

I don't recall anybody suggesting that oil comes from anywhere other than the ground, and having presented evidence to back up their claims. Do you?

I have reached my own conclusion, for the time being (which I expressed earlier). It's just different from your own. Don't worry, I don't feel insulted in the slightest.

Well if a lunar module can land 'softly' I'm sure an ALSEP package can!

It's not a waste of time at all, but what you've posted here isn't sufficient to sway me any. Actually, I haven't visited the USA, but I do believe it exists. Put it this way, I haven't noticed anybody presenting any evidence to suggest otherwise, have you?!
I suggested the silliness about non-existence of the USA and so on because I illustrate that you accept many things without proof. Do you mean that if a crazy person suggested USA does not exist, you'd give it credence? The "evidence" I saw against man walking on moon could be dismissed very easily if you have a skeptical scientific mind.

Let me ask you... do you think you could have worked in the space program and been fooled to the extent that you believe that I was fooled? If you don't believe I was fooled, you must believe I am part of the conspiracy. Which is it: I was duped; I conspire; or is there a third option?:confused:

[Thabiguy]

Hypothetically speaking, if I were to PM the Groves analysis to people, who would be interested in seeing it?
If I am to identify specific flaws, I will need to see it, one way or another.

[sts60]

With great respect, I hope you will understand when I say that what you've written here, and in your Post #144, offers absolutely no proof, certainly to a lay-person, that man has actually walked on the Moon, UNLESS, of course, it can be shown without any doubt that the ALSEP packages could only be transmitting data from the surface of the Moon or that there are indeed redundant ALSEP packages sitting on the surface of the Moon, AND that it would be impossible to deploy the ALSEP packages from an un-manned mission. Can those all be shown, without any doubt, to be the case?
The ALSEP experiments were specifically designed to be transported aboard the LM and deployed by hand. Each of the five (A12, 14, 15, 16, 17) ALSEPs required removal from the LM, removal of the heat source from its transportation cask, carrying to the deployment site, and unpacking, connecting, arming, fueling of the generator, and deployment of individual experiments up to tens of meters from the central station - some configurations spanned roughly the length of a (U.S.) football field. Collectively, these operations required dexterity and mobility beyond the capability of robotics of the day. In any case, the deployment process was diligently rehearsed, documented, and photographed during the actual deployments.

If you wish to propose that the ALSEPs could have been robotically deployed, it is incumbent upon you to provide the following:
- specific evidence of a technology that could have deployed the systems on the Moon, or evidence of an entirely different set of ALSEPs that could have been deployed with the robotics of the day;
- evidence that the photodocumentation of the actual deployments was faked;
- specific evidence of a secret program of construction, integration, and launch of the separate spacecraft which took the "real" ALSEPs to the Moon.
If you cannot provide such evidence, there is no reason to entertain such a notion; it's simply wishful thinking.


As for whether "ALSEP packages could only be transmitting data from the surface of the Moon": the signals from the ALSEP units were collected from tracking stations worldwide, including Spain, Chile, and Australia. Such signals cannot be faked by orbiting spacecraft. As for whether there are "indeed redundant ALSEP packages sitting on the surface of the Moon", signals were collected from five different ALSEP units, which are distinguishable by telemetry identification, pointing angles on the receiving antenna, and unique downlink frequencies.

If you wish to dispute that such signals were actually received, you must provide specific evidence that the station operators faked getting telemetry from the Moon for roughly eight years - the time from the first deployment of the A12 ALSEP in late '69 to the time all five were shut down in late '77. (That does not include the brief operation of the solar-powered A11 EASEP, which only lasted a few weeks.) You would also need to explain in reasonable detail why the international scientific community has accepted the ALSEP data as genuine, and provide specific evidence for a program to fake ALSEP data for 8 years, and explain why not one of the personnel involved in fake ALSEP development and operations has blown the whistle. If you cannot, the historical and scientific record stands as the only reasonable - and supported - explanation.


Is any of this "proof"? I've participated in such arguments before. There's no absolute proof, even if I flew you to the Moon and drove you around the ALSEPs. I could have planted them there right before our voyage (and made them "look old"); everyone connected with the program could have been lying, all the selenologists and astrophysicists who looked at the data could be incompetent and/or lying, there could have been a secret program to build alternate ALSEPs and launch them without anybody noticing, we could have gone decades without anybody blowing the whistle - even in their wills; all the personnel at the tracking stations could have been lying all this time, etc.

It boils down to how committed you are to keeping your doubt about the subject alive. Frankly, I can't prove to you that I exist. But the issue isn't whether five ALSEP systems were deployed by hand on the Moon "without a doubt". It's whether this can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. I've given you ways in which you can indeed demonstrate a reasonable doubt, but if you wish to do so you have a lot of work to do.

Reverting to your Post #144, I find your comment regarding heavy nuclei bombardment very interesting:

This phenomenon (or general radiation, if different) was certainly cited in Dark Moon as: "one of the biggest show stoppers in mankind's exploration of the Universe" (as apparently quoted by an 'expert' at the Defence and Research Agency, UK). I'd be interested to hear your take on the implications of his phenomenon, not in relation to a potential manned mission to Mars, but in relation to the Apollo lunar landings.

Not addressed to me, but I hope you don't mind me chiming in.

Cosmic radiation was a relatively minor factor for the short-duration Apollo missions. It's damaging, certainly, but the amounts received during roughly two weeks in space were tolerable. (Airline crew received enhanced CR doses, too - at lower rates but over longer durations than Apollo crews.) Similarly for the charged-particle dosages received during the very brief transits through the Van Allen belts. (Shuttle and ISS crews routinely transit a low-hanging bit of the VABs, but the intensities are lower and the shielding generally better.) The real radiation threat to Apollo missions came from solar proton events (SPEs) generated during solar "storms". The protection against these was in part statistical (i.e., there was a low probability of a significant event during a mission) and in part operational (upon detection of an event, the crew would retreat to the CM and place the SM between the crew module and the Sun).

And part of it came down to the fact that people were simply willing to take a certain amount of risk for what was perceived to be an enormous gain (yes, I share that perception). That particular approach won't work for a Mars mission, because the much longer durations make the occurrence of major SPEs a virtual certainty during the mission. Better (read: more mass and more $$$) shielding will be a requirement.

[Corsair 115]

Hang on a second Corsair. You've asked a very leading question (which I've responded to, albeit indirectly for the reason given therein), to which I can only assume you believe you know the answer. As such, it seems not unreasonable to me that you should provide that answer, which should, if conclusive, clear up in an instant this whole matter of your wishing to dispel my skepticism.It is you who are skeptical of the evidence available, so it is up to you to demonstrate why the available evidence is not sufficient and/or believable. I merely gave you another line of inquiry — ALSEP — for you to pursue.

Since you said you were not familiar with it, then it only seems appropriate for you to find out more about it so you can then speak as to whether you find it credible evidence of the moon landings.

I would have thought it clear that my position is that there is no doubt of the authenticity of the moon landings. Indeed, that's why I mentioned ALSEP in the first place, as another item of rock-solid proof.

I don't quite follow your thinking that I should research the subject so that I may then post my analysis for you and others to critique. If the information that you're suggesting I should discover constitutes conclusive evidence that man walked on the moon, why on Earth(!) would you, and others, wish to critique it. Because I want to know if you'd accept ALSEP as definitive evidence. If you don't, then I want to hear your justifications for not accepting it, and then a discussion can be had as to the merits of your justifications.

Seems straightforward and simple enough to me.

[Southwind17]

It is you who are skeptical of the evidence available, so it is up to you to demonstrate why the available evidence is not sufficient and/or believable. I merely gave you another line of inquiry — ALSEP — for you to pursue.

So what 'available evidence' do you have to offer? Imagine a defence lawyer during cross-examination standing up in court, confessing he has no evidence for the defence (other than "He didn't do it, your Honour, honestly!"), and proposing that the prosecution team go dig up the evidence for the defence and seek to discredit it!

I've never heard of such a ludicrous approach to this kind of debate Corsair. If you're prepared to posit an 'item of rock-solid proof' that man walked on the moon, then please spare us the 'discovery' time and provide it. Put up or shut up!

Since you said you were not familiar with it, then it only seems appropriate for you to find out more about it so you can then speak as to whether you find it credible evidence of the moon landings.

If it's 'rock-solid' proof, as you suggest, please present the case that led to your conviction. It must, obviously, be compelling.

I would have thought it clear that my position is that there is no doubt of the authenticity of the moon landings. Indeed, that's why I mentioned ALSEP in the first place, as another item of rock-solid proof.

Indeed.

Because I want to know if you'd accept ALSEP as definitive evidence. If you don't, then I want to hear your justifications for not accepting it, and then a discussion can be had as to the merits of your justifications.

Present the evidence then we'll see if I 'accept' it.

Seems straightforward and simple enough to me.

Doesn't it just!

[bokonon]

So what
Exactly! So what if we go to Mars? If you want red dust, go to Georgia.

[Southwind17]

For those who are insistent on rehashing idiotic Moon Hoax topics, your posts are off-topic, you are in the wrong sub-forum, and your posts will be reported. No further warnings. This thread is about future Mars explorations, not paranoia.

I think the fact that 91 of the 107 posts (85%, including all three of yours!!!) made on this thread since the subject of the faked Apollo landings was raised relate to 'Moon Hoax topics' is a good indication of the now predominant subject matter of this thread, and where most participants' interests really lie!

[Corsair 115]

So what 'available evidence' do you have to offer? I gave you something to research. Am I to do all your work for you?

Imagine a defence lawyer during cross-examination standing up in court, confessing he has no evidence for the defence (other than "He didn't do it, your Honour, honestly!"), and proposing that the prosecution team go dig up the evidence for the defence and seek to discredit it! Let me quote what you said in post #152 (emphasis added):

I think you might have asked this before. I'm not familiar with ALSEP, and I haven't had chance to look into this yet, but the key questions I'll be asking myself when I do are... This quote clearly indicates that you intend to research the subject yourself. Are you now saying you are not going to look into the subject yourself?

I've never heard of such a ludicrous approach to this kind of debate Corsair. If you're prepared to posit an 'item of rock-solid proof' that man walked on the moon, then please spare us the 'discovery' time and provide it. See above. You acknowledged you weren't familiar with the subject, and after researching it yourself then you would comment further.

Again, am I to do your research for you?

If it's 'rock-solid' proof, as you suggest, please present the case that led to your conviction. It must, obviously, be compelling. See prior responses. Examine the available data for yourself and then tell us whether it is convincing or not. I don't feel like having to do your research for you.

Present the evidence then we'll see if I 'accept' it. See prior responses. I've given you the line of inquiry, it's up to you to pursue it. Why should I do your research for you? I'm not the only poster here who has at least some knowledge of what ALSEP was, so it's not as if this information is secret or otherwise unobtainable. Since it is you who are unfamiliar with it, then why don't you do what you said you would do and research it for yourself? There's plenty of information on it, you shouldn't have much trouble finding it at the library or on the internet.

Once more, why should I do your research for you when you explicitly said you would research the subject for yourself?

Lastly, while there are a number of folks here who can debunk the idea that the moon landings were faked, if you want a really in-depth discussion of the subject from some very knowledgeable folks then I suggest you head over to the message boards here (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi) and here (http://www.bautforum.com/).

[bokonon]

I think the fact that 91 of the 107 posts (85%, including all three of yours!!!) made on this thread since the subject of the faked Apollo landings was raised relate to 'Moon Hoax topics' is a good indication of the now predominant subject matter of this thread, and where most participants' interests really lie!
Most participants should do their lying in another thread, where their lies wouldn't be off-topic.

[bokonon]

I gave you something to research. Am I to do all your work for you?
Absolutely, if you're an unmanned probe on the way to Mars.

[Southwind17]

I gave you something to research. Am I to do all your work for you?

Let me quote what you said in post #152 (emphasis added):

This quote clearly indicates that you intend to research the subject yourself. Are you now saying you are not going to look into the subject yourself?

See above. You acknowledged you weren't familiar with the subject, and after researching it yourself then you would comment further.

Again, am I to do your research for you?

See prior responses. Examine the available data for yourself and then tell us whether it is convincing or not. I don't feel like having to do your research for you.

See prior responses. I've given you the line of inquiry, it's up to you to pursue it. Why should I do your research for you? I'm not the only poster here who has at least some knowledge of what ALSEP was, so it's not as if this information is secret or otherwise unobtainable. Since it is you who are unfamiliar with it, then why don't you do what you said you would do and research it for yourself? There's plenty of information on it, you shouldn't have much trouble finding it at the library or on the internet.

Once more, why should I do your research for you when you explicitly said you would research the subject for yourself?

Lastly, while there are a number of folks here who can debunk the idea that the moon landings were faked, if you want a really in-depth discussion of the subject from some very knowledgeable folks then I suggest you head over to the message boards here (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi) and here (http://www.bautforum.com/).


Ordinarily, I'd agree that the burden of proof could be argued to be on me, as I'm the one harbouring the doubts. Accordingly, I might go do the research. However, YOU WERE THE ONE WHO POSED A LEADING QUESTION IN A CONTEXT THAT STRONGLY SUGGESTS THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE POSSIBLE ANSWER (quote: "simple question:"):
Simple question: how did the ALSEP packages get onto the Moon if not by the Apollo astronauts?

Do you see the difference?

This isn't about doing research, as you're suggesting, it's about putting your money where your mouth is, essentially. Where's the sense in my spending time looking for an explanation to something when you, seemingly, already have it? If you don't post your explanation (evidence) in response to this post and simply repeat your suggestion that I go do some research, I will be left to draw the only logical conclusion: You cited ALSEP as proof that man walked on the Moon, but now, having been challenged to put up or shut up, you've realized that you were a little hasty, and that what you inferred by referring to ALSEP proves no such thing.

Here's another courtroom analogy to what you're suggesting here:

Judge: So, what does the defence have to say on this matter?
Defence: Well, your Honour, the accused was not at the scene of the crime at the time the crime was committed!
Judge: Oh really, can you prove that?
Defence: Oh yes, your honour, for sure. We have a witness who was actually with the defendant at the time who can vouch for his whereabouts!
Judge: That's very interesting. So will you be calling this witness?
Defence: Oh no, I don't think so. We thought we'd just leave it for the prosecution to go find him!
Judge: Ugh?! :boggled:

[chillzero]

Posts split from original thread at this point. From here on I expect the bickering to stop, and the thread to stay on (new) topic.

[Dave Rogers]

Allow me to summarize my position, in the context of the foregoing, based on what I've written earlier in the thread:

Evidence has been presented by various people that identifies seeming anomalies in some of the Apollo records and data. Some of that evidence seems valid.
Such evidence has been challenged and refuted by various people. Much of the refutation relies on study and analysis of a far lesser degree than the original evidence presented, or is refuted on theoretical grounds only.

I'm not really up to speed on the Apollo theories, but this stood out as a rather strange juxtaposition. Are you suggesting that a refutation based on a very simple analysis is necessarily of lesser value than a highly complex argument presenting an anomaly? I would argue that the reverse is more commonly true. The fact that a long and complex argument needs to be constructed in order to present the possibility of an anomaly seems to be a weakness of the case being presented, and when that anomaly can be simply explained with a minimum of effort it would seem to be rather convincingly exposed as sophistry.

Dave

[Thabiguy]

Southwind17, I will only be available to explain the errors in Groves analysis for 2 more days, that is about 48 hours from this moment. If you plan to PM it to me, or post it on your website and link to it, or present it for comment in any other way, and don't do it soon, then you will have to wait for my comment until the end of next week when I'm available again.

I don't mean to rush you at all. I just think that you should know this, so that you are not confused by my silence, should you decide to make the analysis accessible during my forum break.

[MG1962]

This isn't about doing research, as you're suggesting, it's about putting your money where your mouth is, essentially. Where's the sense in my spending time looking for an explanation to something when you, seemingly, already have it? If you don't post your explanation (evidence) in response to this post and simply repeat your suggestion that I go do some research, I will be left to draw the only logical conclusion: You cited ALSEP as proof that man walked on the Moon, but now, having been challenged to put up or shut up, you've realized that you were a little hasty, and that what you inferred by referring to ALSEP proves no such thing.

Not at all - If you go and research what ALSEP was, how it was designed, how it had to be deployed and its current usage - then there is no burden of proof on anyone for the conclussion you draw. If we sit here and give you those answers and you dont like the outcome, then you can respond by say either prove it - or I dont believe you. In all a net gain of nothing

If the topic really means that much to you - you should be very keen to explore this issue. If for no other reason than to find the weakness in the arguement to support your supposition

[Undesired Walrus]

One thing moon walk deniers cannot answer is, why didn't the Soviets fake it?

It's a shame that these fantastic pictures are claimed by so many people to be fake.

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p297/ldl21/amoon2nd1.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p297/ldl21/amoonmoon4.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p297/ldl21/amoonmoon2.jpg

http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p297/ldl21/amoonmoon.jpg

Now, here they are very far away from Earth. Past the Belts and near the moon. It would be sort of silly to come this far then chicken out no?

[sts60]

I think the fact that 91 of the 107 posts (85%, including all three of yours!!!) made on this thread since the subject of the faked Apollo landings was raised relate to 'Moon Hoax topics' is a good indication of the now predominant subject matter of this thread, and where most participants' interests really lie!
My interest is the exploration and development of space. I posted in the original thread about the challenges of manned Mars exploration before the "hoax" issue came up, and I also replied some "hoax" comments of yours in post #85 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3188995&postcount=85). It's still not clear to me whether your doubts are based on real concerns with the evidence or more on epistemological grounds.

[Belz...]

I make no apologies for not being as gullible as you.

You think that accepting a mountain of evidence is being gullible ?

I can only surmise from your post that you were lying when you said you were NOT unconvinced and that I had quoted you out of context. It's evident now that you think we never went to the moon. So your opening gambit was far from being honest.

Just like a CTer.

[Corsair 115]

Ordinarily, I'd agree that the burden of proof could be argued to be on me, as I'm the one harbouring the doubts. Accordingly, I might go do the research. However, [B]YOU WERE THE ONE WHO POSED A LEADING QUESTION IN A CONTEXT THAT STRONGLY SUGGESTS THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE POSSIBLE ANSWER (quote: "simple question:") It was a simple question about a subject I assumed you knew about. If you did know about it, then you'd either accept that ALSEP is definitive proof of the legitimacy of the lunar landings, or you would post your reasons as to why ALSEP wasn't definitive proof.

Since you don't know about ALSEP, go read about it, then tell us whether you think it is definitive evidence or not.

Very basic stuff, I don't know why you're all in a twist about it.

You cited ALSEP as proof that man walked on the Moon, but now, having been challenged to put up or shut up, you've realized that you were a little hasty, and that what you inferred by referring to ALSEP proves no such thing. So you're not going to look into it yourself? Okay then.

A reminder: there's plenty of info around on ALSEP. It isn't hard to find. Heck, we've even had posts in this very thread from someone who was involved with it. The simple fact is that I don't feel like digging around through my book and online to furnish you with info that is easily available through a bit of your own effort.

Put some of your own effort into it. You claim the lunar landings are perhaps illegitimate, so go find out about ALSEP and then come back and answer my question.

I can only conclude your reluctance to do so is because you'll know the evidence is rock-solid and will bury any idea that the lunar landings were not real and you don't want to have to admit that you were wrong.

[LastChild]

What would it cost and what would we gain by going to Mars?

[Hellbound]

What would it cost and what would we gain by going to Mars?

That thread is in the Science section; this one is a split from there that concerns moon hoaxes.

[PhantomWolf]

Well I've come in late, so I'll just sumarize.

1) Dark Moon is not worth the paper it's written on even if used as tiolet paper.
2) To date no one has been able to track down Dr David Groves to see if he even exists, there are at least two possible candidates, but neither have replied to questions about their involvement so it is impossible to determine who he is, let alone get him to athenticate the study published by Aulis.
3) If athentic, Groves claims to be able to measure the position of the "hotspot" on Aldrin's to a degree that is finer than the grain on the film, an impossiblity.
4) Even with all of this taken into consideration, there IS a light about 30-40cm to the right of the camera, it is Armstrong's shoulder reflecting the bright sunlight and can be seen on the TV footage while he is taking the photos of Aldrin.

[PetersCreek]

You'll also be aware, I assume, that light becomes scattered when passing through the atmosphere, which partially accounts for the indirect lighting of surfaces in addition to directly reflected light. Conversely, scattering of light is eliminated when passing through a (true) vacuum, hence the clarity of the images acquired by the likes of the Hubble telescope. Your pointing out that there is no atmosphere on the Moon actually serves to weaken the 'reflected' light argument!

Rubbish. Atmospheric effects are far from being the primary determining factor here. Even if the Moon had an atmosphere, the reflecting surfaces present would have themselves played a far greater role in diffusing the reflected light, under the clear sky, "Sunny 16" photographic conditions depicted in the photos. The single largest reflector present in each and every photograph was the Moon itself and it is not a specular reflector. Neither were the astronauts' suits. The gold foil on the LM might have been, had it not been so wrinkled. As it was, it and the LMs other multiple angled surfaces provided yet another source of scattered, reflected light.

As an experienced photographer, I find nothing at all suspicious about the photo in question.

[PhantomWolf]

Exactly. Calculations I have seen put the luminosity created by the sunlight on the surface of the moon is about the equivalent of having a 100w light bulb every sqaure metre. Suggesting that the luna suface can't help to back light things is dumb, especially when you can happily read a newspaper by just the reflected light during the full moon here on Earth...

[PhantomWolf]

Neither were the astronauts' suits.

eta: doh, misread the sentence as spectacular not specular. I'll leave up for info though. :o

I might question this, the albedo of the clean Apollo suits was close to 90%, that's a pretty good reflector, especially compared to the regolith at about 14%. During the later missions where the suits got progressively dirtier through use, then their albedo would have been reduced, but Armstrong and Aldrin's were pretty clean throughout.

[Damien Evans]

I can't believe people still believe this rubbish!

For a thorough debunking look at this page... http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/
or this one...
http://www.clavius.org/
or this one...
http://www.braeunig.us/space/hoax.htm

Debunking of the photographic analysis 'evidence' here - http://www.iangoddard.net/moon01.htm
or here
http://www3.telus.net/summa/moonshot/index.htm

Do you really think that if this was all a hoax the Soviets, who, don't forget were the original spur for the US to go to the moon, wouldn't have been able to expose it right away? :rolleyes:


And Don't forget: www.bautforum.com and www.badastronomy.com

[Damien Evans]

What's your take on the allegation that the gloves were so cumbersome so as to have made the manual operation of the aperture ring on the chest-mount camera extremely difficult, to say the least, thereby leading, in all likelihood, to an ordinate number of incorrectly exposed photos, which is claimed not to be the case?

Who claims that's not the case?

There is a large number of incorrectly exposed photos

[PhantomWolf]

What's your take on the allegation that the gloves were so cumbersome so as to have made the manual operation of the aperture ring on the chest-mount camera extremely difficult, to say the least, thereby leading, in all likelihood, to an ordinate number of incorrectly exposed photos, which is claimed not to be the case?

First ly the gloves weren't that clumbsy, they were designed not to be. Sure it wasn't like they were bare hands, but they weren't so stiff that they couldn't be used. I have a picture of the bare gloves (without the outer abrasion protection overglove on) on my site, it quite clearly shows the specially designed constant volume joints in the knuckles which allowed the fingers to bend with a lot more ease than a standard clove. They were probably the most engineered part of the suit.

Still the cameras had to be modified as well. The rings were changed in two ways, they had preset positions that they would lock into, and they had large "paddles" on them that the astronaut could push with his hand to get it to lock into the next position. This meant that all the Astronauts had to do was decide if the shot was at a close, medium or infinate distance for focus, in full light, partial light, or shadow, for lighting, push the paddles to the correct positions, point the camera in the right direction and squeeze a trigger asembly that was attatched to the cameras.

Of course if one bothers to look through the entire 10,000 odd images, a lot of them are out of focus, far too dark, on angles, light struck and so on. One of the reasons only certain Apollo images keep cropping up is because on the whole most are either of nothing but rocks, or they are terrible shots unsuitable for publication.

These are a few from Apollo 12

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/images/AS12-47-6902.jpg

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/images/AS12-47-7010.jpg

http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/images/AS12-48-7079.jpg

[Corsair 115]

One of the reasons only certain Apollo images keep cropping up is because on the whole most are either of nothing but rocks, or they are terrible shots unsuitable for publication.It's worth noting too that many of the good shots weren't taken for their aesthetic appeal. The famous image of Aldrin's bootprint was taken because engineers wanted to see the properties of the lunar soil.

[Damien Evans]

I make no apologies for not being as gullible as you. But never say never (or is that never say 'ever'?!).

:dl:


THe irony, it BURNS!!!!

[PhantomWolf]

It's worth noting too that many of the good shots weren't taken for their aesthetic appeal. The famous image of Aldrin's bootprint was taken because engineers wanted to see the properties of the lunar soil.

very true, and really apart from a handful of "Tourist" shots scattered throughout the missions (such as the famous Man on the Moon photo of Aldrin, all of the images were primarially documentation shots for either flight, or for the hundreds of scientists who wanted to have photos of how the experiments were deployed, how the soils reacted to the landing and being waked on, how the rover moved later on, and of course hundreds of photos of rocks that would be collected, the images often showing the area pre disturbing it and more after the sample was taken. Throw in panoramas so that the scientists could see what the station areas looked like, and there's your 10,000 odd shots*.

eta: This is sort of a round figure. There are nearly 14,000 Apollo 70mm Images from the "Landing Missions" 6,500 of which were taken on the surface. The other manned missions produced another 3,400 images while the unmanned had anouther 1,000 between them. 10,000 is an approximate number of "Moon" images taken during the landings and from Orbit, while there are nearly 20,000 70mm images in total from all missions. Of course this doesn't include non 70mm images or pre-flight images taken during training or....

[Southwind17]

I'm not really up to speed on the Apollo theories, but this stood out as a rather strange juxtaposition. Are you suggesting that a refutation based on a very simple analysis is necessarily of lesser value than a highly complex argument presenting an anomaly? I would argue that the reverse is more commonly true. The fact that a long and complex argument needs to be constructed in order to present the possibility of an anomaly seems to be a weakness of the case being presented, and when that anomaly can be simply explained with a minimum of effort it would seem to be rather convincingly exposed as sophistry.

No, I'm suggesting that refutation of an allegation - such allegation being supported by a thorough, authoritative analysis, and such refutation simply comprising one of a number of otherwise possible 'off-the-cuff' theories - is of lesser value.

In this instance, a scientific, mathematical study and analysis of a photo leading to a conclusion that a photographer and subject were essentially standing at the same height, to me, has greater 'value' than the totally unsupported theory that the photographer was 'simply' standing on higher ground.

On a point of correction, the Groves analysis does not 'present' an anomaly, it seeks to explain one. The said anomaly is self-evident in the photo that Groves analysed.

[Southwind17]

Southwind17, I will only be available to explain the errors in Groves analysis for 2 more days, that is about 48 hours from this moment. If you plan to PM it to me, or post it on your website and link to it, or present it for comment in any other way, and don't do it soon, then you will have to wait for my comment until the end of next week when I'm available again.

I don't mean to rush you at all. I just think that you should know this, so that you are not confused by my silence, should you decide to make the analysis accessible during my forum break.

Unfortunately, I'm unable to PM the analysis to you just yet, but it should be waiting for you when you're next on line at the end of next week. Thanks for letting me know of your impending absence from the Forum.

[Southwind17]

Not at all - If you go and research what ALSEP was, how it was designed, how it had to be deployed and its current usage - then there is no burden of proof on anyone for the conclussion you draw. If we sit here and give you those answers and you dont like the outcome, then you can respond by say either prove it - or I dont believe you. In all a net gain of nothing

If the topic really means that much to you - you should be very keen to explore this issue. If for no other reason than to find the weakness in the arguement to support your supposition

How could I possibly not like the outcome, if it's so compelling? You're not suggesting it's open to doubt, are you?

Please realize that I'm not fighting the CT corner here, athough it might appear like that to some. I'm simply not yet satisfied with the refutations that have been proffered in response to some of the evidence presented by certain CTists.

[Southwind17]

One thing moon walk deniers cannot answer is, why didn't the Soviets fake it?

Well, just like the possible theories that 'explain' the anomaly in the Aldrin photo, there could be a multitude of reasons. A couple of questions, by way of response, immediately spring to mind, though:

Why is the 'fact' that the Soviets didn't try to deceive compelling evidence that NASA didn't? I don't see your logic here.
Who says the Soviets didn't think of faking it too? Somebody had to 'get there first', whether it really be on the Moon or in the studio.


It's a shame that these fantastic pictures are claimed by so many people to be fake.

I don't claim them to be fake. With great respect, though, I don't actually find them that fantastic, just my opinion.

Now, here they are very far away from Earth. Past the Belts and near the moon. It would be sort of silly to come this far then chicken out no?

At the risk of seeming disingenuous, which I assure you I'm not, these photos prove very little. In fact, I don't think they actually prove anything, in any context whatsoever.

[Furi]

Are we talking about Groves analysis of Aldrins Egress from the LM?, or are we talking the famous Aldrin on the moon Shot AS11-40-5903 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg) which is normally presented cropped and rotated retouched and highlighted to make it more palatable for the press and Poster material etc.

=^..^=

[Southwind17]

It was a simple question about a subject I assumed you knew about. If you did know about it, then you'd either accept that ALSEP is definitive proof of the legitimacy of the lunar landings, or you would post your reasons as to why ALSEP wasn't definitive proof.

Since you don't know about ALSEP, go read about it, then tell us whether you think it is definitive evidence or not.

Very basic stuff, I don't know why you're all in a twist about it.

So you're not going to look into it yourself? Okay then.

A reminder: there's plenty of info around on ALSEP. It isn't hard to find. Heck, we've even had posts in this very thread from someone who was involved with it. The simple fact is that I don't feel like digging around through my book and online to furnish you with info that is easily available through a bit of your own effort.

Put some of your own effort into it. You claim the lunar landings are perhaps illegitimate, so go find out about ALSEP and then come back and answer my question.

Out of interest (because you haven't actually said so), do you consider that ALSEP provides indisputable evidence that man has walked on the Moon?

I can only conclude your reluctance to do so is because you'll know the evidence is rock-solid and will bury any idea that the lunar landings were not real and you don't want to have to admit that you were wrong.

I'd like nothing more than to be presented with rock-solid, undisputable proof of the Apollo lunar landings, including compelling refutations of the evidence against that remains to be discredited. As I wrote earlier, I'd say I have a 5% doubt, if I had to put a figure on it, but that degree of doubt would also prevent me from concluding that an accused criminal is guilty beyond reason, and I'd feel compelled to spare him from the gallows, so to speak.

Your inference that I would be proved 'wrong' if 'rock-solid evidence' were presented to me is completely erroneous and unfounded. I've stated before, and above, that I have, say, a 5% doubt, i.e. I'm around 95% certain, that man has walked on the Moon. What could I possibly fear being 'wrong' about?!

[Southwind17]

Are we talking about Groves analysis of Aldrins Egress from the LM?, or are we talking the famous Aldrin on the moon Shot AS11-40-5903 (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg) which is normally presented cropped and rotated retouched and highlighted to make it more palatable for the press and Poster material etc.

I'm referring to the photo you've posted - the 'famous Aldrin on the Moon' shot.

Interesting caveat:... which is normally presented cropped and rotated retouched and highlighted to make it more palatable for the press and Poster material etc.

What's your basis for making this statement?

[Furi]

Normally this photo when presented in books or in the press is cropped to remove the foreground, and also rotated clockwise a little,

It was used in one CT book with an additional bit of Black at the top to provide spaxce, and to mask the clipping of Buzz suit which then produced photo analysis on the rotated and cropped picture

[technoextreme]

I make no apologies for not being as gullible as you. But never say never (or is that never say 'ever'?!).



You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.
The problem is that it's not skepticism. It's a combination of stupidity and arrogance like most conspiracy theorists.

[Southwind17]

Well I've come in late, so I'll just sumarize.

Yeah, don't go wasting your time with any detail! Summaries always make the grade when it comes to compelling evidence!

1) Dark Moon is not worth the paper it's written on even if used as tiolet paper.

That's a constructive, mature and objective rebuttal! Well done. :rolleyes:

2) To date no one has been able to track down Dr David Groves to see if he even exists, there are at least two possible candidates, but neither have replied to questions about their involvement so it is impossible to determine who he is, let alone get him to athenticate the study published by Aulis.

You might care to try looking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

I suppose we shouldn't place too much credence in your investigative skills! :rolleyes:

3) If athentic, Groves claims to be able to measure the position of the "hotspot" on Aldrin's to a degree that is finer than the grain on the film, an impossiblity.

I'm not sure where Groves makes this claim, but my commentary above is related to the anomaly in the height of the camera from which the famous Aldrin photo was taken. The hot-spot anomaly does feature in the link above, though.

4) Even with all of this taken into consideration, there IS a light about 30-40cm to the right of the camera, it is Armstrong's shoulder reflecting the bright sunlight and can be seen on the TV footage while he is taking the photos of Aldrin.

I suggest you study the link above.

[Undesired Walrus]

It wouldn't matter if a mickey mouse outline appeared aroun Buzz Aldrin's feet.

The men went, and you know why? The Soviets tracked them every step of the way. If anyone had any reason to call hoax on them, it was the Soviets.

I suppose they could have invented some fake ray to manipulate the Soviet technology, but then you have to ask, wouldn't it just be cheaper to go to the moon?

[technoextreme]

You might care to try looking here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6MvcIs4OcQ

I suppose we shouldn't place too much credence in your investigative skills!
Your investigative skills suck more than his though. I found this post in another forum about the movie that you just posted.
In one word... No. Jay has tried and can't even find out who he is or if he even exists. None of the Dr David Groves he has contacted has admitted to being Percy's one
PS. Who is Jay?

[Southwind17]

What's your basis for making this statement?

Normally this photo when presented in books or in the press is cropped to remove the foreground, and also rotated clockwise a little ...


Not quite what you wrote before:
... which is normally presented cropped and rotated retouched and highlighted to make it more palatable for the press and Poster material etc.

It was used in one CT book with an additional bit of Black at the top to provide spaxce, and to mask the clipping of Buzz suit which then produced photo analysis on the rotated and cropped picture

This is the basis for your statement?


I thought you were implying that available copies of the photo cannot be considered reliable evidence for analysis purposes, but your latest comments don't seem to support that. Is that what your implying?

[Furi]

Your investigative skills suck more than his though. I found this post in another forum about the movie that you just posted.

PS. Who is Jay?

That Would be JayUtah as he posts on BAUT or ApolloHoax

there is a thread regarding searches into Groves here (http://apollohoax.proboards21.com/index.cgi?board=theories&action=display&thread=1187201374&page=1)

[Belz...]

Yep. Everybody has their woo.

[Southwind17]

Your investigative skills suck more than his though. I found this post in another forum about the movie that you just posted.

PS. Who is Jay?

Let me get this straight: you don't even know who 'Jay' is, but you're prepared to accept as fact a statement made on this Forum that the said 'Jay' tried to contact David Groves, but couldn't, so that proves that Groves doesn't exist! So who's investigative skills suck the most, I wonder!

Premature Evaluation, I guess, suitably captures the sentiment! :rolleyes:

[Davidlpf]

Your investigative skills suck more than his though. I found this post in another forum about the movie that you just posted.

PS. Who is Jay?

Jay is is JAy windley of the Clavuis moonbase, he pretty much an expert on debunking moon hoaxes and his website is listed as a web resource.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=17

[Furi]

Not quite what you wrote before:




This is the basis for your statement?


I thought you were implying that available copies of the photo cannot be considered reliable evidence for analysis purposes, but your latest comments don't seem to support that. Is that what your implying?

Retouching and highlighting for various posters I have seen for sale, and also adjustment of contrasts regarding various books printing methods have been done,

The picture is repeated across so many sources it would be difficult to track, there are even quite a few avatars that use it on this and other boards, it's sort of an iconic image.

Just do a quick image search on google for AS11-40-5903, and you can find many images of varying cotrasts on compression crops and rotations, these are done either to be more aesthetic to the person in question (rotation to level the horizon for example, Colour balancing to bring out different details) the one CT book I mentioned was because it is one of those that all the others copy from and present the same analysis and errors,

common type of manipulation is this type from the bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_-1_buzz300.jpg)

[PixyMisa]

So, Southwind, what exactly do you believe happened?

Did the Mercury missions proceed as NASA states?
How about the Gemini missions? Were they real?
The Space Shuttle? The Hubble telescope? The International Space Station? Real?

Now, how about the Saturn V, heart of the Apollo program? Did the huge crowds of spectators imagine each of the 13 launches of this 360 foot, 3000 ton rocket? Or are you suggesting that NASA threw away billions of dollars (1960s dollars, when a billion dollars was a lot) throwing empty tin cans at the moon and then bringing them back again?

Radar echoes coming and going, faked? Transmissions from lunar orbit and the lunar surface, picked up at multiple receiving stations outside the US, faked? Over 10,000 photos, faked? Laser reflectors left on the surface of the moon, still working today, faked?

What about the unmanned lunar orbiters and landers, the Surveyor and Ranger missions, that NASA launched prior to Apollo? What about Kaguya and Chang'e 1, the Japanese and Chinese lunar orbiters launched in September and October this year? Are they fake too?

What about Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking? If they were faked, how come so many of them crashed, blew up, or simply missed their targets? How about Spirit and Opportunity, the little rovers that are still trundling around the surface of Mars? Are they fake too?

And if NASA and others have successfully launched probes to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, plus various asteroids and comets, plus constant traffic to and from Earth orbit, why would you suggest that they didn't also send men to the Moon?

The Saturn V is clearly capable of making the trip. It was built. It was launched. It did indeed go to the Moon. The Command Module did indeed come back.

So where's the problem?

[sts60]

How could I possibly not like the outcome, if it's so compelling? You're not suggesting it's open to doubt, are you?

Please realize that I'm not fighting the CT corner here, athough it might appear like that to some. I'm simply not yet satisfied with the refutations that have been proffered in response to some of the evidence presented by certain CTists.


Southwind17, I addressed several questions you posed about the ALSEP in post 85 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3188995&postcount=85). I'd be interested in your comments; apologies if you are already working on a reply.


If you're interested, you might want to look at the Apollo Lunar Surface Experiments Package /ALSEP/ flight system familiarization manual, revision B (http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19710014816_1971014816.pdf). I can direct you to a great deal more detailed technical and scientific information having to do with ALSEP if desired.

The attached image shows Apollo 12 astronaut Alan Bean deploying the A12 ALSEP (the shadow is from Pete Conrad, taking the down-sun image). High-resolution still images as well as video imagery of ALSEP deployment are available at the Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/) site.

[Belz...]

So, Southwind, what exactly do you believe happened?

Did the Mercury missions proceed as NASA states?
How about the Gemini missions? Were they real?
The Space Shuttle? The Hubble telescope? The International Space Station? Real?

Now, how about the Saturn V, heart of the Apollo program? Did the huge crowds of spectators imagine each of the 13 launches of this 360 foot, 3000 ton rocket? Or are you suggesting that NASA threw away billions of dollars (1960s dollars, when a billion dollars was a lot) throwing empty tin cans at the moon and then bringing them back again?

Radar echoes coming and going, faked? Transmissions from lunar orbit and the lunar surface, picked up at multiple receiving stations outside the US, faked? Over 10,000 photos, faked? Laser reflectors left on the surface of the moon, still working today, faked?

What about the unmanned lunar orbiters and landers, the Surveyor and Ranger missions, that NASA launched prior to Apollo? What about Kaguya and Chang'e 1, the Japanese and Chinese lunar orbiters launched in September and October this year? Are they fake too?

What about Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking? If they were faked, how come so many of them crashed, blew up, or simply missed their targets? How about Spirit and Opportunity, the little rovers that are still trundling around the surface of Mars? Are they fake too?

And if NASA and others have successfully launched probes to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, plus various asteroids and comets, plus constant traffic to and from Earth orbit, why would you suggest that they didn't also send men to the Moon?

The Saturn V is clearly capable of making the trip. It was built. It was launched. It did indeed go to the Moon. The Command Module did indeed come back.

So where's the problem?

Good luck getting an answer to that, Pixy.

[technoextreme]

Let me get this straight: you don't even know who 'Jay' is, but you're prepared to accept as fact a statement made on this Forum that the said 'Jay' tried to contact David Groves, but couldn't, so that proves that Groves doesn't exist! So who's investigative skills suck the most, I wonder!

Premature Evaluation, I guess, suitably captures the sentiment! :rolleyes:
Wow you can't even read. You mocked phantom wolf for his inability to do research. The fact is that he knew about that video when he made that comment. Ergo, his original point still stands. And as a side note that analysis is flawed. You can't tell where the light source is from that information.

[SpitfireIX]

Let me get this straight: you don't even know who 'Jay' is, but you're prepared to accept as fact a statement made on this Forum that the said 'Jay' tried to contact David Groves, but couldn't, so that proves that Groves doesn't exist! So who's investigative skills suck the most, I wonder!

Premature Evaluation, I guess, suitably captures the sentiment! :rolleyes:


Maybe he didn't know who "Jay" is, but he knows who PhantomWolf is. Therefore, he had a basis for tentatively accepting the information. Further, no one said that it "proves" Groves doesn't exist.

[SpitfireIX]

Jay is is JAy windley of the Clavuis moonbase, he pretty much an is the world's foremost expert on debunking moon hoaxes and his website is listed as a web resource.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=17


Fixed that for you.

[uruk]

I'm referring to the photo you've posted - the 'famous Aldrin on the Moon' shot.

Interesting caveat:

What's your basis for making this statement?

Did you happen to notice that Aldrin is standing in a small crater?

[Southwind17]

It wouldn't matter if a mickey mouse outline appeared aroun Buzz Aldrin's feet.

If even the thought of that wouldn't cast a little doubt in your mind it's clear what's driving your conviction!

The men went, and you know why? The Soviets tracked them every step of the way. If anyone had any reason to call hoax on them, it was the Soviets.

Oh, so here's Exhibit 2. You seem to be placing a lot of faith in the Soviets. First, they didn't fake it, so that proves NASA couldn't have; now the Soviets 'tracked them every step of the way'. Would that include Armstrong's 'giant step for man'?! How, exactly, did the Soviets 'track' that particular 'step'?!

I suppose they could have invented some fake ray to manipulate the Soviet technology, but then you have to ask, wouldn't it just be cheaper to go to the moon?

So it was just a question of hard cash was it?!

[Southwind17]

Retouching and highlighting for various posters I have seen for sale, and also adjustment of contrasts regarding various books printing methods have been done,

The picture is repeated across so many sources it would be difficult to track, there are even quite a few avatars that use it on this and other boards, it's sort of an iconic image.

Just do a quick image search on google for AS11-40-5903, and you can find many images of varying cotrasts on compression crops and rotations, these are done either to be more aesthetic to the person in question (rotation to level the horizon for example, Colour balancing to bring out different details) the one CT book I mentioned was because it is one of those that all the others copy from and present the same analysis and errors,

common type of manipulation is this type from the bbc (http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/images/_-1_buzz300.jpg)

Just for the record, none of the manipulations described impact on or affect the conclusion of the Groves analysis.

[rwguinn]

So it was just a question of hard cash was it?!
Erm...
Yeah. Most engineering solutions boil down to that.
"Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick 2"

[Southwind17]

So, Southwind, what exactly do you believe happened?

Did the Mercury missions proceed as NASA states?
How about the Gemini missions? Were they real?
The Space Shuttle? The Hubble telescope? The International Space Station? Real?

Now, how about the Saturn V, heart of the Apollo program? Did the huge crowds of spectators imagine each of the 13 launches of this 360 foot, 3000 ton rocket? Or are you suggesting that NASA threw away billions of dollars (1960s dollars, when a billion dollars was a lot) throwing empty tin cans at the moon and then bringing them back again?

Radar echoes coming and going, faked? Transmissions from lunar orbit and the lunar surface, picked up at multiple receiving stations outside the US, faked? Over 10,000 photos, faked? Laser reflectors left on the surface of the moon, still working today, faked?

What about the unmanned lunar orbiters and landers, the Surveyor and Ranger missions, that NASA launched prior to Apollo? What about Kaguya and Chang'e 1, the Japanese and Chinese lunar orbiters launched in September and October this year? Are they fake too?

What about Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking? If they were faked, how come so many of them crashed, blew up, or simply missed their targets? How about Spirit and Opportunity, the little rovers that are still trundling around the surface of Mars? Are they fake too?

And if NASA and others have successfully launched probes to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, plus various asteroids and comets, plus constant traffic to and from Earth orbit, why would you suggest that they didn't also send men to the Moon?

The Saturn V is clearly capable of making the trip. It was built. It was launched. It did indeed go to the Moon. The Command Module did indeed come back.

So where's the problem?

I'm referring to men walking on the Moon.

[Southwind17]

Good luck getting an answer to that, Pixy.

Will that do?!

[Southwind17]

Wow you can't even read.

You're supposing I'll understand this?

You mocked phantom wolf for his inability to do research. The fact is that he knew about that video when he made that comment. Ergo, his original point still stands.

The point being that 'Jay' couldn't find somebody, therefore that somebody doesn't exist? If you say so!

And as a side note that analysis is flawed. You can't tell where the light source is from that information.

What light source?!

[Southwind17]

Maybe he didn't know who "Jay" is, but he knows who PhantomWolf is. Therefore, he had a basis for tentatively accepting the information. Further, no one said that it "proves" Groves doesn't exist.

So what's PhantomWolf's point, then?

[Southwind17]

Jay is is JAy windley of the Clavuis moonbase, he pretty much an expert on debunking moon hoaxes and his website is listed as a web resource.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=17

Fixed that for you.

Thabiguy erroneously found me guilty of the crime of 'appeal to authority' earlier! :rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

Did you happen to notice that Aldrin is standing in a small crater?

Yes I did, although I don't believe it's a crater as such, more a slight depression, and I'd say he's standing more on the lip of it. Either way, Groves takes account of the difference in surface height based on where the photographer and astronaut are both standing.

[Southwind17]

Erm...
Yeah. Most engineering solutions boil down to that.
"Fast, Cheap, Good. Pick 2"

Physical impediments and technological innovation and development had no part to play?

[rwguinn]

Physical impediments and technological innovation and development had no part to play?
You DO have a comprehension problem, don't you.

[sts60]

Physical impediments and technological innovation and development had no part to play?
Not in the original context of this particular issue, where Undesired Walrus conjectured a "fake ray" to fool the Soviet's tracking technology. It is impossible to fake a signal from the surface of the Moon with a satellite or aircraft. The pointing angles, tracking rates, ranging, Doppler, and signal strengths simply would be wrong. Nor were the Soviets the only ones to track Apollo other than NASA and affiliated organizations; amateurs did (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm), too.

Similar notes about radio signals from the Moon apply to the ALSEP units, as discussed in post 85 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3188995&postcount=85) (also see post 133 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3194617&postcount=133)); I'm still looking forward to your comments (nudges Southwind17 gently).

Edit: I realized the struck-out part above didn't really make sense. What I wanted to say is that no amount of money can fake a signal from the Moon with anything but, well, a signal from the Moon. So "physical impediments" - i.e., physics itself - do play a key part here; they prevent a faked signal from being successful in the first place.

[Belz...]

Will that do?!

Yes, I believe you've made my point.

Feel free to join reality, any time. Sheesh.

[PetersCreek]

Sorry if I missed a previous post to this effect, Southwind, but just what is your standard of "proof" in this matter? What will convince you? Obviously, a preponderance of evidence won't do it. Some here, including myself, would argue that proof beyond a reasonable doubt won't be satisfactory to you, either. So, what will it take?

Now, regarding Dr. David Groves...an Appeal to Authority is not necessarily fallacious if the authority really is an authority on the subject in question. So, is Dr. Groves an authority on photogrammetry? If we're talking about this Dr. David Groves (http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/GERI/80096.htm#Holographic_Computer_Measurement_Of_Wear _In_Biomaterials), he appears to have expertise in computer-assisted interferometric measurement techniques and related technologies. That's not the same thing as photogrammetry, though.

If Dr. Groves' analysis falls outside his field of expertise, then it is a fallacious Appeal to Authority to cite his credentials in order to bolster the argument. Lacking verifiable credentials in the field, a peer-reviewed body of work in the field, citations by other recognized experts in the field, or any other credible evidence as to his expert qualifications to conduct a definitive anaylysis, it would likewise be a fallacy to cite his analysis as authoritative. Of course, this alone doesn't invalidate his analysis...it just can't benefit from the support of his reputation and will have to stand or fall on its own merits.

Unfortunately, his analysis doesn't favorably bear scrutiny on that basis, either. The Clavius website does a far better job of dissecting Dr. Groves' various arguments than I could.

[Thabiguy]

Thabiguy erroneously found me guilty of the crime of 'appeal to authority' earlier! :rolleyes:
It seems you misunderstand what "appeal to authority" is. Appeal to authority is in no way a crime; it is a logical fallacy. This means that the argument doesn't support the claim. Committing this fallacy is not evidence against the claim, and neither for the claim. The claim could be true or false for unrelated reasons; even if the claim is true, argument from authority remains a logical fallacy. As your post merely stated that an "authoritative" figure thinks otherwise, and didn't contain anything from Groves analysis to directly address the issue, as an argument it was an appeal to authority and there was nothing erroneous in stating so.

[16.5]

I am confused. There are interviews with this Groves character on You Tube. Is there a question that the person in those interviews is not the Groves who did the analysis?

[ArmillarySphere]

Barring evidence to the contrary, that seems to be the case. However, he's never been conclusively identified, and so we only has his word for that he has any relevant expertise on the matter. Regardless of that issue, however, his analysis is severely flawed - the geometry is wrong, the assumption of flat ground is proven wrong by the very photo he's analysing, and so forth, so it doesn't really matter whether he has a Ph.D or not - he's still wrong.

The rest of that youtube clip is much the same - it sounds impressive enough to anyone who isn't familiar with the subject at hand, but falls flat once you start looking at the claims.

[drkitten]

Physical impediments and technological innovation and development had no part to play?

All solvable by throwing money at the problem.

[SpitfireIX]

So what's PhantomWolf's point, then?


I think I know, but I'll let him answer.

[SpitfireIX]

Thabiguy erroneously found me guilty of the crime of 'appeal to authority' earlier! :rolleyes:


Appeal to Authority:

On the other hand, there is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, in contrast to claiming that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism: It can be true, the truth can merely not be proven, or made probable by attributing it to the authority, and the assumption that the assertion was true might be subject to criticism and turn out to have been wrong actually. If a criticism appears that contradicts the authority's statement, then merely the fact that the statement originated from the authority is not an argument for ignoring the criticism.


No one thinks Jay's infallible; certainly not Jay himself. In fact, there's a running joke on BAUTforum.com about the "I corrected Jay" T-shirt (I even got one once :) ). But he's right a hell of a lot more often than he's wrong.

[annexw]

I'm referring to men walking on the Moon.
I'm sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but Southwind17 are you saying that you don't have a problem with man getting to the moon, but with man walking on the moon?

Just trying to get your position properly in my head.

[PhantomWolf]

I think I know, but I'll let him answer.

Most people seem to have already guessed it. My point is that because Groves is impossible to track down, there is no accounting for his work. We only have Aulis' statement that he actually is qualified to do what was claimed, that he actually did what was claimed, and that the results they present us are what were actually obtained. Without Groves standing up and being counted and having his work examined, he is an anonymous authority, i.e. worthless.

The fact that a number of people, including those predominate in the Hoax debunking community, have tried to track him down and keep running into dead ends and ghosts doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but it certainly means he's not publicly accountable for his supposed claims. Since he apparently isn't willing to stand by his work, show that he was indeed qualified to make the assessments he had and support his conclusions, why should he be accepted as an authority? He shouldn't.

As to the image, not being sure which it was comes from not wanting to reading form a dozen rambling posts. I make the mistake of assuming it was Groves "hotspot on the boot" claims with the Aldrin egress image that were in discussion. Since it seems it's the "Man on the Moon" image, then all I can say is Aulis' work on this is even worse. They use a poor publicity image rather than getting an original scan and things get worse from there. The reason that Armstrong is "above" Aldrin is two fold. Aldirn is standing in a depression (you can see it in the photograph) while the ground Armstrong is on is higher, and second, Aldrin is leaning towards the camera. The centre of mass of the suits caused the Astronauts to lean forwards. Good shots of this are the "Aldrin Flag Salute" images were the lean forwards is showed very clearly.

As to my assessment of the book "Dark Moon", I stand by it, it is a muddled, incoherent, poorly thought out, self debunking, load of trash that isn't worth being used as toilet paper. Percy and co are conmen that know they are conning people and don't care. Percy's "laws of Photography" are his own inventions and even the photos he uses to try and support them contradict his own Laws. When this was brought to his attention, rather than accepting he was wrong and changing his position, he simple shut up shop to stop any further criticism of his work. They want nothing other then the money of gullible people who have even less understanding of photography and the real world than they do.

[CurtC]

They use a poor publicity image rather than getting an original scan and things get worse from there. The reason that Armstrong is "above" Aldrin is two fold.
While I was watching the YouTube video, I had in another tab, the high-resolution Man on the Moon original photo, and it's striking to be switching back and forth, that the effects of the light fading away towards the horizon just don't look that way at all on the original.

I also couldn't figure out the point they were trying to make by pointing out that the center-frame crosshair marker was on Aldrin's lower leg. So what? That just means that the camera was angled down. How did they then make the logical jump that the camera was held at eye-level? Seems to me that Armstrong was aware that Aldrin was downhill from him, and over-compensated because they didn't have a viewfinder.

Also, an early indicator of poor analysis skills, was when they were talking about the bright "hot spot" on Aldrin's boot as he descended the LM ladder. They scanned over someone's diagram showing the angles, and some angle on there (there wasn't explanation given of what these are) was labeled as being 3.1417 degrees. Anyone carrying out photogrammetry and measuring to the ten-thousandth of a degree is an idiot.

[PixyMisa]

I'm referring to men walking on the Moon.
Yes. What I don't understand is why you consider this to be at all questionable.

From an engineering perspective, the Saturn V, CSM and LM were perfectly capable of doing the task. They were built; they were launched. This is a matter of record.

Space suits are also something we know are real. The Gemini astronauts wore suits and made EVAs - space walks. Shuttle astronauts do this routinely.

So, we know we could get to the Moon. We know that the vehicle to take us there did indeed go there. We know that the suits required for walking on the Moon were available.

Where then is the problem?

[Corsair 115]

Out of interest (because you haven't actually said so), do you consider that ALSEP provides indisputable evidence that man has walked on the Moon? I can only conclude you either have a poor memory or you have not read the posts in this thread very well.

From post #86:

I would have thought it clear that my position is that there is no doubt of the authenticity of the moon landings. Indeed, that's why I mentioned ALSEP in the first place, as another item of rock-solid proof.



Your inference that I would be proved 'wrong' if 'rock-solid evidence' were presented to me is completely erroneous and unfounded. I've stated before, and above, that I have, say, a 5% doubt, i.e. I'm around 95% certain, that man has walked on the Moon. What could I possibly fear being 'wrong' about?!Then stop posting here for a few days and go read up on ALSEP. Then come back and tell us whether you find it solid evidence or not.

While you're at it, do some checking into just how many photos were taken on the lunar surface, and how many hours of television footage were taken on the lunar surface.

[technoextreme]

Also, an early indicator of poor analysis skills, was when they were talking about the bright "hot spot" on Aldrin's boot as he descended the LM ladder. They scanned over someone's diagram showing the angles, and some angle on there (there wasn't explanation given of what these are) was labeled as being 3.1417 degrees. Anyone carrying out photogrammetry and measuring to the ten-thousandth of a degree is an idiot.
Technically that number is to the millionths of a degree. It's not like it changes anything.
From an engineering perspective, the Saturn V, CSM and LM were perfectly capable of doing the task. They were built; they were launched. This is a matter of record.

Space suits are also something we know are real. The Gemini astronauts wore suits and made EVAs - space walks. Shuttle astronauts do this routinely.

So, we know we could get to the Moon. We know that the vehicle to take us there did indeed go there. We know that the suits required for walking on the Moon were available.

Don't forget Kapton. That bright yellow stuff of the LEM is Kapton. It actually got confused with Duct Tape when Astronauts used it on a spacesuit.

[uruk]

Well I saw the youtube video and noticed some errors and oversites.

First Dr. Groves expertess seems to be with holographic analysis not necessarily photographic analysis. And that seems apparent when he talks about the pictures specificaly the boot hotspot and the "famous" Aldrin picture:


The company he works for does tire wear anaylisys using holographic interferometry
( http://www.aip.org/tip/INPHFA/vol-3/iss-3/p37.pdf )
Basicaly they take a hologram of a tire. Use the tire. Then measure the wear by overlaping the hologram of the tire over the actual tire and measure the Moire or fringe patterns.

Not quite the same thing as analysing a photograph for light source and distance info.
The good doctor and the other interviewees did not seem to understand much about exposure rates either.

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg
Anyhoo. As you can see in the "famous" photograph abouv you will notice that Aldrin is not standing too far from the lander. the lander uses a gold maylar as an insulator. If you look carfully at Aldrin's right arm and leg (his right arm and leg) you will notice a slight gold tinge. The "fill" light is coming from the light reflected from the gold maylar insulation of the lander's decent stage. You can also tell the direction form the shadows being cast from the wrinkles that the light direction is pretty diffused buit is basiclly coming from a low angle. I guess that is something the good doctor et. al. missed.

Also, I think the two foot height distance is probably a bit exagerated. If you notice Southwind7, Aldrin is in fact standing at the base of the depression close to lower end of the "lip". His right foot is right on the base and his left foot is slightly lifted on the lower end of the "lip".
Page 201 of this report ( http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11_MissionReport.pdf ) shows that there were many creaters around the lander. Ranging from "very subdued" to "relatively sharp". The astronauts report some of the rims sloped at 15 degrees and ranged from 1 meter or less. Needless to say the ground was very uneven.

You can see on page 26 and 28 of this report ( http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/as11psr.pdf ) the difference in height between the left and right landing pad of the lander. The height difference is quite a bit larger than .9 meters

Page 47 of the above mentioned report show the position and direction of the picture 5903 taken in relation to the LM. It also mentions the general angle (if I read the legend right) shows that the picture's centerline tilted more than 25 degrees below the horizon.

Here is also picture 5902 ( http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5902HR.jpg ) which was taken just before 5903 and from slightly different position and angles. Notice how differently the image has been cropped.
page 47 of the science report shows the different positions Neil was when he took the pictures. Notice in 5902 how much higher the area in front of Neil is compared to 5903. Compare the shadows of Aldrin and the lander leg and the angle of the shadows in the footprints. Neil was standing on a mound and Aldrin was standing in a crater (you can also add in the difference in height between Neil and Aldrin. Neil is taller) . The height difference is even more exagereated because the astronauts tend to lean a little forward because of how the wieght of the backpack shifts the center of gravity on the astronauts. that why you see so much of the top surface of Aldrin's backpack.


Now lets look at picture 5866. The boot hot spot picture. The hot spot on the boot is lined up right center of the photograph which would mean the source of the hotspot would be coming more from directly behind the camera rather than to the right as was mentioned in the video. That would mean that a possible source of the light causing the hotspot could have been (and most likely is) the reflection of the Sun shining off of Neil's helmet visor.
In the video the video camera clearly shows Neil walking out of the shadow area into the sun light to take the picture (5899). That means the the sun would have been shining on Neil and the light from his suit and shiny visor would have been reflecting light towards Aldrin.

As for the all the light shining into the dark shadow of the lander. Notice the shadows being cast into the wrinkles of the space suit? notice how the top of Aldrin's lifted leg has a shadow on top? That means the light source was coming primarily from below. The light is also pretty diffused which means that it is light is being reflected from the surface of the moon on to Aldrin and the lander.

You can even see the sunlit surface reflected in the Acent stage windows.


Funny how a physicist and a researcher in photoanalysis missed what a computer maintenance intructor can see.

[PhantomWolf]

While I was watching the YouTube video, I had in another tab, the high-resolution Man on the Moon original photo, and it's striking to be switching back and forth, that the effects of the light fading away towards the horizon just don't look that way at all on the original.

Exactly. This is a result of Aulis using a goodness knows what generation scan of a publicity shot that has had its colour scheme shoved up the ying yang and back. First generation scans of the original (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903.jpg) show a much more even lighting of the surface. The drop off we do see is caused by a zero-phase angle where because we're looking up-sun, we're seeing more shadow that we do lit areas. This can be aptly shown to work on Earth as well as these images that Jay Windley took for Clavius show.

http://www.clavius.org/img/dirt-up.jpg
up-sun

http://www.clavius.org/img/dirt-down.jpg
down-sun

The up-sun image is quite clearly darker than the down sun one, even though they are the same piece of dirt.

I also couldn't figure out the point they were trying to make by pointing out that the center-frame crosshair marker was on Aldrin's lower leg. So what? That just means that the camera was angled down. How did they then make the logical jump that the camera was held at eye-level? Seems to me that Armstrong was aware that Aldrin was downhill from him, and over-compensated because they didn't have a viewfinder.

The issue is that the large crosshair should be in the centre of the picture, and it's not. Of course this is because Aulis' version is a publicity shot in which the bottom has been cropped and black added to the area above Aldrin (if you look at the original it cuts off right above his head, and actually removes the very upper right part of the PLSS.) This is really an obvious example of how poorly researched and crappy Aulis' work really is, they couldn't even be bothered getting hold of an original scan before making up stuff.

Also, an early indicator of poor analysis skills, was when they were talking about the bright "hot spot" on Aldrin's boot as he descended the LM ladder. They scanned over someone's diagram showing the angles, and some angle on there (there wasn't explanation given of what these are) was labeled as being 3.1417 degrees. Anyone carrying out photogrammetry and measuring to the ten-thousandth of a degree is an idiot.

This is the David Groves work I thought was being disgust (sic). Groves claims to be able to measure the position of the hotspot to a level that is smaller than the actual film grain. Other than that, the work is sloppy, but the final conclusion still doesn't rule out the most obvious source of the hotspot, Armstrong's shoulder, which was in the sunlight while the rest of him was in the LM's shadow.

[PhantomWolf]

Space suits are also something we know are real. The Gemini astronauts wore suits and made EVAs - space walks. Shuttle astronauts do this routinely.

The Apollo suits were a bit more advanced than the Gemini ones, which didn't include the PLSS and had rather serious fogging issues. However having said that, the suits were tested during Apollo 9 so they had a good work out before the landing in 11.

It's better to compare them with the Space Shuttle EVA suits. The SS suits are direct decendants from the Apollo ones, the main changes being that the Shuttle suits have a hard torso and are not custom fitted (The Apollo suits were all custom fitted to the Astronaut. After being measured for them, three suits were made, one was used for training, one was the mission suit and there was a back-up incase something happened to that suit before launch.) Even the SS PLLSS is virtually identical to the Apollo ones, the only major difference is the order in which the air is passed through the filter and the the subliminator. (IIRC the Apollo ones cooled then filtered, the SS ones filter then cool. If I'm wrong, it's the other way around. :)) meaning that the principles that worked for Apollo are still being used by astronaut crews to this very day.

This is where the hoax really falls over. Apollo didn't happen in isolation. It was a step up from Gemini which was a step up from Mercury and of course after Apollo they used the Apollo gear for Skylab and even use much of what they learned from those missions in the Shuttle. Today as the Shuttles come to the end of their lives, NASA will be using the leasons of Apollo and the Shuttles to build and operate the Orion spacecraft. Nor was it a sudden jump, each mission built on to the next, from man in space, to man in orbit, to two men in orbit, to man spacewalking, to two ships rendezvousing in space, to ships docking with a target, to firing a booster in space, to spending a week in space, to putting unmanned craft in lunar orbit, to softlanding unmanned craft, to manking those unmanned craft take off and land again, to testing the hardware unmanned, to testing the hardware manned, to putting men in lunar orbit, to conducting a near landing then abort, to the final test landing. As of yet not one person has been able to tell me which step it was that so was so impossible that NASA would have had to give up and fake it.

[PhantomWolf]

I would have thought it clear that my position is that there is no doubt of the authenticity of the moon landings. Indeed, that's why I mentioned ALSEP in the first place, as another item of rock-solid proof.

Very much so, the ALSEP was unable to be deployed remotely as it was powered by an RTG that had to be manually fed with the material cartridge to start it. They actually had a little trouble with this on Apollo 12, the cartridge canister expanded in the cask it was stored in and they had a fight to get it out so that it could be added to the RTG. Aside from the thousands of photos, hours of film and video, return samples, tracking data (including independant data from both non-government and non-US sources), and Astronaut testimony, the ALSEP data is the best evidence of the moonlandings being real.

[PhantomWolf]

Technically that number is to the millionths of a degree. It's not like it changes anything.

not when you are already well below the grain resolution of the film :rolleyes:

For those that might not be understanding this point, it's like me saying that I can measure the position of a golf ball to the nearest mm when all I have to work with is a 1m grid and one of the squares marked to tell that the ball is somewhere inside that square.

Don't forget Kapton. That bright yellow stuff of the LEM is Kapton. It actually got confused with Duct Tape when Astronauts used it on a spacesuit.

LM.

I think that you'll find that the Duct Tape was used on the rover, not the spacesuits.

The claim about how the LM looked like a prop and was taped up is a very common one. All it shows is that the claimant has no idea what they are talking about, though I have yet to met a HP or HB who actually does yet. Very few of them know what Kapton, Mylar, Beta Cloth or Lexan are, let alone know their properties and where they were used in the Apollo equipment. The idea that you would use tape to hold on a decal or outer plate on to a non-aerodynamic surface instead of rivetting or screwing it because tape has a large surface area meaning a better hold and less change of tearing the material being taped, as well as it being lighter, seems to go right over the heads of most of the Lunartic (sic) crowd.

[PhantomWolf]

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg
Anyhoo. As you can see in the "famous" photograph abouv you will notice that Aldrin is not standing too far from the lander. the lander uses a gold maylar as an insulator. If you look carfully at Aldrin's right arm and leg (his right arm and leg) you will notice a slight gold tinge. The "fill" light is coming from the light reflected from the gold maylar insulation of the lander's decent stage. You can also tell the direction form the shadows being cast from the wrinkles that the light direction is pretty diffused buit is basiclly coming from a low angle. I guess that is something the good doctor et. al. missed.

Most of the "fill" is coming from the bright ground you can see in his visor, after all if you can see it reflected in his visor then light from it must be hitting other parts of his suit as well. The fill is also coming from below as evidenced by the shadows on his upper arms and shoulders. That's not to say that there is nothing from the Lander, there is. There certainly is a golden colour to the image, especially his right arm (our left) which shows a decidely golden colour to it. Yes it is hard to determine how someone supposedly skilled in photographic analysis such as Groves, and also David Percy, managed to miss these rather obvious things. Perhaps it's because they have a book to sell?

Now lets look at picture 5866. The boot hot spot picture. The hot spot on the boot is lined up right center of the photograph which would mean the source of the hotspot would be coming more from directly behind the camera rather than to the right as was mentioned in the video. That would mean that a possible source of the light causing the hotspot could have been (and most likely is) the reflection of the Sun shining off of Neil's helmet visor.
In the video the video camera clearly shows Neil walking out of the shadow area into the sun light to take the picture (5899). That means the the sun would have been shining on Neil and the light from his suit and shiny visor would have been reflecting light towards Aldrin.

It's very unlikely that the hotspot is caused by a visor reflection, the more likely cause is Armstrong's right shoulder which was in the sun at the time.

As for the all the light shining into the dark shadow of the lander. Notice the shadows being cast into the wrinkles of the space suit? notice how the top of Aldrin's lifted leg has a shadow on top? That means the light source was coming primarily from below. The light is also pretty diffused which means that it is light is being reflected from the surface of the moon on to Aldrin and the lander.

You can even see the sunlit surface reflected in the Acent stage windows.

yes, it's funny how HPs (and subsequently HBs) continuously ignore the fact that the ground is a great big light reflector even though it's sitting there in every image. How do they think the light gets into the camera from the ground if it wasn't reflected? I can see how anyone who claims to be a photographer can honestly ignore that as a source of the reflected light that is acting as backfill.

Funny how a physicist and a researcher in photoanalysis missed what a computer maintenance intructor can see.

Which begs the question, are they doing it deliberately?

[Stellafane]

So, Southwind, what exactly do you believe happened?

Did the Mercury missions proceed as NASA states?
How about the Gemini missions? Were they real?
The Space Shuttle? The Hubble telescope? The International Space Station? Real?

Now, how about the Saturn V, heart of the Apollo program? Did the huge crowds of spectators imagine each of the 13 launches of this 360 foot, 3000 ton rocket? Or are you suggesting that NASA threw away billions of dollars (1960s dollars, when a billion dollars was a lot) throwing empty tin cans at the moon and then bringing them back again?

Radar echoes coming and going, faked? Transmissions from lunar orbit and the lunar surface, picked up at multiple receiving stations outside the US, faked? Over 10,000 photos, faked? Laser reflectors left on the surface of the moon, still working today, faked?

What about the unmanned lunar orbiters and landers, the Surveyor and Ranger missions, that NASA launched prior to Apollo? What about Kaguya and Chang'e 1, the Japanese and Chinese lunar orbiters launched in September and October this year? Are they fake too?

What about Mariner, Pioneer, Voyager, Viking? If they were faked, how come so many of them crashed, blew up, or simply missed their targets? How about Spirit and Opportunity, the little rovers that are still trundling around the surface of Mars? Are they fake too?

And if NASA and others have successfully launched probes to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, plus various asteroids and comets, plus constant traffic to and from Earth orbit, why would you suggest that they didn't also send men to the Moon?

The Saturn V is clearly capable of making the trip. It was built. It was launched. It did indeed go to the Moon. The Command Module did indeed come back.

So where's the problem?

Don't you understand? None of that is real. In fact, nothing at all is real. It's all the Matrix, don't you know? Fortunately people like Southwind are real-life Neos and will save us all from our stupid, deluded selves.

I've never been modded before, and I hope never to be. But I'll risk it now, for the sake of making my thoughts on this matter perfectly clear: Anyone who thinks the moon landings were faked is just plain nuts. Willfully nuts perhaps, but nuts just the same. If you're capable of dismissing the whole oceans of evidence proving we were there, and instead embrace the rantings of some doofus who sees something in the pixels he doesn't quite understand, then you have problems that will never be fixed here on this forum.

[technoextreme]

LM.

I think that you'll find that the Duct Tape was used on the rover, not the spacesuits.


Are you sure it was Duct Tape? The skeptical side of me says that there is more to this story. Namely the tape would turn into goo. Even Lexan does not fair well if you don't get the right type. Maybe it was just real Duct Tape not the craptacular plastic stuff I usually see.
PS. The story I was referring to was a recent spacewalk. The backpack was failing off the spacesuit.The claim about how the LM looked like a prop and was taped up is a very common one. All it shows is that the claimant has no idea what they are talking about, though I have yet to met a HP or HB who actually does yet.
Was it tape or just sheets attached to the LM? I've used Kapton tape before (Only tape that could withstand a UV chamber for extended periods of time) but it looks like it could just be a film.

[PhantomWolf]

Are you sure it was Duct Tape? The skeptical side of me says that there is more to this story. Namely the tape would turn into goo. Even Lexan does not fair well if you don't get the right type. Maybe it was just real Duct Tape not the craptacular plastic stuff I usually see.

Looks like Duct Tape to me (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/AS17-137-20979.jpg)

Here's John Young telling them how to do the fix.

--------------------------
138:32:00 Young: Okay, Geno, I don't think you need to copy this. Sort of just ad-lib it. With your four cronopaque maps, tape two maps and allow about a l-inch overlap to (create) a 15-inch by 10-1/2-inch configuration.

[Two 10 1/2 x 8 inch pages will become one 15 x 10 1/2 piece.]
138:32:20 Young: That's an estimate. And then repeat with two other maps, and then tape the two maps - now four maps - tape them together, and you'll end up with a sheet that's about 15 inches by 19 inches, a sheet of cronopaque. And then tape both sides of it - the overlapping edges - to strengthen it. And you can further strengthen it if you tape an "X" of tape across both sides of it.

138:32:55 Young: And then, on the roll up, on the long axis, secure it with a strip of tape and put it in the ETB. And, on that strip of tape you secure it with, be sure and leave a tab on the end of it so you can get it off with your gloves. And then remove clamps from both the utility light units, and open the clamp jaws to max. And then tighten the mounting bracket that you've got on it so (that) it will be swinging around; and stow the clamps in the ETB. You got that, Gene?

138:33:39 Cernan: Yes, sir.

138:33:43 Young: Okay. Now you've got everything you need. And it's all put together and all ready to be fastened to the Rover. And then when you get the ETB in the (Rover) seat, you unroll the cronopaque sheet and you locate the front edge - with the long axis fore and aft - even with the axle. And you lay the edge of the sheet over the inboard guide rail and you clamp it. And you lay the other edge of the sheet over the outboard guide rail and clamp it. And, as I said, the inboard clamp must be directly over the axle to avoid interference while steering. And tighten the clamps securely, both of them. And then while you're driving around out there by yourself, it would be good if Jack could take a look at it and see if you're getting any unusual dynamics. And at Station 2, you should inspect the fender for any unusual wear that might have been caused by this mass out there on the fender, of those clamps bouncing up and down.
---------------

The crews carry the duct tape to help remove dust from places they couldn't reach (minds out of gutters please, I mean small cracks and crevases in their EQUIPMENT, not them.)

Was it tape or just sheets attached to the LM? I've used Kapton tape before (Only tape that could withstand a UV chamber for extended periods of time) but it looks like it could just be a film.

From talking to people in the industry the tapes come in different widths. I believe that they used tape for the decals and for where it was basically just there for holding stuff in place and such, while film was certainly used on other parts of the craft, including the CM I as I understand it.

[PixyMisa]

This is where the hoax really falls over. Apollo didn't happen in isolation. It was a step up from Gemini which was a step up from Mercury and of course after Apollo they used the Apollo gear for Skylab and even use much of what they learned from those missions in the Shuttle. Today as the Shuttles come to the end of their lives, NASA will be using the leasons of Apollo and the Shuttles to build and operate the Orion spacecraft. Nor was it a sudden jump, each mission built on to the next, from man in space, to man in orbit, to two men in orbit, to man spacewalking, to two ships rendezvousing in space, to ships docking with a target, to firing a booster in space, to spending a week in space, to putting unmanned craft in lunar orbit, to softlanding unmanned craft, to manking those unmanned craft take off and land again, to testing the hardware unmanned, to testing the hardware manned, to putting men in lunar orbit, to conducting a near landing then abort, to the final test landing. As of yet not one person has been able to tell me which step it was that so was so impossible that NASA would have had to give up and fake it.
Exactly. :)

[Southwind17]

Not in the original context of this particular issue, where Undesired Walrus conjectured a "fake ray" to fool the Soviet's tracking technology. It is impossible to fake a signal from the surface of the Moon with a satellite or aircraft. The pointing angles, tracking rates, ranging, Doppler, and signal strengths simply would be wrong. Nor were the Soviets the only ones to track Apollo other than NASA and affiliated organizations; amateurs did (http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/Apollo17/APOLLO17.htm), too.

Similar notes about radio signals from the Moon apply to the ALSEP units, as discussed in post 85 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3188995&postcount=85) (also see post 133 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3194617&postcount=133)); I'm still looking forward to your comments (nudges Southwind17 gently).

Edit: I realized the struck-out part above didn't really make sense. What I wanted to say is that no amount of money can fake a signal from the Moon with anything but, well, a signal from the Moon. So "physical impediments" - i.e., physics itself - do play a key part here; they prevent a faked signal from being successful in the first place.

Is it possible to relay a signal from Earth back to Earth via the Moon (with the necessary relay equipment on the Moon, of course)? Seems plausible to me, given that we can bounce lasers back to measure distance. I don't know; I'm just asking.

[uruk]

Most of the "fill" is coming from the bright ground you can see in his visor, after all if you can see it reflected in his visor then light from it must be hitting other parts of his suit as well. The fill is also coming from below as evidenced by the shadows on his upper arms and shoulders. That's not to say that there is nothing from the Lander, there is. There certainly is a golden colour to the image, especially his right arm (our left) which shows a decidely golden colour to it. Yes it is hard to determine how someone supposedly skilled in photographic analysis such as Groves, and also David Percy, managed to miss these rather obvious things. Perhaps it's because they have a book to sell? Yea. It's amazing how a physicists would miss light diffusing from the surface of the Moon. Heck even argue against it. You'd figgure he would know better from working with lasers for holography.

I learned about diffusion and dispursion while learning fiber optics.



It's very unlikely that the hotspot is caused by a visor reflection, the more likely cause is Armstrong's right shoulder which was in the sun at the time. I thought it was a possibility because the gold visor seemed to be more of a specular source than the white beta cloth of the suit.



yes, it's funny how HPs (and subsequently HBs) continuously ignore the fact that the ground is a great big light reflector even though it's sitting there in every image. How do they think the light gets into the camera from the ground if it wasn't reflected? I can see how anyone who claims to be a photographer can honestly ignore that as a source of the reflected light that is acting as backfill. Not to mention the effects of exposure rates on film.



Which begs the question, are they doing it deliberately? Well if you have a book to sell to a target demographics it would be to your advantage to ignore or avoid a few things

[Southwind17]

Yes, I believe you've made my point.

What point was that?

Feel free to join reality, any time. Sheesh.

Seems there's an echo in this imagination void!

[uruk]

Is it possible to relay a signal from Earth back to Earth via the Moon (with the necessary relay equipment on the Moon, of course)? Seems plausible to me, given that we can bounce lasers back to measure distance. I don't know; I'm just asking.

You would have to account for the delay time caused by the distance between the earth and the Moon. That would give you away. That's one of the reasons why sts60 and UW mentioned that it was impossible to fake. You can't fudge the laws of physics. It takes a specific amount of time for a signal to travel the distance. There was almost a three second round trip delay for radio signals. (half that for one way)


If you watched the Tom Hank's series "From the Earth to the Moon" they had a part where the remote camera man had a hard time synchronizing the video camera to tilt upward in time with the ascent stage as it launched from the decent stage.
He finally got it right on Apollo 17. The last mission to the Moon.

[Southwind17]

You would have to account for the delay time caused by the distance between the earth and the Moon. That would give you away. That's one of the reasons why sts60 and UW mentioned that it was impossible to fake. You can't fudge the laws of physics. It takes a specific amount of time for a signal to travel the distance. There was almost a three second round trip delay for radio signals. (half that for one way)


If you watched the Tom Hank's series "From the Earth to the Moon" they had a part where the remote camera man had a hard time synchronizing the video camera to tilt upward in time with the ascent stage as it launched from the decent stage.
He finally got it right on Apollo 17. The last mission to the Moon.

But to anybody picking up just the relayed signal it wouldn't seem anything 'unusual', would it? 'Correct' time delay, no?

[Furi]

Is it possible to relay a signal from Earth back to Earth via the Moon (with the necessary relay equipment on the Moon, of course)? Seems plausible to me, given that we can bounce lasers back to measure distance. I don't know; I'm just asking.

that would be no major tech issue, you can bounce signals off the moon with a relay (or at far lower eff. without It is a reasonable reflector after all) but bouncing off a predicted location during the TLC, would be a tad tricky, and we then run into signal delay problems, and also the chance that with the world watching/listening and tracking, it would have been such a pity for a radio signal or signal exho to be picked up and determined to be a terrestrial xmit rather then a lunar xmit.

=^..^=

[Southwind17]

Sorry if I missed a previous post to this effect, Southwind, but just what is your standard of "proof" in this matter? What will convince you? Obviously, a preponderance of evidence won't do it. Some here, including myself, would argue that proof beyond a reasonable doubt won't be satisfactory to you, either. So, what will it take?

I acknowledge that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence available, however, if it was to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions. It might not necessarily mean that man didn't actually walk on the Moon, but one would have to consider that as a possibility, at least initially. If some of the contradictory evidence were to be shown to have been fabricated or doctored by NASA simply in the interests of presenting such an auspicious human endeavour in the best possible light (pun intended) for the World press and public then that might be argued to be excusable, but I believe NASA has flatly denied any such action.

There are a number of aspects of the NASA records that remain anomalous, and until they're satisfactorily explained they will continue to plant some doubts in my mind. What is my 'standard of proof' you ask. Satisfactory explanations of said anomalies would do the trick.

Now, regarding Dr. David Groves...an Appeal to Authority is not necessarily fallacious if the authority really is an authority on the subject in question. So, is Dr. Groves an authority on photogrammetry? If we're talking about this Dr. David Groves (http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/GERI/80096.htm#Holographic_Computer_Measurement_Of_Wear _In_Biomaterials), he appears to have expertise in computer-assisted interferometric measurement techniques and related technologies. That's not the same thing as photogrammetry, though.

If Dr. Groves' analysis falls outside his field of expertise, then it is a fallacious Appeal to Authority to cite his credentials in order to bolster the argument. Lacking verifiable credentials in the field, a peer-reviewed body of work in the field, citations by other recognized experts in the field, or any other credible evidence as to his expert qualifications to conduct a definitive anaylysis, it would likewise be a fallacy to cite his analysis as authoritative. Of course, this alone doesn't invalidate his analysis...it just can't benefit from the support of his reputation and will have to stand or fall on its own merits.

Unfortunately, his analysis doesn't favorably bear scrutiny on that basis, either. The Clavius website does a far better job of dissecting Dr. Groves' various arguments than I could.

Actually, thinking about it, the credibility and validity of Groves' analysis is not, I don't believe, at all dependent on his qualifications or expertise, with very limited exception. It's essentially a mathematical analysis, so should stand or fall on its merits.

The Clavius website doesn't appear to provide any sort of 'debunking' of Groves' calculation of the positioning of the camera in the famous Aldrin photo (I'm assuming it would be under the 'man on the moon' sub-section of the 'Photo Analysis' section). Have I overlooked it somehow?

[technoextreme]

Is it possible to relay a signal from Earth back to Earth via the Moon (with the necessary relay equipment on the Moon, of course)? Seems plausible to me, given that we can bounce lasers back to measure distance. I don't know; I'm just asking.
No. As someone pointed out in another post it's pretty dam hard. You'll get reflections bouncing off of the atmosphere. Actually, thinking about it, the credibility and validity of Groves' analysis is not, I don't believe, at all dependent on his qualifications or expertise, with very limited exception. It's essentially a mathematical analysis, so should stand or fall on its merits.
As my electromagnetics professor said yesterday mathematical analysis sometimes fails on it's own. The problem being that it neglects the fact that even though the light is "supposedly" from a certain direction it could be just a reflection. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

[Southwind17]

It seems you misunderstand what "appeal to authority" is. Appeal to authority is in no way a crime; it is a logical fallacy. This means that the argument doesn't support the claim. Committing this fallacy is not evidence against the claim, and neither for the claim. The claim could be true or false for unrelated reasons; even if the claim is true, argument from authority remains a logical fallacy. As your post merely stated that an "authoritative" figure thinks otherwise, and didn't contain anything from Groves analysis to directly address the issue, as an argument it was an appeal to authority and there was nothing erroneous in stating so.

Not quite right big guy, and you take me too literally! My post didn't 'merely state that an "authoritative" figure thinks otherwise. My post clearly posited the scientific, mathematical analysis undertaken by Groves as the evidence. My adding Groves' relevant background and qualifications as a measure of 'authority' was simply to try to pre-empt the otherwise likelihood of somebody asking who the hell this unknown Groves character is! The fact that I didn't include anything from Groves' analysis neither invalidates my argument nor necessarily deems it an appeal to authority.

Do you understand why expert witnesses in court cases are invariably asked to disclose their credentials to the jury before giving evidence?

[technoextreme]

Not quite right big guy, and you take me too literally! My post didn't 'merely state that an "authoritative" figure thinks otherwise. My post clearly posited the scientific, mathematical analysis undertaken by Groves as the evidence. My adding Groves' relevant background and qualifications as a measure of 'authority' was simply to try to pre-empt the otherwise likelihood of somebody asking who the hell this unknown Groves character is! The fact that I didn't include anything from Groves' analysis neither invalidates my argument nor necessarily deems it an appeal to authority.

Well it sort of does. His analysis is extremely weak. It doesn't consider any more rational alternatives.

[Southwind17]

No. As someone pointed out in another post it's pretty dam hard. You'll get reflections bouncing off of the atmosphere.

There's no way the then technology could overcome that?

As my electromagnetics professor said yesterday mathematical analysis sometimes fails on it's own.

Does this count as an appeal to authority Thabiguy, although the electromagnetics slant might just get techno off the hook what?! Hardly a profound statement, though, which I'm sure we all agree with.

The problem being that it neglects the fact that even though the light is "supposedly" from a certain direction it could be just a reflection. It's not that hard of a concept to understand.

What 'it' are you referring to here? What 'concept' is finding itself difficult to be understood, and by whom, exactly?

[PixyMisa]

Is it possible to relay a signal from Earth back to Earth via the Moon (with the necessary relay equipment on the Moon, of course)? Seems plausible to me, given that we can bounce lasers back to measure distance. I don't know; I'm just asking.
So instead of simply sending men to the Moon, NASA launched (with 1960s technology) fully automated radio and television repeater stations? Landed them on the Moon, prepared actors on a set that somehow accurately portrayed hard vacuum and 1/6th Earth gravity, filmed them, beamed the broadcasts to the Moon, relayed them back to Parkes and other ground stations, and then broadcast them to the world?

Is that really what you think happened?

And what does this say of Mercury and Gemini? Those were manned missions too; were they faked? And every Shuttle mission is manned, are those faked?

I don't know; I'm just asking. :rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

I am confused. There are interviews with this Groves character on You Tube. Is there a question that the person in those interviews is not the Groves who did the analysis?

Barring evidence to the contrary, that seems to be the case. However, he's never been conclusively identified, and so we only has his word for that he has any relevant expertise on the matter. Regardless of that issue, however, his analysis is severely flawed - the geometry is wrong ...

Would you care to elaborate?

... the assumption of flat ground is proven wrong by the very photo he's analysing ...

I think you might have overlooked the part of the analysis where Groves examines Aldrin's distorted shadow to calculate the slope of the ground between Aldrin and the photographer!

... and so forth ...

There's more?

... so it doesn't really matter whether he has a Ph.D or not - he's still wrong.

Well he must be. How could he possibly be right, given that comprehensively thorough counter argument?! :rolleyes:

The rest of that youtube clip is much the same - it sounds impressive enough to anyone who isn't familiar with the subject at hand, but falls flat once you start looking at the claims.

Would you care to elaborate?

[Belz...]

Seems there's an echo in this imagination void!

Says the guy who denies reality.

I acknowledge that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence available, however, if it was to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.

Well, you're in luck. None of it has been shown to be fake.

There are a number of aspects of the NASA records that remain anomalous, and until they're satisfactorily explained they will continue to plant some doubts in my mind. What is my 'standard of proof' you ask. Satisfactory explanations of said anomalies would do the trick.

That's not an answer, because the question is "what would be satisfactory to you ?".

I suspect that NOTHING would ever be satisfactory because you've already made up your mind.

I'm just asking.

"Just asking questions".

[Belz...]

There's no way the then technology could overcome that?

Yeah, and one of the ways to do it is to send people on the moon.

[Furi]

There's no way the then technology could overcome that?

Throw enough money at it, and maybe, a nice Coherent beam fired at a transponder, to then transmit back at expected frequencies, would negate *some* atmospheric propagation of terrestrial signals, which would reduce probable detection and analysis

just need to build the xmitter has to be a reasonably high frequency both to fox (that is to be out of reception range opposed to spoof them) the recievers that are listening or used, and also to further reduce atmospheric refraction/reflection, there would need to be multiple xmitters for the same reason as there were multiple receiving stations, (ETA In fact the would have to be An awful lot of stations you want to have a transmission angle as close to be an escape wave as possible)

we are now reching the threshold where you just would sit back and think, damn this hoax is getting over complimacated and expensive why don't we just go to the moon, I mean we've done all the prep work, we have the vehicles and launchers, engineers designers and facilities and gubbins, Tell you for a lark why don't we just go, who knows might be interesting, and that way we don't need all those crappy robots for scoop and return missions that have failed so miserably, go-on what do you say Mr big NWO elite controller let's just go even if it's just for the lulz.

=^..^=

[CurtC]

however, if it was to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.
There is a lot of evidence that France the country actually exists. However, if it were to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.


I think you might have overlooked the part of the analysis where Groves examines Aldrin's distorted shadow to calculate the slope of the ground between Aldrin and the photographer!
I saw the part where he said that he calculated this, however I have serious reservations about his analysis. He looked at the slope of the gound close to Aldrin (where the shadow of his legs was), but didn't appear to do any figuring about the remainder of the distance.

And I did not understand why they thought that the camera was held at Armstrong's eye-level. It was attached to his chest. The reflection in Aldrin's visor indicates that it was at Armstrong's chest-level. Did Groves actually publish his analysis, or did he just make assertions on a video?

[sts60]

(referring to ALSEP transmissions)Is it possible to relay a signal from Earth back to Earth via the Moon (with the necessary relay equipment on the Moon, of course)? Seems plausible to me, given that we can bounce lasers back to measure distance. I don't know; I'm just asking.
Simply "bouncing" a radio signal off the Moon wouldn't work; the signal strength and other characteristics would be all wrong. It's rather like bouncing the laser off the Moon and expecting anyone to believe the signal came from a laser on the Moon, in fact. We can reject such a scenario immediately as physically unworkable.
But to anybody picking up just the relayed signal it wouldn't seem anything 'unusual', would it? 'Correct' time delay, no?
"Steady-state" ALSEP telemetry - the ALSEPs generated enormous amounts of telemetry over their years of operation - did not AFAIK relay clock information. What you're conjecturing is that responses to commands are simply part of the fake data relayed up to the Moon by a secret organization, and that these are relayed back, so I don't think time delays would enter into it.

But now an active transmitter in each ALSEP location is required - in fact, one with the exact characteristics of a real ALSEP transmitter and antenna. Not to mention a receiver and transponder to turn around the bogus transmissions. And a nuclear power source to run it all those years of lunar day/night cycles. Congratulations, you've just built yourself an ALSEP. Now just add a command decoder, some timing and logic, and the experiments and you're set to go. Why not build the real thing if you can do all the hard work?

In any case, as indicated in post 85 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3188995&postcount=85), unless you can provide the following --
- specific evidence for the existence of a secret program to build fake ALSEPs
- specific evidence for a secret program to launch them to the Moon without anybody noticing
- specific evidence for a secret program to generate and transmit fake data good enough to fool not only the PIs and their teams, and the rest of the scientific community, and all the scientists in the future, or simply have all those folks be part of the conspiracy
- and don't forgot to specify exactly how you can reliably fake the space weather data from the ALSEPs in real time in response to changes monitored by many other spacecraft (not just U.S. ones)
- specific evidence for a secret program to operate stations around the world, continuously distributing this real-time-responsive fake data and pumping it up to the Moon (many stations required)
-- there is no reason to entertain such a notion as anything other than wishful thinking.

Moreover, you also have to account for what happened to the real ALSEPs, which were indisputably built and loaded aboard the spacecraft. Please provide specific evidence for their diversion in such a scenario. Keep in mind that the production of the Pu-238 oxide fuel was very tightly controlled; it wasn't as if you could simply whistle up a spare set for your fake ALSEPs and take it without anybody noticing.

I repeat: there is no reason - unless you can do the work shown above - to entertain the notion of the ALSEP data being faked.

[sts60]

I acknowledge that there is a preponderance of circumstantial evidence available, however, if it was to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.
Groves claimed that X-radiation in the lunar environment would render the film unusable. He performed an experiment as evidence, but he used the wrong camera, wrong magazine, wrong dosages (not even the right units), and wildly wrong X-ray energies (http://www.clavius.org/envradfilm.html) to produce his "evidence".

Groves claimed that the "extreme heat of the lunar environment" would damage the film. He performed an experiment to show this, but he used film by itself in an oven - a convective environment - at a completely wrong duty cycle, set at a temperature for the lunar surface (http://www.clavius.org/envheat.html) to produce his "evidence".

Does this raise "very serious questions" about his work to you?

There are a number of aspects of the NASA records that remain anomalous, and until they're satisfactorily explained they will continue to plant some doubts in my mind. What is my 'standard of proof' you ask. Satisfactory explanations of said anomalies would do the trick.

Neither of us is a photo analyst, but clearly Groves' claimed precision in resolving a "hot spot" is "anomalous" - in fact, it's flat-out absurd; it's physically meaningless.

Does this "plant some doubts in [your] mind" about his analysis?

[Southwind17]

There is a lot of evidence that France the country actually exists. However, if it were to be shown that just one piece of that evidence is faked then that would raise some very serious questions.

It all depends on the faker's motive(s). What scenario do you have in mind with the example above?

I saw the part where he said that he calculated this, however I have serious reservations about his analysis. He looked at the slope of the gound close to Aldrin (where the shadow of his legs was), but didn't appear to do any figuring about the remainder of the distance.

Actually, Groves calculates the difference in the height of the lunar surface between Aldrin and the photographer by reference to the entire length of shadow cast by Aldrin's leg from the extremety of his left boot to the point coinciding with his left hip (referring to the photo, the latter is the point approximately where the shadow begins to deviate significantly, adjacent the pronounced boot print bottom left). Because of the low sun angle Aldrin's shadow can be seen to be clearly elongated. Given that Aldrin and the photographer were standing approximately 3.8m apart (calculated by Groves) I would estimate the 'un-measured' distance from the photographer to the nearest point of the shadow measured to be under 2m. Therefore, if the difference in height over the distance of shadow measured is only 10cm at the most, as calculated by Groves, then the remainder of the difference in height, namely 50cm approximately, must be accounted for over a distance of less than 2m, that's an average gradient of around 1:4,or 25%! I don't see any such gradients in any part of the photo, so we can only conclude, if the camera was indeed chest mounted, that the photographer was standing atop something. Maybe a 50cm-high rock (similar to all the others in the photo), as you do when you're taking photos!

It clearly pays to review all of the evidence available before making judgements, don't you think!

And I did not understand why they thought that the camera was held at Armstrong's eye-level. It was attached to his chest. The reflection in Aldrin's visor indicates that it was at Armstrong's chest-level.

This is exactly the point, which, given this comment, you clearly show you're missing! According to Groves' calculations there's no way the camera could have been chest mounted - it was positioned much higher, around eye level, indicating that the beautifully composed image of everything that Armstrong could really only have dreamed of capturing in a single shot (LM, both astronauts and, of course, planted US flag) is probably superimposed over the true, revealing reflection.

Did Groves actually publish his analysis, or did he just make assertions on a video?

I don't know if he published it directly, but it appears in the Appendix to Dark Moon.

[Southwind17]

All solvable by throwing money at the problem.

Similar to cancer, AIDS, MS, etc.?! :rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

[wiki]No one thinks Jay's infallible; certainly not Jay himself. In fact, there's a running joke on BAUTforum.com about the "I corrected Jay" T-shirt (I even got one once :) ). But he's right a hell of a lot more often than he's wrong.

As are most authoritative people, which is why they came to be deemed 'authoritative'! :rolleyes:

[Furi]

The version printed in Dark moon, was a reproduced shot, that had had some additional "headspace" above Aldrin, possibly used accidentally for aesthetics purposes,

not that this adjusts the location of the central reticule, but it does change dimensions if using the percieved edges of the photograph as referance distances for field of view.

why is it you accept Groves analysis, when his methods to prove enviromental effects on camera and film, were not even remotely representive of Lunar enviroment and are just irrelevant crapulence?

as these enviroment experiments represents quite a few of his claims and the moon walk photo is a single test, we now have more evidence to show that Groves was clearly mistaken in the methods he chose to analyse the facts of apollo, and by your own reasoning you therefore have to cast all of Groves work into the same low wattage range, as it seems that Groves photo work is what makes you doubt Apollo, this should have the inverse effect and increase your belief in the Apollo Missions as published.

[Disbelief]

It clearly pays to review all of the evidence available before making judgements, don't you think!



I do not know much about the moon hoax conpiracies, but isn't this a bit disingenuous? You are saying you should look at all the evidence, yet you are basing your skepticism off of one analysis of one photograph and discounting the preponderence of evidence.

[Southwind17]

I'm sorry if I'm reading this wrong, but Southwind17 are you saying that you don't have a problem with man getting to the moon, but with man walking on the moon?

Just trying to get your position properly in my head.

The contradictory evidence that casts most of the doubt in my mind pertains to anomalous lunar surface photographic records and certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe.

There as some aspects governing man's ability actually to get to the Moon in the first place that I'm skeptical of, but I haven't considered them as much as the other issues above.

[uruk]

There's no way the then technology could overcome that?

Well, I guess one way would be to pre-record everything. Store all the video and telemetry data on a transmitter device send it to the moon then hit play remotely and choregraph all the intereaction between ground control and the recording for one week straight.
And hope the transmiter doesn't glitch or breakdown or someone at ground control doesn't forget his lines.

Nothing would give you away faster than a tape stretch or jam.
I remember that happening to Meatloaf during a concert. They lipsynched the whole concert and during one performance the tape over heated and stretched. The playback slowed down and the pitch of the music dropped kind of giving up the jig.

That would have looked funny if the video came back "That's one small step for a man, One giant leeeeeaaaaaaaaapppp ffffffffffoooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr maaaaaaaaaaa...*****

Anyhoo, The problem is that you would need two transmiters. One for the orbiting command module and one for the lunar surface. And it would not just be video and audio information that you would have to store and transmitt. You would also have to record, store and transmit system telemetry data from the Astronauts bio-sensors, the lander's hardware telemetry, the command module's hardware telemetry, The propolsion system telemetry. The navigation system telemetry, the science package telemetry, and there is probably a few other things I am missing.
You would have to pre-record and store the info for the whole round trip so that the signals have the right delay and the right transmittion coordinates to fool all the ground tracking and telemetry stations all over the world. Not to mention the Russians.

That would be very doable with todays technology but I hink it would have been very difficult if not impossible with 1969 technology. Video was new, tape storage was new.
I don't think the technology was present to store that much information on tape in a package small enough to be practically sent to the Moon. One weeks worth of video, audio and telemetry stored on tape would have taken up several storage cabinets in a sizable room. Not to mention making sure all those miles of tape would make it past a playback head without glitches.

From a launch capability standpoint it would have been easier to just have sent the astronauts.

Computer memory maximum addressable capacity was only 64kb at the time. That is 64 thousand bytes. Not mega or giga. Woefully inadequate for the task.

[DavidJames]

The contradictory evidence that casts most of the doubt in my mind pertains to anomalous lunar surface photographic records and certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe.

There as some aspects governing man's ability actually to get to the Moon in the first place that I'm skeptical of, but I haven't considered them as much as the other issues above.Regarding the parts I've bolded above. Can you tell me what in your education and/or work experience you are drawing on to reach those conclusions.

[rwguinn]

Regarding the parts I've bolded above. Can you tell me what in your education and/or work experience you are drawing on to reach those conclusions.

And how would we know the "certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe" if we didn't go out there and collect som samples, and try doing the "impossible" (or, more likely his opinion, improbable)?

[Southwind17]

Most people seem to have already guessed it. My point is that because Groves is impossible to track down, there is no accounting for his work. We only have Aulis' statement that he actually is qualified to do what was claimed, that he actually did what was claimed, and that the results they present us are what were actually obtained. Without Groves standing up and being counted and having his work examined, he is an anonymous authority, i.e. worthless.

The fact that a number of people, including those predominate in the Hoax debunking community, have tried to track him down and keep running into dead ends and ghosts doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but it certainly means he's not publicly accountable for his supposed claims. Since he apparently isn't willing to stand by his work, show that he was indeed qualified to make the assessments he had and support his conclusions, why should he be accepted as an authority? He shouldn't.

As I wrote earlier:
... the credibility and validity of Groves' analysis is not, I don't believe, at all dependent on his qualifications or expertise, with very limited exception. It's essentially a mathematical analysis, so should stand or fall on its merits.

You can, therefore, call off the dogs, and put aside whatever the logical fallacy of the converse of 'appeal to authority' is (appeal to unauthority?!).

As to the image, not being sure which it was comes from not wanting to reading form a dozen rambling posts.

Oh no, no point wasting time checking out what the debate's about before wading in with consequential erroneous views, is there! ;) That a boy!

I make the mistake of assuming it was Groves "hotspot on the boot" claims with the Aldrin egress image that were in discussion.

Yes, making wild assumptions can have a tendency to cause problems!

Since it seems it's the "Man on the Moon" image ...

'Seems'? Oh no, it actually is the 'Man on the Moon' image we're talking about, believe me, it's reality! (Jeez, who's the skeptic here?!) :rolleyes:

... then all I can say ...

Yes, I didn't expect it to extend to more than a few words, but let's see:

... is Aulis' work on this is even worse. They use a poor publicity image rather than getting an original scan and things get worse from there.

'Get worse from there'? What do you mean? Let's see:
The reason that Armstrong is "above" Aldrin is two fold. Aldirn is standing in a depression (you can see it in the photograph) ...

I commented on this earlier. He's hardly 'in a depression' - towards the lip of of it, if you ask me. But it doesn't matter, Groves takes account of the surface height difference.

... while the ground Armstrong is on is higher ...

Er, yes, that would be a logical conclusion to draw - Aldrin's lower, so Armstrong must be higher. 10/10 on that part!

... and second, Aldrin is leaning towards the camera. The centre of mass of the suits caused the Astronauts to lean forwards. Good shots of this are the "Aldrin Flag Salute" images were the lean forwards is showed very clearly.

How does that put Armstrong 'above' Aldrin? Did Armstrong have a unique spacesuit that prevented the same thing happening to him?! In fact, the photographer is also leaning forward (or looking down), hence the position of the centre cross-hair over Aldrin's right ankle.

As to my assessment of the book "Dark Moon", I stand by it, it is a muddled, incoherent, poorly thought out, self debunking, load of trash that isn't worth being used as toilet paper.

And this coming from somebody predisposed to writing what we read above! :rolleyes:

[CurtC]

Actually, Groves calculates the difference in the height of the lunar surface between Aldrin and the photographer by reference to the entire length of shadow cast by Aldrin's leg from the extremety of his left boot to the point coinciding with his left hip (referring to the photo, the latter is the point approximately where the shadow begins to deviate significantly, adjacent the pronounced boot print bottom left).So can you explain how looking at the slope of the ground where Aldrin's legs cast a shadow tells you about the slope of the ground between Armstrong and that shadow?



Therefore, if the difference in height over the distance of shadow measured is only 10cm at the most, as calculated by Groves, then the remainder of the difference in height, namely 50cm approximately, must be accounted for over a distance of less than 2m, that's an average gradient of around 1:4,or 25%! I don't see any such gradients in any part of the photo, so we can only conclude, if the camera was indeed chest mounted, that the photographer was standing atop something.Why could the ground near Armstrong not have been sloped down? You can measure the overall drop in elevation quite easily - it's the distance on Aldrin's suit between his chest (where Armstrong's camera was mounted) and the horizon. It looks to me to be about 30 cm. It's basically the distance from your sternum to your eyes. That ain't 60 cm.



This is exactly the point, which, given this comment, you clearly show you're missing! According to Groves' calculations there's no way the camera could have been chest mounted - it was positioned much higher, around eye levelYes, I'm missing the logic of that. If Armstrong was standing sufficiently higher than Aldrin (30 cm), then the chest-mounted camera would catch exactly the shot shown, including the reflection in Aldrin's visor clearly showing that the shot was taken from Armstrong's chest level.

Given that Armstrong was standing 30 cm higher than Aldrin, everything in the photo seems to line up. Can you say where it doesn't specifically?

[Belz...]

The contradictory evidence that casts most of the doubt in my mind pertains to anomalous lunar surface photographic records

People who think those pictures are anomalous either don't understand photography or don't understand the particular conditions on the moon.

and certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe

For instance ?

There as some aspects governing man's ability actually to get to the Moon in the first place that I'm skeptical of, but I haven't considered them as much as the other issues above.

"It clearly pays to review all of the evidence available before making judgements, don't you think!" :rolleyes:

[rwguinn]

[troofer mode on]
So can you explain how looking at the slope of the ground where Aldrin's legs cast a shadow tells you about the slope of the ground between Armstrong and that shadow?
Duh! because once ground starts loping downhill, it will continue downhill? Basic laws of fizicks!



Why could the ground near Armstrong not have been sloped down? You can measure the overall drop in elevation quite easily - it's the distance on Aldrin's suit between his chest (where Armstrong's camera was mounted) and the horizon. It looks to me to be about 30 cm. It's basically the distance from your sternum to your eyes. That ain't 60 cm.
So you're not an NBAsuperstar!




Yes, I'm missing the logic of that. If Armstrong was standing sufficiently higher than Aldrin (30 cm), then the chest-mounted camera would catch exactly the shot shown, including the reflection in Aldrin's visor clearly showing that the shot was taken from Armstrong's chest level.

Duh! Cameras are carried on a strap around your neck so you can whip them into action quickly. You don't glue them to your chest so that you have to point your whole body at stuff just to take a picher!


Given that Armstrong was standing 30 cm higher than Aldrin, everything in the photo seems to line up. Can you say where it doesn't specifically?[/troofer mode]
do I pass as a troofer?

[Southwind17]

So can you explain how looking at the slope of the ground where Aldrin's legs cast a shadow tells you about the slope of the ground between Armstrong and that shadow?

Have you noticed that Aldrin's left leg outer is essentially straight, but the the shadow is curved? There's a clue!

Why could the ground near Armstrong not have been sloped down? You can measure the overall drop in elevation quite easily - it's the distance on Aldrin's suit between his chest (where Armstrong's camera was mounted) and the horizon. It looks to me to be about 30 cm. It's basically the distance from your sternum to your eyes. That ain't 60 cm.

Still missing the point! This explanation relies on the assumption that the camera is chest mounted. Groves' analysis shows that it could not be.

Yes, I'm missing the logic of that. If Armstrong was standing sufficiently higher than Aldrin (30 cm), then the chest-mounted camera would catch exactly the shot shown, including the reflection in Aldrin's visor clearly showing that the shot was taken from Armstrong's chest level.

Now why didn't Groves think of this, and save all the time and effort to calculate the height of the camera, incidentally at mugh greater than 30cm!

Given ...

Assuming ...

... that Armstrong was standing 30 cm higher than Aldrin ...

Shown not to be the case!

... everything in the photo seems to line up.

Well that's that little anomaly explained away then, I suppose!

Can you say where it doesn't specifically?

Have you studies Groves' analysis?

I'm beginning to think your avatar image is actually no avatar!

[technoextreme]

Does this count as an appeal to authority Thabiguy, although the electromagnetics slant might just get techno off the hook what?! Hardly a profound statement, though, which I'm sure we all agree with.

No it's just laziness. Quite honestly I had no desire to show why the solution to a square route is - and not +. And it's quite profound. YOU CAN"T INFER ANY INFORMATION FROM PICTURES ALONE. You can get a mathematical solution but in the end you can't infer anything.

[twinstead]

No it's just laziness. And it's quite profound. YOU CAN"T INFER ANY INFORMATION FROM PICTURES ALONE.

This is important. To the eyes of a rational person, southwind is ignoring a HUGE amount of corroborating evidence and the opinion of countless experts in space-related fields based on some dubious photo analysis.

Is this some kind of way to rationalize and hand wave away one of the most documented events in world history? Will photographic evidence of Apollo by other landings and orbiters by Japan, China, India, the US, Russia, whoever, be declared as fake too?

How much evidence does one need to prove something?

[technoextreme]

This is important. To the eyes of a rational person, southwind is ignoring a HUGE amount of corroborating evidence and the opinion of countless experts in space-related fields based on some dubious photo analysis.

Is this some kind of way to rationalize and hand wave away one of the most documented events in world history? Will photographic evidence of Apollo by other landings and orbiters by Japan, China, India, the US, Russia, whoever, be declared as fake too?

How much evidence does one need to prove something?
Ehhh.. Im trying to think of a way to show him optics/electromagnetics can be very confusing. The problem is that I need access to a pool of water, a penny, and a camera.

[Belz...]

How much evidence does one need to prove something?

Southwind said it himself. It has to be "satisfactory".

[Southwind17]

How much evidence does one need to prove something?

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

[e^n]

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

Forgive me if this has been asked, but it would seem that you are reliant on a relatively poor source of evidence when there seems to be much stronger and more reliable evidence available. What exactly would change your mind about this topic?

[Disbelief]

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

So, like I said earlier (and others have noted) you have a preponderence of evidence that you disregard because of something you can't satisfactorily explain in one photograph. That is not beyond reasonable doubt?

[Furi]

Oh we are all done in this thread, all REASONABLE doubt has been answered, tiem for fluffeh k1ttunz

[CurtC]

Have you noticed that Aldrin's left leg outer is essentially straight, but the the shadow is curved? There's a clue!It's a clue to the slope of the ground next to Aldrin, but provides no info about the ground between there and Armstrong.


Still missing the point! This explanation relies on the assumption that the camera is chest mounted. Groves' analysis shows that it could not be.

Now why didn't Groves think of this, and save all the time and effort to calculate the height of the camera, incidentally at mugh greater than 30cm!If he didn't think of it, then he has no business doing photogrammetry. He's getting into fine details of angles to the ten-thousandths of a degree of precision, but fails to recognize simple geometry?

He's apparently an educated idiot.

Here's the deal: the cameras were mounted high on the chest, somewhat above the nipple-line. You can see in that photo that the camera level on Armstrong's chest was at the same height as eye-level on Aldrin, based on the Moon's horizon. The distance from a man's eyes to a point somewhat above his nipples is around 30 cm.

No fancy shadow interpretation required.

[uruk]

The contradictory evidence that casts most of the doubt in my mind pertains to anomalous lunar surface photographic records and certain physical properties on the surface of the moon that impact specifically on man's ability to function and behave in the ways that NASA would have us believe. So far the photographic anomolies appear to be due to the observers's lack of understanding or ignorance of all the conditions in the photographs. For instance. no one in the video you posted seem to have noticed where the shadows were on Aldrin. If you looked close you would notice the shadows were on top of his helmet and shoulder and the lower sides of the wrinkels are illuminated, the top sides are in shadow. That would mean the the illumination was coming from below or the surface of the Moon. Oddly the "physicists" claimed that it was impossible. Well if Aldrin is standing on the surface of the Moon how could there be an artificial light source set below him?
Check out the picture and see for your self. http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

One of Aldrin's first tasks is to test out different methonds of locomotion on the 1/6th gravity of the Moon. If you look at the video and film from the acent stage cabin you will notice Aldrin moving back and forth trying out different ways of walking on the moon. if you read his debrifing, he states that the best way to move around on the moon was by taking short loping hops known afterward as the "lunar lope"

There as some aspects governing man's ability actually to get to the Moon in the first place that I'm skeptical of, but I haven't considered them as much as the other issues above.
Well if you accept that we can send probes and successfully land them accurately on the moon, why would it be different for a manned craft? What would the differences be other than the life support systems and the g-forces?

[technoextreme]

So far the photographic anomolies appear
That's it. Im going to show that it's possible to take a camera point it at a penny in water and not have the penny who up in the picture. There is no way to prove that I am not lying.

[uruk]

Still missing the point! This explanation relies on the assumption that the camera is chest mounted. Groves' analysis shows that it could not be.
I do not think that Groves is correct in this case. According to the diagram in the video he shows the camera at a particular angle and he does not show any information as to how he arrives at that angle. Is he assuming it?

He bases this on the fact the the center reticle is positioned down toward Aldrin's leg. There are many heights and angles at which you could hold the camera and still have the center reticle aimed at Aldrin's leg.

[Southwind17]

Ehhh.. Im trying to think of a way to show him optics/electromagnetics can be very confusing. The problem is that I need access to a pool of water, a penny, and a camera.

Only one of which, allegedly, was present on the Moon!

[technoextreme]

Only one of which, allegedly, was present on the Moon!
Yeah but it shows that image analysis can be just plain wrong. It's not that hard of a concept to comprehend.To say that the "math" proves anything is wrong, unscientific, and disingenuous.

[Southwind17]

While I was watching the YouTube video, I had in another tab, the high-resolution Man on the Moon original photo, and it's striking to be switching back and forth, that the effects of the light fading away towards the horizon just don't look that way at all on the original.

It might be helpful if you could post the original so that we can be sure we're all looking at and talking about the same thing. Would that be possible? How do you know it's the original (sincere question!)?

I also couldn't figure out the point they were trying to make by pointing out that the center-frame crosshair marker was on Aldrin's lower leg. So what? That just means that the camera was angled down.

That's correct.

How did they then make the logical jump that the camera was held at eye-level?

By analyzing many aspects of the photo. The cross-hairs per se have little to do with the analysis.

Seems to me that Armstrong was aware that Aldrin was downhill from him, and over-compensated because they didn't have a viewfinder.

That's a possible, plausibe and likely theory. It doesn't affect the analysis and conclusion, though.

Also, an early indicator of poor analysis skills, was when they were talking about the bright "hot spot" on Aldrin's boot as he descended the LM ladder. They scanned over someone's diagram showing the angles, and some angle on there (there wasn't explanation given of what these are) was labeled as being 3.1417 degrees. Anyone carrying out photogrammetry and measuring to the ten-thousandth of a degree is an idiot.

I agree that citing numbers to this degree can purport to give a false impression of accuracy. In actual fact, though, again, it doesn't affect the conclusion.

[Southwind17]

So, we know we could get to the Moon. We know that the vehicle to take us there did indeed go there. We know that the suits required for walking on the Moon were available.

Where then is the problem?

You mean to say that everything else will just look after itself?

"Hey, let's go scuba diving - we can take your car."
"Scuba diving! But I've never done it before."
"Not important. I've got the wet suits, you have the car to get us there, where's the problem?"

Doh!

[Par]

...I have to say that most of them offer very superficial rebuttals based on far less analysis than is generally presented in the book.The 'redzero.demon' website includes an explanation for the seemingly anomalous position of the camera for the famous Buzz Aldrin photo. The complete analysis and explanation follows:



Gee, that's nearly an entire line of text! Now it seems to me that that might well be a plausible explanation, but this particular website posits it as fact - no doubts or alternative ideas whatsoever. So what's the basis for this explanation? Well, it would appear that there's actually no basis, and that it's just a theory....


This is a common fallacy with conspiracy theorists.

Generally, conspiracy theorists point to what they perceive to be an anomaly with a given prosaic theory. Essentially, they’re saying “The only way in which X could occur is if there was a conspiracy, and the prosaic explanation is a lie. Further, X did occur. Therefore there was a conspiracy, and the prosaic theory is a lie”.

The rationalist might counter with “In reality, there are a number of explanations for X that are compatible with the prosaic theory, such as A, B and C”.

Now, the rationalist doesn’t need to prove with any degree of certainly whatsoever that A, B or C actually occurred. What they are showing by highlighting these possibilities is that the conspiracy theorists’ claim is false – a conspiracy is not the only explanation for X.

In brief, the argument goes something like this:


The only way to explain my anomaly is a conspiracy!
---No, there are numerous non-conspiratorial ways to explain your supposed anomaly.
But you can’t prove any of those ways without doubt. Therefore my conspiracy theory is at least as good as the prosaic theory!


Notice how the conspiracy theorist has shifted his argument between his first statement and his second.

[Disbelief]

You mean to say that everything else will just look after itself?

"Hey, let's go scuba diving - we can take your car."
"Scuba diving! But I've never done it before."
"Not important. I've got the wet suits, you have the car to get us there, where's the problem?"

Doh!

That's your rationale? So, do you believe Columbus tried to sail around the world even though it hadn't been done before?

[Furi]

You mean to say that everything else will just look after itself?

"Hey, let's go scuba diving - we can take your car."
"Scuba diving! But I've never done it before."
"Not important. I've got the wet suits, you have the car to get us there, where's the problem?"

Doh!

I am so glad that many many people don't think like that, we would never have left the caves if that was the case, flown, sailed, tried a food we had never eaten, got exceedingly drunk, ******** a prozzy, etc

I feel discovery and learning is one of our driving factors, why not watch what *firsts* a kitten gets up to when exploring your home

this is one small act for a kitten but one giant tear in the curtains for mankind

[sts60]

Southwind17, it seems to me we should be able to put the ALSEP issue to bed. Do you have any questions regarding my comments in post 192 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3197906&postcount=192)?

I realize it's only been a few hours. These Web forum discussions get awfully compressed, no?

[Southwind17]

Out of interest (because you haven't actually said so), do you consider that ALSEP provides indisputable evidence that man has walked on the Moon?

I can only conclude you either have a poor memory or you have not read the posts in this thread very well.

From post #86:
I would have thought it clear that my position is that there is no doubt of the authenticity of the moon landings. Indeed, that's why I mentioned ALSEP in the first place, as another item of rock-solid proof.

There is, actually, a third option. As we see above, you wrote:
... I mentioned ALSEP in the first place, as another item of rock-solid proof. [emphasis added]
Allow me to re-phrase with emphasis my original question slightly so it's absolutely clear what I'm asking:
Do you consider that ALSEP alone provides indisputable evidence that man has walked on the Moon?

Your inference that I would be proved 'wrong' if 'rock-solid evidence' were presented to me is completely erroneous and unfounded. I've stated before, and above, that I have, say, a 5% doubt, i.e. I'm around 95% certain, that man has walked on the Moon. What could I possibly fear being 'wrong' about?!

Then stop posting here for a few days and go read up on ALSEP. Then come back and tell us whether you find it solid evidence or not.

Ugh? That's your answer to my question? :boggled:

While you're at it, do some checking into just how many photos were taken on the lunar surface, and how many hours of television footage were taken on the lunar surface.

You really don't get where I'm coming from here do you! I suppose they're all rubber stamped: "Taken on the lunar surface" on the reverse, are they? Well who could possibly dispute their authenticity then? :rolleyes:

Incidentally, as a complete aside, I have some genuine Penny Black stamps for sale. Would you be interested in buying them from me, by any chance - very nice price?! :blush:

[Southwind17]

Funny how a physicist and a researcher in photoanalysis missed what a computer maintenance intructor can see.

Yes, that does seem strange, doesn't it. I wonder what the possible explanation(s) for that could be? Perhaps your theoretical 'explanations' simply ... no, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Well maybe ...

[technoextreme]

Yes, that does seem strange, doesn't it. I wonder what the possible explanation(s) for that could be? Perhaps your theoretical 'explanations' simply ... no, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Well maybe ...
Just as a side note you attributed the quote to yourself.Yes, that does seem strange, doesn't it. I wonder what the possible explanation(s) for that could be? Perhaps your theoretical 'explanations' simply ... no, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Well maybe ...
Well I know that the mathorz that your quoting isn't the complete solution.

[Corsair 115]

Beyond all reasonable doubt.There already is more than enough evidence to demonstrate the legitimacy of the lunar landings beyond all reasonable doubt. That you are either unfamiliar with it or ignoring it is your issue.

Allow me to re-phrase with emphasis my original question slightly so it's absolutely clear what I'm asking:
Do you consider that ALSEP alone provides indisputable evidence that man has walked on the Moon? Sure. Then add the rest of the evidence — thousands of photos, dozens of hours of television footage, the engineers, the workers, the huge amounts of documentary evidence (training manuals, engineering reports, debriefing transcipts, and much, much more), the hundreds of pounds of rocks brough back, and so on and so forth.

The totality of that evidence proves the legitimacy of the lunar landings beyond all reasonable doubt.

That's your answer to my question? Still refusing to educate yourself about ALSEP? Why do you choose to remain in the dark about it? Is it because it would demonstate your doubts about the legitimacy of the lunar landings are utterly unfounded?

You really don't get where I'm coming from here do you! I suppose they're all rubber stamped: "Taken on the lunar surface" on the reverse, are they? Well who could possibly dispute their authenticity then? Yes, the prospect of forging thousands upon thousands of photos and dozens of hours of television footage is a realistic prospect. :rolleyes:

[uruk]

Yes, that does seem strange, doesn't it. I wonder what the possible explanation(s) for that could be? Perhaps your theoretical 'explanations' simply ... no, that couldn't possibly have anything to do with it. Well maybe ...

Funny how you just addressed this one statement while at the same time ignoring everything else in the post. Hmmm. Why could that be?

As to my theoretical explinations, answer me this. According to the video you posted, the "physicists "stated the surface of the Moon could not possibly provide the necessary light to "fill" on the shadow areas. Then why does the light appear to be coming from below Aldrin in the "famous photograph"?
Notice the shadows on the suit? Notice how the top of Aldrin's helmet and shoulders are in shadow?
There can't possibly be an artificial light source below Aldrin He is standing in the surface of the Moon.
Take a look for yourself: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

Care to answer that? Care to show me where I am mistaken?

Why do the "physicists" miss that one little point in the video?

Is anything about that mentioned in Groves book?
Do you understand Groves's calculations or do you just take it for granted that he is right?
Have you ever thought that Groves may be mistaken?

I think I and others have shown that he is.

[Belz...]

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

It's unreasonable to doubt something that has all scientists convinced, unless you have evidence they don't have.

Have you noticed that Aldrin's left leg outer is essentially straight, but the the shadow is curved? There's a clue!

It's a clue that the ground isn't straight.

[rwguinn]

Funny how you just addressed this one statement while at the same time ignoring everything else in the post. Hmmm. Why could that be?

As to my theoretical explinations, answer me this. According to the video you posted, the "physicists "stated the surface of the Moon could not possibly provide the necessary light to "fill" on the shadow areas. Then why does the light appear to be coming from below Aldrin in the "famous photograph"?
Notice the shadows on the suit? Notice how the top of Aldrin's helmet and shoulders are in shadow?
There can't possibly be an artificial light source below Aldrin He is standing in the surface of the Moon.
Take a look for yourself: http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

Care to answer that? Care to show me where I am mistaken?

Why do the "physicists" miss that one little point in the video?

Is anything about that mentioned in Groves book?
Do you understand Groves's calculations or do you just take it for granted that he is right?
Have you ever thought that Groves may be mistaken?

I think I and others have shown that he is.

And How in HELL can the da*n thing reflect enough light so that it casts SHADOWS 240000 miles away, sheds enough light to READ by, 240000 miles away, but can't fill in a shadow 30 inches above its own surface?

We have some serious stupid going on out there, folks...

[Southwind17]

First generation scans of the original show a much more even lighting of the surface. The drop off we do see is caused by a zero-phase angle where because we're looking up-sun, we're seeing more shadow that we do lit areas. This can be aptly shown to work on Earth as well as these images that Jay Windley took for Clavius show.

http://www.clavius.org/img/dirt-up.jpg
up-sun

http://www.clavius.org/img/dirt-down.jpg
down-sun

The up-sun image is quite clearly darker than the down sun one, even though they are the same piece of dirt.

Doesn't look like the same piece of dirt to me, but I understand what you're trying to say. A cursory perusal of Wikipedia, however, suggests that you don't really understand what you're trying to explain here. If the drop-off is an effect of the zero-phase angle then why does it occur in all directions, including from the object to the camera? Also, the fact that these two photos do absolutely nothing to demonstrate the effect of drop-off does puzzle me somewhat. :boggled:

The issue is that the large crosshair should be in the centre of the picture, and it's not. Of course this is because Aulis' version is a publicity shot in which the bottom has been cropped and black added to the area above Aldrin (if you look at the original it cuts off right above his head, and actually removes the very upper right part of the PLSS.) This is really an obvious example of how poorly researched and crappy Aulis' work really is, they couldn't even be bothered getting hold of an original scan before making up stuff.

Now THIS has to be THE best example yet of foot in mouth in this thread, if not the history of the Forum. The cross-hairs are actually printed on the photo, or to be precise, have obscured any imagery from the photo, which allows them to 'record' on the photo. No amount of cropping or 'adding', therefore, will alter the position of the cross-hairs relative to the all-important image recorded. The 'issue', then, is not that the cross-hairs should be in the centre of the picture, but rather how you conclude that Aulis's work is 'poorly researched and crappy' from some innocuous cropping and 'adding' (the reproduction of the 'classic' Aldrin photo on Page 37 of Dark Moon looks exactly the same as the 'original' posted by you as regards aspect ratio, etc, except for some very minor cropping of the bottom edge and 'adding' to the top edge, if that's what it is, which has absolutely no bearing on the analysis of the photo).

This is the David Groves work I thought was being disgust (sic). Groves claims to be able to measure the position of the hotspot to a level that is smaller than the actual film grain.

Where, exactly, does Groves make such 'claim'? If he's guilty of anything it's failing to round off his figures to a level of detail commensurate with the image being analyzed. As pointed out earlier, however, by others as well as me, it makes absolutely no difference to the conclusions.

Other than that, the work is sloppy ...

Would you care to elaborate?

... but the final conclusion still doesn't rule out the most obvious source of the hotspot, Armstrong's shoulder, which was in the sunlight while the rest of him was in the LM's shadow.

'Most obvious?! You're expecting people to believe that Armstrong's shoulder was sufficient to reflect sunlight to such an intensity that it caused a hot-spot on Aldrin's boot? Do you actually understand what a hot-spot is? What kind of reflective material are you suggesting Armstrong's spacesuit was actually made from? I suppose you're expecting people to believe that it was also Armstrong's shoulder that backlit the entire LM, including inside the exit bay, while Aldrin exited and descended the ladder! I'm sorry, I've got to genuinely echo Belz's sentiment directed at me from earlier - feel free to join reality at any time! :rolleyes:

[Southwind17]

It's unreasonable to doubt something that has all scientists convinced, unless you have evidence they don't have.

What's your data source supporting this statement?

It's a clue that the ground isn't straight.

'Straight' ground! What's that then, exactly?!

[Corsair 115]

You're expecting people to believe that Armstrong's shoulder was sufficient to reflect sunlight to such an intensity that it caused a hot-spot on Aldrin's boot? Do you actually understand what a hot-spot is? What kind of reflective material are you suggesting Armstrong's spacesuit was actually made from? I suppose you're expecting people to believe that it was also Armstrong's shoulder that backlit the entire LM, including inside the exit bay, while Aldrin exited and descended the ladder! Now how about the thousands of other photos taken on the lunar surface? Are you saying thousands of photos were faked? That does not strike you as an unrealistic prospect? (And then there's the dozens of hours of television footage.)

May I ask, how much familiarity do you have with the basics of photography? Can you tell us a bit about the differences between a 35mm and 70mm piece of film? Shutter speeds? F-stop settings? Lens focal lengths? Knowing your level of knowledge about photography is important in any discussion of the details of the Apollo photographs.

[Southwind17]

There already is more than enough evidence to demonstrate the legitimacy of the lunar landings beyond all reasonable doubt. That you are either unfamiliar with it or ignoring it is your issue.

'Doubt', by definition, derives from evidence against, not evidence for.

Sure. Then add the rest of the evidence — thousands of photos, dozens of hours of television footage, the engineers, the workers, the huge amounts of documentary evidence (training manuals, engineering reports, debriefing transcipts, and much, much more), the hundreds of pounds of rocks brough back, and so on and so forth.

The totality of that evidence proves the legitimacy of the lunar landings beyond all reasonable doubt.

You're after the prize for the biggest contradiction, aren't you! You say 'sure' to my question whether you consider ALSEP alone provides proof, THEN, in the same breath, so to speak, you switch to 'the totality of ... evidence' providing proof! Can you not answer my question unambiguously? Jeez, this thread's getting easier by the minute - you're all tripping over not only each other but yourselves in your own little debunking 'space race' :rolleyes:

Still refusing to educate yourself about ALSEP? Why do you choose to remain in the dark about it? Is it because it would demonstate your doubts about the legitimacy of the lunar landings are utterly unfounded?

I'm waiting for your unequivocal answer to my unequivocal question!

Yes, the prospect of forging thousands upon thousands of photos and dozens of hours of television footage is a realistic prospect. :rolleyes:

You don't think that this prospect pales in comparison to actually putting men on the lunar surface?! :rolleyes:

[Furi]

dunno the specific reflective or specular indexes of the materials in question, was going to jfgi but I got distracted by the hotspot on my beer pottle caused when I lifted a pint glass to my mouth and it reflected the light emissions from my monitor (Edit) onto the bottle(edit),

dual curved surfaces made from glass, and yet caustics appear on the bottle, low quality glass is what 3 - 5% reflection?

anyhoo besides the 2 groves stundies do you entertain any of the other Aulis studies, non parallel shadows, multiple light sources, flood lighting, etc just so we can decide exactly which aspects of the apollo 'Photo' record you disagree with, maybe you would like to post some of jack whites work?

I am just hoping dust free sand doesn't get mentioned :scarper:

[Furi]

Double post

[sts60]

...Jeez, this thread's getting easier by the minute - you're all tripping over not only each other but yourselves in your own little debunking 'space race' :rolleyes:
I'm glad you find this so easy. I find that answering claims from HBs (hoax believers) generally takes far more work than asking the questions. It's not that any of the claims from HBs which I have yet investigated have panned out; it's that it's simply far easier to spew unfounded accusations (and then modify and reissue them as they are debunked), ignore certain posts, pounce on strawmen, play semantic games, and in general simply stir the pot, than it is to issue a detailed factual response.

Not that I am accusing you of this, of course; I'm just speaking in general terms.

In any case, since you evidently have some free time, I'd appreciate your comments about my ALSEP discussions in post 85 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3188995&postcount=85) and post 192 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3197906&postcount=192).
You don't think that this prospect pales in comparison to actually putting men on the lunar surface?! :rolleyes:
Have you really thought - in detail - about it would take to successfully fake the visual record? Do you think the record can be considered independently of the other facets of the missions? I would be happy to chew the fat on this matter at length - as well as discuss my reservations with Groves enumerated in post 193 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3197961&postcount=193) - but I'd rather get the ALSEP issues resolved first.

[Brainache]

I've been silently following this thread and now I'd like to ask a question of Mr Southwind:

In what way are the doubts you harbour reasonable?

One bloke with his "scientific" photo analysis stacked up against the work of thousands of Engineers, Scientists, Technicians and everyone else involved in Apollo over the years is a reasonable doubt to you?

[uruk]

Doesn't look like the same piece of dirt to me, but I understand what you're trying to say. A cursory perusal of Wikipedia, however, suggests that you don't really understand what you're trying to explain here. If the drop-off is an effect of the zero-phase angle then why does it occur in all directions, including from the object to the camera? Also, the fact that these two photos do absolutely nothing to demonstrate the effect of drop-off does puzzle me somewhat. :boggled: The drop-off issue is a non starter. If you read the science report I linked to a few posts back you would have read where Armstrong had noted that the intereior surfaces of the craters had what was refered to as Glassy blebs or beads. The science report even has a close up photograph of the blebs. The "drop-off" effect is cause by the light reflecting off the glassy blebs. The effect is accentuated by the fact the changes in soil color and specularity due to the soils being disturbed by the Astronauts or the distribution of the blebs.
The false color image used in the video is a joke because the filter algorithym used by the image manipulation software (most likely Photoshop) keys on color differences not contrast.

Also the cast shadow angles do not support the local light source hypothesis either.




'Most obvious?! You're expecting people to believe that Armstrong's shoulder was sufficient to reflect sunlight to such an intensity that it caused a hot-spot on Aldrin's boot? Do you actually understand what a hot-spot is? What kind of reflective material are you suggesting Armstrong's spacesuit was actually made from? I suppose you're expecting people to believe that it was also Armstrong's shoulder that backlit the entire LM, including inside the exit bay, while Aldrin exited and descended the ladder! I'm sorry, I've got to genuinely echo Belz's sentiment directed at me from earlier - feel free to join reality at any time! :rolleyes:
Again you are ignoring facts and arguing from ignorance. The EVA suits were covered in white Beta cloth. Some reflectors used in photography are just screens of bright white material. Take a look at this photographer's supply web site: http://www.lastolite.com/originalreflectors.php

The video you posted clearly shows Armstrong standing in the sunlight when he took that picture.

Also I dabble alot in computer graphics. There are rendering software that accurately simulate the physics of light. Maxwell rendering software is on such program.: http://www.maxwellrender.com/

On of the algorythims that simulate the physics of light is called global illumination wich takes into consideration the light that is reflected off a surface and onto another surface.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_illumination

The light that is illuminating the scene in that picture is caused from the light being reflected off the lunar surface and diffusing into the shadowed area. You can tell that because the shadows on Aldrin's suit are on the top showing that the light source is coming from below.

All surfaces reflect light otherwise you would never see them at all.
The moon reflects enough light so that you can see relatively clearly on a cloudless full moon. Does that not make you think? If you can see things illuminated on Earth from the light reflecting from a fulll moon Geuss what you see from reflected light when you are on the surface.


Dr. Grove does not seem to know anything about simple basic photography or the nature of light. Either he is incredibly incompetent or his is willfully lieing in order to sell a book.

[CurtC]

Just so it doesn't get lost in the noise, I'm going to re-state how the man-on-the-moon photo shows that Armstrong was standing about 30 cm higher than Aldrin. Here is the photo:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/AS11-40-5903HR.jpg

Groves and you claimed that Armstrong was standing 60 cm higher than Aldrin, but that's wrong.

The line of sight from a camera to the horizon is nearly perfectly horizontal. So you can judge the height of closer objects, relative to the camera, by seeing where they are relative to the horizon. Something in the foreground that's the same elevation as the horizon, is level with the camera.

In that picture, the horizon cuts across the image of Aldrin right about his eye level. Therefore his eyes were level with the camera when it took the picture. The official story is that Armstrong was wearing the camera on his chest, as in this picture:
http://www.panoramas.dk/moon/hasselblad.html
Notice that the camera lens (if he were not bent over) is at a level somewhat above the astronaut's nipple height. So if the official story is true, the camera on Armstrong's chest was level with Aldrin's eyes. That distance on a man is around 30 cm or less. And Armstrong was about an inch taller than Aldrin, so that is even less.

Now is there anything in that photo that suggests that the ground could not have sloped up by 25 to 30 cm between where the two were standing?

And why did Groves miss this obvious analysis? Maybe because he's an idiot who's looking for ways to bolster his preconceptions, or sell books?

[PetersCreek]

What is my 'standard of proof' you ask. Satisfactory explanations of said anomalies would do the trick.

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

What makes your standard attainable? If we explained all your aforementioned anomalies, couldn't you just clutch at a few more...then more after that. "But what about..." is a familiar refrain in the MHB world.

Does your standard also apply to other historic events? The short answer for historians and most other folks I think, is a resounding "no". Explanations are not required for each and every cotton-pickin' anomaly and minor shortcoming in the historic record, in order for an event to be accepted as having occurred. Historians love to fill those gaps when they can, of course, but who has ever filled all of them? Apollo was arguably the most thoroughly documented event in history but it was far more massive in scope than any documentary effort could be.

Now, back to Dr. Groves. I was referencing evaluations on the Clavius about Dr. Groves' other analyses. But I have seen the subject at hand hashed out in other discussions. Clavius clearly demonstrates that Groves' other analyses and experiments are rife with errors, as is the book in which they appear. How many fundamental errors can a so-called expert make before you stop relying on his expertise? I mean, what is it about Dr. Groves' analysis of this particular photo that you find so convincing? You virtually brush aside the overwhelming totality of evidence in favor of the Moon landings but these three pages in this sad, sad little book seem to completely lock you up. No external corroboration. No agreement from other recognized experts using commonly accepted methods. Just that one source...and you call it conclusive. Puzzling.

[twinstead]

I would also submit that 'satisfactory explanations of said anomalies' is impossible if nothing offered that supports the 'official story' is considered 'satisfactory'.

We've been there before with some 911 CTs; I'm sure you all remember One Who Shall Not Be Named who cavalierly hand waved away every bit of evidence that was contrary to his opinion as not 'sensible'. It appears he would accept evidence contrary as long as it was 'sensible'.

Fortunately for his world view, according to him he never encountered any. Reading this thread this attitude must be more common than I'd thought.

[PhantomWolf]

Actually, Groves calculates the difference in the height of the lunar surface between Aldrin and the photographer by reference to the entire length of shadow cast by Aldrin's leg from the extremety of his left boot to the point coinciding with his left hip (referring to the photo, the latter is the point approximately where the shadow begins to deviate significantly, adjacent the pronounced boot print bottom left). Because of the low sun angle Aldrin's shadow can be seen to be clearly elongated. Given that Aldrin and the photographer were standing approximately 3.8m apart (calculated by Groves) I would estimate the 'un-measured' distance from the photographer to the nearest point of the shadow measured to be under 2m. Therefore, if the difference in height over the distance of shadow measured is only 10cm at the most, as calculated by Groves, then the remainder of the difference in height, namely 50cm approximately, must be accounted for over a distance of less than 2m, that's an average gradient of around 1:4,or 25%! I don't see any such gradients in any part of the photo, so we can only conclude, if the camera was indeed chest mounted, that the photographer was standing atop something. Maybe a 50cm-high rock (similar to all the others in the photo), as you do when you're taking photos!

If Aldrin and Armstrong were 3.8 meters apart, then Aldrin would have to be 227cm tall. Even allowing around an extra 15cm for boots and helmet, he's only about 195cm tall (note that his leaning forward also shortens him). A quick back of the envelope calculation based on his taking up 58% of the frame from top to bottom and the FOV of the camera being 53.5° from top to bottom, put the two at a distance of only around 3.2 metres.

Using the shadow for measurements is rather a strange thing to do since shadow length relies on knowing, the angle of the sun, the slope of the terrain (and how it changes), and in this case determining the effects of the convex reflector. Quite simply it is impossible to determine what the length of the shadow should be or is (though it seems to stretch slightly beyond Armstrong's position) since none of these factors is actually known and trying to do so is simply guesswork. You have no way of knowing what the rise in the terrain is between the photographer and the subject, and your above waffle doesn't prove anything except that you're taking wild stabs in the dark to justify your claim about it.

I commented on this earlier. He's hardly 'in a depression' - towards the lip of of it, if you ask me. But it doesn't matter, Groves takes account of the surface height difference.

That "hardly in a depression" is almost in the centre of a 10-15cm deep crater.

How does that put Armstrong 'above' Aldrin? Did Armstrong have a unique spacesuit that prevented the same thing happening to him?! In fact, the photographer is also leaning forward (or looking down), hence the position of the centre cross-hair over Aldrin's right ankle.

It doesn't put him "above" Aldrin, other then explaining why parts of the top of the suit that normally wouldn't be visible are actually visible. It also shortens Aldrin vertically.

Have you noticed that Aldrin's left leg outer is essentially straight, but the the shadow is curved? There's a clue!

Have you noticed that the ground the shadow lies on goes up immediately from Aldrin's position, then reaching the rim of the crater descends again before rising once more? Have you also noticed that the direction the shadow lies is not the direction to Armstrong? (Before you say that it is in the helmet, realise that the helmet is a convex reflector) Nothing the shadow does gives any conclusion as to Aldrin and Armstrong's respective heights. The only thing it tells us is that Aldrin is standing in a depression, something we already knew.

Still missing the point! This explanation relies on the assumption that the camera is chest mounted. Groves' analysis shows that it could not be.

No, Groves' analysis claims the camera would be higher than Aldrin's chest height, and then he extrapolates that to mean it was higher the Armstrong's chest height if they are on level ground. The fact they aren't nullifies his conclusion so he tries to fudge that the ground is uneven so as to keep his wanted conclusions.

Shown not to be the case!

Sorry I disagree. The change in the ground under Aldrin's shadow has zero to do with the lie of the ground between Aldrin and Armstrong since the shadow isn't on that section of ground.

Beyond all reasonable doubt.

Why do you expect such a higher level of evidence for Apollo being fact than you do for it being fiction? Can you prove that it was Hoaxed beyond all reasonable doubt? If not then how can you demand proof that high for it being real? Surely the better idea is to put the two theories together and see which has the most and best evidence to support its position.

Doesn't look like the same piece of dirt to me

Funnily enough that is sort of the point to the images, they look different depending on if you are looking up sun or down sun because in one you can see the shaded areas so it looks textured and darker while the other they are hidden from your view so it looks bright and untextured.

If the drop-off is an effect of the zero-phase angle then why does it occur in all directions, including from the object to the camera?

It doesn't occur in all direction, it only occurs in the up-sun direction. Look at the ground being reflected in Aldrin's visor. It is much brighter than the surface behind him and is evenly bright all the way to the horizon. The drop off is only in the up-sun direction where the shadows of the rocks and craters make the surface look darker and as you look further away you are seeing more shadow and less sunlit area.

Also, the fact that these two photos do absolutely nothing to demonstrate the effect of drop-off does puzzle me somewhat.

They demonstrate the zero-effect of the shadows being seen or not seen, the "drop-off" is merely that on a larger scale.

The cross-hairs are actually printed on the photo, or to be precise, have obscured any imagery from the photo, which allows them to 'record' on the photo. No amount of cropping or 'adding', therefore, will alter the position of the cross-hairs relative to the all-important image recorded.

Wow, that makes very little sense at all. Firstly the crosshairs are NOT printed onto the photo, they are created when the image is taken by the means of a reseau grid that sits directly on top of the film. This means that the fiducials are a fixed part of each image that is taken, the largest one being in the exact centre of the image. I have no idea what you are going on about the "position of the cross-hairs relative to the all-important image recorded," Aulis' claim is that since the large cross hair isn't in the centre of the photo that there is an issue with the image because the large crosshair is supposed to be in the very centre, and in theirs it isn't. This is because the image they use is cropped and the fiducial have been moved in respect to the borders of the image. The large cross hair has nothing to do with important information or anything else, it merely shows where the camera was pointed.

What kind of reflective material are you suggesting Armstrong's spacesuit was actually made from?

The outer cover was white beta cloth, a material that is 90% reflective of sunlight. Do you suggest this is not a strong enough light source?

I suppose you're expecting people to believe that it was also Armstrong's shoulder that backlit the entire LM, including inside the exit bay, while Aldrin exited and descended the ladder!

No, that was done by the light reflecting of the rather large reflector behind Armstrong. The lunar surface.

[PixyMisa]

You mean to say that everything else will just look after itself?

"Hey, let's go scuba diving - we can take your car."
"Scuba diving! But I've never done it before."
"Not important. I've got the wet suits, you have the car to get us there, where's the problem?"
You have the car, the scuba gear, a huge base of technical support at your beck and call, and a decade of practice runs. (The Mercury and Gemini programs.)

Where's the problem?

[PixyMisa]

I've been silently following this thread and now I'd like to ask a question of Mr Southwind:

In what way are the doubts you harbour reasonable?

One bloke with his "scientific" photo analysis stacked up against the work of thousands of Engineers, Scientists, Technicians and everyone else involved in Apollo over the years is a reasonable doubt to you?
"Thousands" is understating things by a huge margin, though. When you count all the people involved in Apollo, the programs leading up to Apollo (Explorer, Ranger, Surveyor, Mercury and Gemini), and programs that used Apollo systems (Skylab), and all the scientists who have used data from those programs in their research, the number is easily in the hundreds of thousands across dozens of countries.

Against that, Southwind has a photo that he thinks looks odd.

[technoextreme]

You have the car, the scuba gear, a huge base of technical support at your beck and call, and a decade of practice runs. (The Mercury and Gemini programs.)

Where's the problem?
Well let's not forget that the first scuba divers died before they even made into the water. NASA did make huge mistakes with the Apollo 1 program which is to be expected.