Moon landing hoax

Wibbs

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




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

Wibbs

Another comparison;

Video


Similar shot, different mission with a stills camera.

squod

Video camera
.

Magic hasselblad

Wibbs

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

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


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

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

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

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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


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

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

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

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

Wibbs

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


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


But I'll bite....

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

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

SkepticOne

squod wrote: »

Video camera

Magic hasselblad

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

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

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

Wibbs

Had a notion so I looked it up;

Lack of blast crater under the LEM?

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

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

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

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

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

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

squod

SkepticOne wrote: »

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

Not without a second light source it wouldn't!

SkepticOne

squod wrote: »

Not without a second light source it wouldn't!

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

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

Even better for my argument.

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

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

Do they make a crater?

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

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

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

squod wrote: »

Not without a second light source it wouldn't!

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

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

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

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

Wibbs

SkepticOne wrote: »

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

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

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wibbs

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

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

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

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

nij

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

It's at 2:37

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

Wibbs

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

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

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

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

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

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

squod

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

There's three parts.

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

Wibbs

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

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

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

Wibbs

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

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

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

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

squod wrote: »

They show the flag move away from the aastronaught initially.

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

Wibbs

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

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

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

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

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

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

OK Simple questions again to anyone on the hoax side;

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

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

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

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

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

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

The hoaxers have little leg to stand on.

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

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

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

I take it by hoaxers you mean NASA.

Oh god...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wibbs

BTW "Wires"

squod

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Wibbs

squod wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Wibbs

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

acurno

Have been following this thread with interest and some amusement.

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

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

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