Moon landing hoax

As for lubricants boiling off. Oils have a much higher boiling point for a start. A few have been developed from the military angle for use in ICBMs which work in space. A "solid" lube like graphite would face no such problems.

Hell they wore highly complex and sensitive mechanical watches(omega speedmasters) exposed to the vacuum of space(still do these days as its still flight approved). OK they were specially selected, but when the glass of one popped off on the moon, one of the guys used a non approved one (a Hamilton IIRC) on his second EVA with no probs. Another wore a rolex on the moon, though AFAIR not outside the suit so....

squod wrote: »

FYI as was pointed out the feather was stored in the outside pocket of the aastronaughts space suit.

So? I'm not getting the point youre trying to make with this. So at most it was body temp. Unlikely given the insulation on the suits. Even so, its not gonna burst into flames is it?

The watch would have been fine as it was sealed (airtight). No comparison with the camera here.

It was designed to be water resistant and anyone who has one of the originals(I had) would never consider it for diving as it's not water resistant enough. Big diff to air tight. In any case the other watch used on the eva's wasn't up to the omega's standard and functioned fine. Indeed a completely airtight mechanism would have more heat/cold issues than one with equalised pressure. Hence the cooling systems required for the suits/spacecraft.

squod wrote: »

Some more moon landing trivia. Dunno if it's all true, AFAIK the apollo lander was never tested on earth.

The rocket engine was. The electronics were. The physics of the craft were and it's systems were tested in vacuum chambers. It would have been utterly pointless to test it in earth atmosphere and gravity. It's pointless. The parameters are wildly different. They didnt test the shuttles RCS reaction control systems in atmosphere either.

Simply put, you don't test a submarine in a desert do you? So that argument hardly holds water or vacuum.

As for the contention that "It is probably impossible to land a rocket, and even if it is a theoretical possibility, no one has yet been able to come close to doing it. They can parachute an object onto a planet, they can glide a winged vehicle onto a planet, but landing an object under rocket power has never been done".

People should actually attempt to get a basic knowledge of the history of spaceflight before throwing out statements like that. *Ahem* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking_program#Viking_landers The two viking landers landed under rocket power, remotely, in atmosphere and in higher gravity. A much harder task considering the lack of the Mk 1 Human eyeball. The Russians did it too and there have been in atmosphere tests of other systems. The reason they use parachutes for landing probes now is that its several orders of magnitude cheaper(viking cost billions) and massively less complex. They've lost a shed load attempting it too as its less reliable. The beagle for one.

They dont use rocket landers to return to earth either. Again massive expense and another complex system that could fail. So using the atmosphere is a better bet, either parachute as the russians still use or teh shuttel(plus in apollo days they didnt have the materials required to make a winged return vehicle survive reentry).

squod wrote: »

Theres a long read on the subject if anyone's interested. I read through it a while ago and found this guys comments very humourous. Some of the stuff we've been through on this thread and some stuff I haven't even thought of!

http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/Apollo1.html

OK objects dont move in slow motion on the moon. Look at the objects the astronauts use. A vid I linked to previously showed mission cards and tools on the belt moving as you would expect. Objects in the moons gravity drop slower because of the lower gravity so some slo mo will be seen. As for the guys themselves they move more clumsily as they're in pressure suits. Look at them in the vomit comet suited up and compare them to the movements of the normally dressed helpers. OF course the CT'rs in one vid will say things are moving too quickly, yet the same vid will be used as "evidence" to show them moving too slowly.

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

Batteries? Again these guys need to have more understanding. They're of a similar bent to creationists, knowledge wise. I have to use the phrase this stuff isnt exactly rocket science..

They had fuel cells. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Command/Service_Module#Electrical_power_system Same as the shuttle. The shuttle can stay up for 10 days running off them and with a much greater electrical load. The LEM had heavy duty batteries as the added bulk of fuel cells(of the time) was not required for the mission. The CM/SM and the LEM had very frugal power requirements. It was designed that way for obvious reasons. Indeed when Apollo 13's fuel cells lost O2, that was the biggest hurdle(other than CO2 buildup). Keeping the already low power use even lower.

kryogen wrote: »

think i have read that before, isnt it pretty biased? if its what im thinking of its completely biased anyway so it cant be taken too seriously

I thought it better to read the link as you never know. But, the guy has literally little or no clue about the physics of spaceflight among other things. I feel like a longwinded post(be seriously feckin afraid)

Example: To put that into more Earthly terms, U.S. astronauts today travel no further into space than the distance between the San Fernando Valley and Fresno. The Apollo astronauts, on the other hand, traveled a distance equivalent to circumnavigating the planet around the equator nine-and-a-half times! And they did it with roughly the same amount of fuel that it now takes to make that 200 mile journey, which is why I want NASA to build my next car for me. I figure I’ll only have to fill up the tank once and it should last me for the rest of my life. You feel that if you were talking to him you would say "here comes the science bit"...

Real basic? Think of the earth as a big hill. Takes a lot of energy/petrol to drive to the top of the hill(launch into orbit). When you get there so long as you dont roll back down its easy to stay. Think of the moon as another hill, not so big. across a big valley from the earth. So when you use half your tank getting to the top of earth hill, you then accelerate down the earth hill towards the moon hill. switch off the engine and coast down the hill across the valley and up the moon hill(lunar insertion burn). So you sit at the top of the moon hill(orbit). Have a picnic, few beers enjoy the view. You want to come home, so you accelerate down the moon hill and head back to the earth hill and because the moon hill is "steeper" your petrol goes further. Earth insertion burn. You've only used the car engine twice. QED.

The loss of the moon tapes? They lost the 11 ones, though they had copies or the CT'rs wouldnt have anything to mull over. They did not "lose" the rest. Ditto for the telemetry and other records. They did lose the LEM build instructions which was a major Doh! Rather than see this as sinister, I would see this as dopeyness. I mean they're hardly important to the did they or didnt they debate. Indeed this lack of cop on suggests the wherewithal to keep a hoax secret would be lacking.

Antarctic moon rocks? Well we've been through that. Though he does add to my previous contention when he reports NASA "confirmed" the Dutch moon rock as real over the phone. Now Ive got an iphone and funky though it is, it does not have a remote geological analyser app available for download....

Photos of the landing site: The luna probes are/were not of a similar size to the LEM. Utterly daft.

The Russians were ahead and didnt go to the moon: They were ahead at first and they were going to the moon. There had even been some talk of a joint mission. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Moonshot They had a heavy lifting rocket built especially for the task. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_rocket They had a moon EVA suit and they had a lander http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LK_Lander. They didnt go for a couple of reasons. Cost. The death of their brilliant head designer and main push behind such things. And the fact the yanks got their first. Cosmonaut Alexi Leonov was the man set to go. Some nerve to do it on your own. They may have canceled the mission as they couldnt get a suit big enough to accommodate his balls....

The other aspect of the soviet space programme was it was done in secret until they got a result. A very interesting and far more provable CT is how many cosmonauts died in this programme in the early days.

http://www.lostcosmonauts.com/default.htm worth a read. If one case is true, somewhere out in really deep space, ahead of voyager beyond the orbit of pluto, is a lone russian capsule containing the preserved body of a cosmonaut. The furthest a human has ever traveled, even if dead.


His stuff on the mechanics of the LEM or the physics of leaving the moon dont even bear arguing with. He says he's not a rocket scientist. The only clear truth in his writings. Ditto with his radiation notions which have been covered back and forth here already. Including the erroneous notion of 6 or 4 feet of lead. Ditto again with his lack of knowledge of film and how they loaded it.

The lack of science in much of the online CT'r stuff is laughable and sad too.

squod wrote: »

Mythbusters have already done this. Their movements were certainly faster and more agile on the TV docmentary.

Unless their budget runs to pressurised space suits wandering on the moon in 1/6th gravity I cant see how you can compare.

Again to all pro hoaxers, show us just one faked/special effect movie of people doing an EVA on another world that looks as good. Just one out of all the sci fi/space movies of the last damn near 100 years of cinema and TV. Doesnt even have to be the moon. Can't be that difficult if it was so easy to dupe the world, scientists, engineers, viewers and the scientists and engineers of a hostile country 40 years ago.

Are you actually suggesting the outside pocket of the aastronaughts suit was cooled to body temperature?

Nope just responding to your previous post and how I couldnt see its point.

I don't for sure know what effects of heat on the feather in a vacuum are.

That's the problem. You're missing the point about how heat is transmitted or lost in a vacuum. It can be only transmitted by radiation. Close contact isnt really in play as that removes the vacuum enitirely

I suggest the easiest explanation for the experiment was that it was filmed on earth.

equally considering the other evidence was that it was filmed on the moon.

I don't think this bloke is taking himself or the subject so seriously. Such a long rebuttle Wibbs, he woulda found that amusing.

Well his points are word for word what 90% of the hoax proponents believe. Plus it fills 5 pages. Even at the speed I write, I'd need to be taking it fairly serious.

I also notice when pro hoaxers are faced with alternatives, scientifically based alternatives at that, they either shout "you're wrong! or change the subject to avoid the alternative. The goal post shifting I spoke of earlier. They make statements backed up if at all with very ill informed science aimed at a non scientifically minded audience of fellow believers. In the US where the average persons scientific education is parlously lacking when compared to the past, I can see the appeal. In this part of the world where such education is of a better average standard it does make me think.

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

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

Text diagram


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

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

Now we take in reflected light.

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

Lets look at your example

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

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

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

squod wrote: »

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

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

See who is now ignoring stuff?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now this shot. Same mission.

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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



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

An even better example



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


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


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

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

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

OK TL;DR? alright clear straightforward question?

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