PDA

View Full Version : Mythbusters



AstroGman
2010-Jun-01, 05:09 AM
Has anyone seen the Mythbusters episode debunking the stupid claims of the HB's?Also,What astronauts does Bill [Kaysing] claim to have testimony from????

AstroGman
2010-Jun-01, 05:11 AM
If it is Brian O leary,then he should know that O Leary actually recanted that theory and has stated that he believes that the landings were real.

Tog
2010-Jun-01, 05:59 AM
Our own JayUtah was a technical adviser on the Mythbusters Moon hoax episode. He also has a site that covers nearly all of the common hoax statements, including many of the statements made by people like Kaysing. It can be found at www.clavius.org.

AstroGman
2010-Jun-01, 06:27 AM
THanx alot Tog

DoctorTea
2011-May-07, 07:34 PM
I have seen these episodes and they are not good. Look for yourself. Their debunking can be easily picked apart. Again, I am new here, very much a main streamer in a general sense but very open minded and let me see the facts type person. I am a critical thinker to some significant degree, at least I think I am. A major interest of mine actually is how main streamers get into trouble by not honestly engaging the hoaxers and answering their questions in a straight-forward way. Since I am new, my threads are not yet posted. I am no expert on anything, but have a solid general science background. I hope this will be fun for me. DoctorTea

nomuse
2011-May-08, 01:41 AM
This may come across as a bit snarky, but... The mainstream of the Landing Denier beliefs are not very good, and they are indeed easily picked apart. There is little point in doing careful science to refute the claim that shadows from a single source must always lie parallel within a picture frame, when anyone can either open a magazine or take a camera outside and refute that in an instant.

Also, you are reversing the onus here. The claims by the Landing Deniers fall roughly into two categories; one being "There is no way so-and-so could happen, therefore, the missions are a fake," and the other being, "Here is how I think they faked so-and-so, therefore, it is possible the missions were faked."

In re the former, all that is necessary is to show one way in which so-and-so COULD happen. Aka shadows that appear to diverge, or converge, said to be impossible under the lighting conditions of the Moon, easily show to be possible by replicating said conditions.

The latter case is more complex. Although you can often (as Mythbusters did) refute the specific method suggested by the Landing Denier (for instance, that multiple light sources were used), you can not refute ALL possible methods to fake the results. There will always be a method that no-one has thought of yet.

Does one then conclude it is impossible to know anything? No. One concludes that there is always room for new evidence, but until convincing evidence arrives, the preponderance of evidence favors the existing conclusion.


Lastly, and at the real risk of attracting moderator ire, besides studying Apollo (and related subjects) for years, we've also been arguing with Landing Deniers for years. Perhaps that makes us overly quick to judge. From our experience the Landing Deniers have certain set patterns, and they very rarely surprise us by deviating from them. I will name no names, but a recent poster came on in such a set and familiar manner the older of us experienced a strong sense of having argued with that very person before.

At some point, you get tired of ever-extending the hand of cordiality, calmly re-stating questions, writing out once again basic explanations, only to find that the latest brick wall is no more dent-able than the hundred that came before. We recognize, you see, those rare posters who come to learn instead of to posture, and if you stick around long enough for one of those rare birds to wander in you will see a much different behavior from the oldsters here.

I hope I haven't said, or assumed, too much.

R.A.F.
2011-May-08, 02:48 AM
Their debunking can be easily picked apart.

Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the rules of this board, particularly the special rules pertaining to the "proving ground" section of the board. Re. those rules...you have made the claim that the mythbusters debunking of the Moon hoaxers "can be easily picked apart". The challenge for you is to put your money where your mouth is (so to speak) and go ahead and "pick apart" the MB's debunking.

Van Rijn
2011-May-08, 03:13 AM
I have seen these episodes and they are not good. Look for yourself. Their debunking can be easily picked apart.


Are you talking about the episode on moon hoax claims, or episodes on other subjects? If other episodes, it's off topic, but I watched their show on the moon hoax claims and thought they did a good job. If you're just arguing about their presentation style and not the arguments, keep in mind that they don't want to bore their audience. Anyway, if you do have concerns about their arguments, please present them.



A major interest of mine actually is how main streamers get into trouble by not honestly engaging the hoaxers and answering their questions in a straight-forward way.


If you review the threads here, you'll find many honest answers to questions. Some annoyance too, but that typically only becomes a big issue when a hoaxer ignores answers, changes subjects, and doesn't answer questions put to them.

DoctorTea
2011-May-08, 03:54 AM
Allow me to explain what I saw on the Mythbusters program. There was an episode that involved The Mythbusters showing/demonstrating that the sun's light could have reflected off the lunar surface well enough/adequately such that a good still photograph could be taken of Aldrin as he descended the ladder. The Mythbuster guys went through all of this rigmarole to show how employing material with the same reflectivity as the lunar surface, something like 7%, one should/could/would photograph this little model of Aldrin well. That is, the little Aldrin model would indeed be adequately illuminated such that the still photo, Mythbuster model photo could roughly resemble that photo Armstrong actually took of Aldrin as he descended the ladder. I do not know about this stuff in detail but I presume the claim by the other side/hoaxers is that the TV picture taken simultaneously with the Armstrong photograph of Aldrin is dark and the photograph itself is light and so because the lighting is not in a sense commensurate, the whole thing is faked and must be phony. Correct me if i am wrong PLEASE!, but that is what I understood the Mythbuster guys to say. My point is that as far as I could/can tell, the Mythbuster guys, in order to do this correctly, would actually need to take into account the brightness of the incident light(sun's intensity, direction, angle) and other parameters which I did not see them carefully do. Was the light they used similar to sunlight in quality. Maybe it was, but i did not pick that up watching. Perhaps i missed a point there. Since we are chatting about it, i will watch again. But my take was, "This is supposed to be science???" It looked to me like hokey amateur guys. I am sorry, but that is what I thought. It was silly, anything but meticulous. Bad science. Could not even really call it that, call it science. So what if they got the reflectivity right? What about the incident light and the little model of Aldrin is not the same as photographing a full sized astronaut. I won't go into details here about that, the difference between a little Aldrin model and Aldrin himself in a spacesuit. I honestly could not care less about the picture/photo stuff debate. I do not see persuasive evidence from either side with regard to the photos, though in a broader sense, from my general perspective, I view the photos as authentic, but not because the photos in and of themselves are convincing. By that i mean, if someone showed me just the pictures, I would NOT have good reason to be sure the landings took place. The pictures support the landings, but there are not totally unreasonable objections that merit discussion. On the other hand, I do see very persuasive evidence for the landings based on the rocks, the uniqueness of the rocks and for that reason and a few others, but for me, that is the main one, the rocks, I am a person who views the landings as credible/believable. If some one showed me just the rocks and the scientific papers written with regard to them, on that alone, I would and do agree with most people that look at this some in a bit of detail, that the landings in fact occurred. The Mythbuster guys actually seem to work against their intentions with a bad effort. At least that is my take. DoctorTea

Grashtel
2011-May-08, 04:03 AM
DoctorTea can I offer you a bit of advice, paragraphs are your friends, you should make use of them. The great walls of text you keep throwing up are nearly unreadable as they are, breaking them up will make them much more readable. I suggest making use of the preview function available in the advanced version of the posting interface (accessed through the "Go Advanced" button).

vonmazur
2011-May-08, 04:17 AM
Dr Tea: The "persuasive evidence" is in the records of the flights and the moon rocks, among others....Not to mention the telemetry that was monitored by our "friends" in the Soviet Union, and other places that were not connected with NASA..I was alive and in the US Army when these flights took place, and I cannot understand the current lack of acceptance by younger people, it seems almost that they have lost the ability to discern reality through rational thought....I hear a lot of "On the one hand this, and on the other hand that..." which tells me that someone is not doing their own thinking...Trying to be impartial by this syllogism is not substitute for a careful investigation and the application of real rational thought....IMHO..

Dale

nomuse
2011-May-08, 04:24 AM
Allow me to explain what I saw on the Mythbusters program. There was an episode that involved The Mythbusters showing/demonstrating that the sun's light could have reflected off the lunar surface well enough/adequately such that a good still photograph could be taken of Aldrin as he descended the ladder. The Mythbuster guys went through all of this rigmarole to show how employing material with the same reflectivity as the lunar surface, something like 7%, one should/could/would photograph this little model of Aldrin well. That is, the little Aldrin model would indeed be adequately illuminated such that the still photo, Mythbuster model photo could roughly resemble that photo Armstrong actually took of Aldrin as he descended the ladder. I do not know about this stuff in detail but I presume the claim by the other side/hoaxers is that the TV picture taken simultaneously with the Armstrong photograph of Aldrin is dark and the photograph itself is light and so because the lighting is not in a sense commensurate, the whole thing is faked and must be phony.

No. And that illustrates what I said about familiarity with the Landing Deniers and their usual arguments.

The usual argument is that the illumination observed in the photograph is impossible under the lighting conditions of the Moon, and could only have been achieved with a second (and presumed artificial) source. The conclusion drawn is that the photograph was staged, and was lit with a full panoply of studio lighting fixtures.

The Mythbusters easily show that the original assumption this conclusion is drawn from is, in fact, incorrect. Reflected light -- what we call inter-object illumination -- is quite sufficient.

As an aside, I once had the opportunity to light Walter Koenig doing a reading. ALL the light that fell on his face was reflected off the script on the podium, and yet it filled in his face very well against the strong toplight he and the videographer had requested.

In any case, the Mythbusters were not tasked to show the photograph could be exactly duplicated. They were tasked to show IT WASN'T IMPOSSIBLE to duplicate it without adding extra (studio) lights.




Correct me if i am wrong PLEASE!, but that is what I understood the Mythbuster guys to say. My point is that as far as I could/can tell, the Mythbuster guys, in order to do this correctly, would actually need to take into account the brightness of the incident light(sun's intensity, direction, angle) and other parameters which I did not see them carefully do. Was the light they used similar to sunlight in quality. Maybe it was, but i did not pick that up watching. Perhaps i missed a point there. Since we are chatting about it, i will watch again. But my take was, "This is supposed to be science???" It looked to me like hokey amateur guys. I am sorry, but that is what I thought. It was silly, anything but meticulous. Bad science. Could not even really call it that, call it science. So what if they got the reflectivity right? What about the incident light and the little model of Aldrin is not the same as photographing a full sized astronaut. I won't go into details here about that, the difference between a little Aldrin model and Aldrin himself in a spacesuit. I honestly could not care less about the picture/photo stuff debate. I do not see persuasive evidence from either side with regard to the photos, though in a broader sense, from my general perspective, I view the photos as authentic, but not because the photos in and of themselves are convincing. By that i mean, if someone showed me just the pictures, I would NOT have good reason to be sure the landings took place. The pictures support the landings, but there are not totally unreasonable objections that merit discussion. On the other hand, I do see very persuasive evidence for the landings based on the rocks, the uniqueness of the rocks and for that reason and a few others, but for me, that is the main one, the rocks, I am a person who views the landings as credible/believable. If some one showed me just the rocks and the scientific papers written with regard to them, on that alone, I would and do agree with most people that look at this some in a bit of detail, that the landings in fact occurred. The Mythbuster guys actually seem to work against their intentions with a bad effort. At least that is my take. DoctorTea

Do a literature search.

Here: this came up in about twenty seconds. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V66-48C8NNC-20S&_user=10&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1994&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1744189970&_rerunOrigin=scholar.google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=450a8554862151865d879fedcab02cea&searchtype=a

WhoSaysSo
2011-May-08, 04:30 AM
I watched the MythBusters prove, without a doubt, the affect a vacuum has on a swinging flag. Great episode. For those who didn't see it:

The flag was put into a vacuum chamber and attached to a mechanical device that would allow someone outside the chamber to twist the flag poll. They used the same design as used on the Apollo moon landings so the flag would look like it's blowing in a strong wind. Before the air was removed, they torqued the flag poll. The affect was a curving in the fabric cause by air resistance as the flag tried to swing, and a few back and forth swings before air resistance stopped all motion.

Next, they removed the air and torqued the flag poll again. This time, there was much less curve in the fabric since there was no resistance, and the flag swung back and forth like a pendulum for a much longer time that when air was in the chamber. They then showed a side-by-side comparison of the effects with and without a vacuum.

The point they were making was that, even though the Apollo 15 "waving flag" looked like it was caused by air brushing the flag from the passing astronaut, the way the flag swung indicated a vacuum. Given this, the evidence supports a vacuum, which means it was not moving air causes by the astronautic running by the flag.

The above is a great example of how all the available evidence needs to be analyzed, not just parts of it.

Tom Servo
2011-May-08, 04:43 AM
If I recall correctly. The Hoax argument was that the astronaut should be all black because there is no atmosphere on the moon to bounce light around and light up someone who is in a shadow (or the shadowy side of the person can not be lit up on the moon).

The mythbusters showed that there was not need for an atmosphere to do the job of scatering the light to bounce off the astronaut and into the camera because the lunar surface is really reflective itself.

So they made a mock up in miniature of the same scene. And showed that it is possible to light up the astronaught using light bounced off the simulated surface enough to light up the astronaut in a shadow.

As I recall that is what they did.

I woud have liked for them to do a full size mockup in a full sized vacuum chamber to eleminate the atmosphere issue.

But thats what I would like for them to do. Im sure that would cost way to much to set up. And im sure they blew a lot of the budget on the low gravity simulating plane rides.

Either way I thought they proved thier point that it is possible to light up someone in a shadow using only the reflectivity of the lunar surface.

WhoSaysSo
2011-May-08, 04:55 AM
I like the visual shown on the website blow. Two pictures of the same model. Both have the same light source from the same angle. The difference is that one has a more reflective surface the model is sitting on. It's a simple test, but visually compelling!

http://iangoddard.com/moon01.htm

Highlander
2011-May-08, 05:04 AM
Hello DoctorTea,

I haven't seen the particular epislode in question, so I can't comment directly. I have seen some really bad stuff on Mythbusters, though. What can we say? It's a television show, they have to appeal to the audience. This may involve a lot of sloppiness and cutting corners; there's a reason that show is on, instead of videotapes of science lectures from the local university.

I am an even newer member than you, but I have been hiding in the shadows for quite a long time, so I have seen the lay of the land here. You have gotten some good responses, that address the comments you made directly (although as you can see, not everyone agrees with you) - this is fairly common. Less desirable but also common is the threat to have you carted off to against-the-mainstream jail, despite the fact that you're not making any non-mainstream claim (unless we count pop science shows among the scientific mainstream). It gets worse if you move outside the core areas of the board; I am frequently astonished at what a lot of the board members seem to think the mainstream is in my field of expertise. One of the reasons I have stayed in the shadows. (Oh crap, now they can see me :()

Peter B
2011-May-08, 06:31 AM
I do not know about this stuff in detail but I presume the claim by the other side/hoaxers is that the TV picture taken simultaneously with the Armstrong photograph of Aldrin is dark and the photograph itself is light and so because the lighting is not in a sense commensurate, the whole thing is faked and must be phony. Correct me if i am wrong PLEASE!, but that is what I understood the Mythbuster guys to say.

As others have pointed out, more along the lines that Aldrin's spacesuit is suspiciously bright in the Lunar Module's shadow. This is taken to be a specific example of asking why all sorts of things show up in what they believe should be extremely dark shadows. For example, the US flag and the words "UNITED STATES" on the shaded side of the LM's Descent Stage.


My point is that as far as I could/can tell, the Mythbuster guys, in order to do this correctly, would actually need to take into account the brightness of the incident light(sun's intensity, direction, angle) and other parameters which I did not see them carefully do. Was the light they used similar to sunlight in quality. Maybe it was, but i did not pick that up watching. Perhaps i missed a point there.

I don't think they said anything on the show about the points you've raised. They're valid points, but the presenters point out on their show that they don't explain every parameter they take into account when doing their experiments, as it would take too long. This is why they occasionally revisit some of their myths, to show them taking care of points raised by fans.


Since we are chatting about it, i will watch again. But my take was, "This is supposed to be science???" It looked to me like hokey amateur guys. I am sorry, but that is what I thought. It was silly, anything but meticulous. Bad science. Could not even really call it that, call it science.

To be fair, they're providing entertainment. They're not doing an experiment in a lab with the intent of getting the results published in Nature. I've heard people groan about the approaches they've taken in some of their other shows, in terms of not following correct experimental procedure. For me, the most important thing about Mythbusters is teaching people to do experiments to test things, rather than sitting back in a chair and announcing that they know this or that.

One thing that consistently occurs with Apollo Hoax Believers is their unwillingness or inability to demonstrate the hoaxes they claim to uncover. They're willing to alter Apollo photos to show how they think they should appear, but they're not willing to recreate the settings to produce the effects directly. For example, with the Aldrin-ladder photo, they'll take the photo and calculate where the secondary light is, but they won't then go and recreate the photo.

However, having said that, I think the experiments they conducted on the Apollo Hoax show were quite credible. In terms of the Aldrin-ladder photo test, the main point was to show that another astronaut in a bright spacesuit (Armstrong) standing in the Sun was sufficiently reflective to light up Aldrin, even though he was in the shade.


I honestly could not care less about the picture/photo stuff debate.

If you're interested in learning more about hoax belief, it's worth caring a little bit, as it's an education in the way hoax believers think.


I do not see persuasive evidence from either side with regard to the photos, though in a broader sense, from my general perspective, I view the photos as authentic, but not because the photos in and of themselves are convincing. By that i mean, if someone showed me just the pictures, I would NOT have good reason to be sure the landings took place.

That's fair enough.


The pictures support the landings, but there are not totally unreasonable objections that merit discussion.

I'd be curious to know what you think these objections are.


On the other hand, I do see very persuasive evidence for the landings based on the rocks, the uniqueness of the rocks and for that reason and a few others, but for me, that is the main one, the rocks, I am a person who views the landings as credible/believable. If some one showed me just the rocks and the scientific papers written with regard to them, on that alone, I would and do agree with most people that look at this some in a bit of detail, that the landings in fact occurred.

It's good that you point to the rock business, as most people who discuss the hoax from the side of Apollo also take that view. But the key thing about accepting the reality of Apollo is a concept that arch-skeptic Michael Shermer calls the consilience of evidence - many streams of evidence all pointing to the same conclusion. Whether you look at the rocks, the testimony of the people who worked at Mission Control or the ground stations, the engineering information, the conversations between the crews and Mission Control, the videos, the fact that the Soviets had spies in NASA, the testimony of the astronauts, or the photos, they all suggest (to me at least) that Apollo was real. No Apollo evidence I've seen has ever tempted me to doubt the reality of Apollo.


The Mythbuster guys actually seem to work against their intentions with a bad effort. At least that is my take. DoctorTea

Fair enough, you're entitled to your opinion. I thought the show was quite good, given the limits of time and budget.

Gillianren
2011-May-08, 08:13 AM
As it happens, my membership on their message board coincided with the first vague discussion that they might do a Moon hoax episode. (This would have been more than five years ago.) I was part of the discussion at the time, and one of the problems was something they could do for cheap, and especially things that ordinary people might be able to duplicate themselves. They've gotten less fussy about that latter requirement, obviously, but the interesting thing about the lighting one is that you can duplicate it yourself. You probably don't have access to regolith simulant or a vacuum chamber or the Vomit Comet, but testing lighting effects isn't that complicated and doesn't require much in special equipment.

DoctorTea
2011-May-08, 09:23 AM
This is fun going back and forth with you guys. I am glad somebody said the points were sort of valid. i am not familiar with the details of claims by hoaxers. it just seemed the Mythbuster science was limited. They did not reproduce the conditions of the photo to my satisfaction. i should have said that and left it alone. I guess if i pursue this with you all, i'll learn to be more brief. DoctorTea

DoctorTea
2011-May-08, 09:44 AM
Sorry, i cannot get into the hoax stuff like you guys. I am not going to do a search to see what these hoax guys think. I am too busy as it is. But thanks for the encouragement. this site is fun and you guys are smart and more importantly, thoughtful critical thinkers.

DoctorTea

Garrison
2011-May-08, 12:01 PM
Sorry, i cannot get into the hoax stuff like you guys. I am not going to do a search to see what these hoax guys think.

DoctorTea

Which makes me wonder why you said this earlier:


a major interest of mine actually is how main streamers get into trouble by not honestly engaging the hoaxers and answering their questions in a straight-forward way.

If you don't know a lot about the hoaxers arguments and attitudes how could you make such a statement about how those choose to engage them? The reality is that HB's rarely offer up a considered well researched view, and are incredibly resistant to anything that contradicts their ill founded theories, heck if you want to look at just one example try looking up Jarrah White and his definition of 'Polar Orbit'.

DoctorTea
2011-May-08, 12:49 PM
I know I have been way way way too verbose and that has diluted my point(s). The point I tried to make about the main streamers/main stream thinking I believe MAY be a valid one on some important levels. I made this point in a different post/thread so I apologize for mentioning it here and should not have mentioned it in this particular Mythbuster thread. I am learning, trying my best. I apologize, and If I stick around, hopefully I will learn and be able to contribute, help people learn. But I do have a real job and this is work!, perhaps too much for a casual guy like me. At any rate, I am here for now and I realize I need to really try and stay on topic. But it is not easy for me. The subjects/topics mix, spin, swirl, flow. See my other posts, the threads I started today/yesterday. I wrote in this other thread about how some professional/academic astronomers with whom I have been communicating, view some of the hoaxer topics/issues as legitimate, albeit indirectly so. That said, in a broader sense, I do not know the specifics even in the sketchiest of outlines of even .00000001% of the hoax argument(s). But so what! Do I need to go to moon hoax class before I can participate here???? I thought this would be a place for me to learn a little, on site. Give me a break! You might learn something from me. I am an expert in the physiology of human thermoreglation. It has relevance here. I would think you might want some input from me instead of interrogate and torture every word I say. You guys are so so so funny. WAY TO SERIOUS! I MEAN THAT RELAX!!!! I accidentally stumbled upon ONE OR TWO points that only seem to me on some level to be interpreted by others as having implications regarding whether astronauts did or did not land on the moon. One of these had to do with the issue as to whether one can or cannot see stars from the moon's surface. My intention was only to point out that professional/academic astronomers with whom I have been communicating, including an optics specialist based in Cambridge were indeed debating this issue which some viewed as having hoax relevance, but was nonetheless a legitimate topic for discussion. I made my statements based on my experiences communicating with these astronomers. See my other threads for details. What is this a witch hunt??? You guys take this so seriously. It sort of proves my point if I may be so bold. I came here trying to get more of a blue collar taste of this stuff as I had been communicating with academics and it's like this is the most important thing in the universe to some of the people here when I would have thought it might have been the academics who would be more uptight. Get a grip for Pete's sake. (Somebody asked me what "for Pete's sake" means in a previous post. Google it. It's semi-biblical.) I still think this is fun and you guys are great but chill out a bit, my goodness. I am a doctor you know, I'd like to prescribe a round of anxiolytics for all the active members of this crew. The anxiety over this stuff is uncalled for boys. Relax!!! Nobody is going to win any hearts or minds here. Be practical. Try and learn something if you can. Let the attitude go go go go go! No one is trying to game you and if they were/are so what, don't respond. Really, what gives here. FOR PETE'S SAKE RELAX RELAX RELAX!!!!!!

glappkaeft
2011-May-08, 02:07 PM
A wall of text

Seriously that paragraph is more than one page long. I would like to read it but it is unreadable at the moment.

DoctorTea
2011-May-08, 02:27 PM
fine , no big. DoctorTea

LaurelHS
2011-May-08, 03:07 PM
I am an expert in the physiology of human thermoreglation.

I'm not an expert, but I think it's called "thermoregulation."

DoctorTea
2011-May-08, 03:18 PM
sorry, there are probably hundreds of typos in my posts throughout the evening. i will be as careful as i can be with my spelling, syntax and so forth, but my style , at least so far far has been overly verbose. what can i say. i read a few of my posts and there were/are numerous misspellings/typos. no big for me if not for you. Best, DoctorTea.

R.A.F.
2011-May-08, 04:33 PM
...I do not know the specifics even in the sketchiest of outlines of even .00000001% of the hoax argument(s). But so what!

Yeah...it's not like you need a certain "familiarity" with hoaxer "arguments" before you can criticize a debunking of those same arguments...

Sheesh....

Swift
2011-May-08, 05:15 PM
Relax!!! Nobody is going to win any hearts or minds here. Be practical. Try and learn something if you can. Let the attitude go go go go go! No one is trying to game you and if they were/are so what, don't respond. Really, what gives here. FOR PETE'S SAKE RELAX RELAX RELAX!!!!!!
DoctorTea,

You need to relax too. Stop criticizing other members for their posting style or how seriously they may take a topic. And stop with the metadiscussion of how we debate hoax believers. As I already told you, such discussion belongs in Feedback. This thread is for discussing the Mythbusters' episode, and that's it.

And please, paragraph breaks are your friend.

DoctorTea
2011-May-08, 06:01 PM
I admit, I am out of this league in a sense. Many here know infinitely more about the Apollo program generally and the hoax side of the story than do I. But does one have to commit to full time study of this to participate? By this logic, no one should weigh in unless they have some massive degree of baseline familiarity with hoax science? Is that an oxymoron? Such considerations of gaining baseline familiarity may be valid up to a point, but I believe that one does not need to be so very well versed in this stuff to say, at the very least, this is what I think. No more, no less, simply this is what I think and why. This seems utterly reasonable to me provided the individual be prepared to hear the reason(s) as to why he or she may be wrong, or on the other hand, be prepared to be encouraged and take action as a contributor, even a leader, for that matter, if one proves to be correct about some issue however trivial or important.

If I say that I don't believe the Mythbusters did a good job because they used a little astronaut model instead of a full sized person to reproduce the conditions of the photo, I may ultimately be proven to be wrong. It may turn out a tiny model Aldrin is very suitable for this "experiment". But should I not give some measured opinion as long as it is reasonably well informed and provided I am prepared to listen to and accept the reason(s) as to why I may be wrong? If the answer is no, then most of us are left, most of the time, with regard to most subjects, to study forever on end, never to ever say what we think about anything. I would submit that such a philosophy with regard to one's approach in terms of life long studies is an absurd approach. Many, if not most, would agree my point about the miniature Aldrin vs a real full sized Aldrin model is not an unreasonable point to make. I am entitled to my opinion provided I make some effort to understand the general approach to the Mythbusters' science here, provided I understand in some general sense what they are trying to accomplish, what the vision of the "experiment is, what its goals are, what it claims to be attempting to falsify and what must obtain for those claims to be in fact falsified. I would submit that the Mythbusters themselves, though they may disagree with the validity of my point(s) about the different Aldrin models, would nevertheless almost certainly see my point(s) as not entirely unreasonable. I will ask them. I will make a strong effort to query the Mythbusters themselves. Let's see what the experimenters think when I ask them about the "objections", my objections to their strategy, the very ones that I have outlined above. If they see my objections as reasonable, even though they may disagree with the substance/facts of those objections, then I would say my point is valid and stands. If they, the real life Mythbusters themselves, see my objections as utterly unreasonable, so lacking in merit, objections of such inconsequential substance, that they never should be raised, let alone addressed, then by all means R.A.F., your point stands and stands well and I should leave the forum. I will see if I can get them to address what I am sure will prove to be another one of my most interesting questions. I will be sure to show you the question before I pose it formally, pass it to them such that you may be given the opportunity to agree or disagree with regard to its being fair. I believe all would agree that such would be a very fair test of our opposing methods of calculus, of logic in such matters.

What do you say R.A.F.? Shall we not agree on posing such a question to the Mythbusters together? It will be interesting and fun! Why don't we both formulate said question to begin with and then we can go from there? Agreed?

Disagree with me if one likes about my point regarding the Aldrin tiny miniature model vs a full scale Aldrin model, but regardless of any person's individual opinion, there undoubtedly are individuals on both sides of the hoax debate who would view my pointing this out, my objection to the use of the little miniature Aldrin, as being if not a valid point, then certainly at least a reasonable objection to make irrespective of the merits of the science. I NEED NOT MASTER BOTH APOLLO PROGRAM HISTORY AND HOAX HISTORY TO GIVE A MEANINGFUL CRITIQUE OF THE MYTHBUSTER APPROACH TO FALSIFYING THE CLAIMS OF HOAXERS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALDRIN DISEMBARKATION PHOTO, PROVIDED I GIVE MY REASONS FOR THE SUBSTANCE OF MY CRITIQUE AND PROVIDED THAT I AM PREPARED TO HEAR THE REASONING GIVEN AS TO WHY I AM WRONG AND BE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT REASONING IF IT PROVES TO BE SOUND.

That said, I do respectfully appreciate your point about studying the position of others in terms of being able to effectively criticize any given topic however narrow or broad R.A.F.. This is a subject, the Apollo program, of astronomical dimension and I must plead guilty as charged with respect to this indictment on those grounds as presented, grounds of my woefully glaring limitations.

I have been lucky the last day playing around on this web site as I have not had work to do, but indeed, I do have a life with great demands. Are those of us not fully committed to this Apollo project 24/7 to be excluded from the discussion? Do we have nothing meaningful to offer because we are not experts in the world of Apollo? Is it not possible that enthusiastic amateurs might not have something meaningful to add? Let he or she in possession of irrefutable, undeniable, absolute, metaphysical competency cast that first loping 4 billion year old lunar stone.

I do appreciate your point R.A.F., but I hold with great vigor to my own philosophy, a philosophy in strong tension with and in strong opposition to your views. I would caution you, albeit gingerly, be careful not to completely alienate potentially capable allies.

I feel if an individual has some interest, he or she should be encouraged to participate, and give an opinion, their own opinion with regard to the issue at hand. This is a very good way to engage in the study of various and sundry basic science topics. People here are smart and for the most part, with one glaring exception, the interactions have been civil. I wish all space history enthusiasts, of whatever ilk, opinion or intrinsic analytic capability, all the best, especially you R.A.F., DoctorTea

Garrison
2011-May-08, 06:18 PM
By this logic, no one should weigh in unless they have some massive degree of baseline familiarity with hoax science? Is that an oxymoron? Such considerations of gaining baseline familiarity may be valid up to a point, but I believe that one does not need to be so very well versed in this stuff to say, at the very least, this is what I think. No more, no less, simply this is what I think and why.

But if what you say contradicts the mainstream view then you will be asked questions and be expected to defend your position here in the CT section of the forum.


This seems utterly reasonable to me provided the individual be prepared to hear the reason(s) as to why he or she may be wrong, or on the other hand, be prepared to be encouraged and take action as a contributor, even a leader, for that matter, if one proves to be correct about some issue however trivial or important.


You really haven't read any of the CT threads have you? You don't need massive familiarity but you do need to browse a few of the 'classics' to get a measure of how CT's tend to present their cases, and how they respond when their points are refuted.


If I say that I don't believe the Mythbusters did a good job because they used a little astronaut model instead of a full sized person to reproduce the conditions of the photo, I may ultimately be proven to be wrong. It may turn out a tiny model Aldrin is very suitable for this "experiment". But should I not give some measured opinion as long as it is reasonably well informed and provided I am prepared to listen to and accept the reason(s) as to why I may be wrong?

And again you have it backwards, here in the CT section the burden would rest with you to show why this experiment isn't valid, other posters are under no obligation to explain why it works. Not going to respond to the rest of the post because it all seems to rest on this basic misunderstanding of how the CT section of the forum operates.

Gillianren
2011-May-08, 06:33 PM
The thing is, you do need a familiarity with an issue before you can have a reasonable discussion about it, or at very least, a willingness to learn about it. If you don't have a familiarity with the issue an experiment is trying to prove, why should anyone care if you think they did it wrong?

DoctorTea
2011-May-08, 06:55 PM
Whatever, I guess we simply misunderstand one another on some level.

If an experiment is set up to falsify a position, a thesis, a hypothesis, and I am able to show more or less that I understand to the satisfaction of interested parties what it is that the experimenters need to show in order to tentatively confirm, albeit in a very real sense temporarily, said position/thesis/hypothesis, or in contradistinction falsify that same position, then most would agree I have some reasonable understanding of the experiment PROVIDED I am prepared to see where my mistakes are in all of this and am willing to accept those mistakes, learn from them and appropriately modify my position, my view.

Thanks much for your help Garrison. I will do my best with regard to understanding how things work here. My point was that I am more or less entitled to my own views and indeed i must enjoy this privilege of expressing an independent view with regard to evidence presented to me, including Mythbuster experiments. I must be able to enjoy such a priviledge soo that i may advance with respect to my knowledge base. In a sense, we prove things to ourselves with our colleagues/the community refereeing our judgement, or lack thereof.

I understand you are speaking about a somewhat related, but different issue here with regard to the logistics of the CT section, how it works as you say. i will check it out and try my best to understand this issue, your point point, these logistics, these rules Thanks much Garrison, best, DoctorTea

DoctorTea
2011-May-08, 07:18 PM
To emphasize, OF COURSE one needs to understand, have some familiarity with an issue. I do not disagree on that point. But spending an inordinate amount of time on moon hoax stuff is not a commitment I wish to make, though I do not deny the importance of the subject. And furthermore, I believe that I can gain a reasonable level of competency in many fields of study including moon hoaxology without going over and over arguments which I imagine I would not find all that interesting. i will not be expert, but good enough to give an opinion here or there. I cannot say this with certainty as regards all fields of study, but I imagine this to be true for me more often than not. My experience in life has proven this to be the case.

More importantly, the point I am trying to make is that if I approach the experimenters themselves, the very people who designed the experiment and I demonstrate to them that I understand their experiment, what they are trying to confirm or falsify and what the relevant parameters are in need of considereation, we can all within the constraints of logic agree on the nature of this experiment, what it is about and what is reasonable, and the experimenters need to be at least open to the notion that I may know more about the subject than they, and vice versa. Both sides agree in principle on some relative degree of familiarity with a subject that merits accepting another person's judgment as reasonable. I am not denying the need for background familiarity in judging the merits of an experiment, i agree with the need. I am just pointing out we all have limitations in our lives. Sure I need to have some baseline familiarity, but how comprehensive need it be? My point in my last posting was that if the Mythbusters themselves who created the experiment give me an audience and say DoctorTea, we disagree with such and such, or perhaps, we like your ideas better, we'll do it your way, regardless, if they accept my presentation of the mechanism of their experiment then i would contend their acceptance of my position is a confirmation that i am in possession of the requisite background familiarity. This is my point. I am not denying that background study is important, i am saying that one fair measure of one's being judged as to whether or not he or she has the requisite background, is for the experiment designers themselves to give their nod/approval to that person evaluating the merit(s) of the experiment. Best, DoctorTea

Garrison
2011-May-08, 07:36 PM
DoctorTea, the thing is that if you can't articulate any reasoned argument as to why the experiments were flawed then why should anyone take you seriously? Why should the experimenters subject themselves to your scrutiny if you lack even the basic understanding of the subject matter? If you actually want to read what one of those who helped design the experiments has to say on the subject try this link:

Clavius: Mythbusters (http://www.xmission.com/~jwindley/mythbusters.html)

Reading that page will probably take less time than writing one of your posts. The experimenter in question is a member of BAUT, unfortunately JayUtah hasn't been around for a while owing to other commitments so he won't respond directly. I would also point out that Clavius is a an excellent one stop place to understand the moon hoax and why it simply doesn't stand up.

pzkpfw
2011-May-08, 07:40 PM
DoctorTea, it's quite simple. In the CT section (actually mostly anywhere on BAUT) if you make a claim like the one you made in this thread, you will be expected to back up that claim.

To now say "I am no expert in hoaxes, I don't have time to be an expert" does not remove the requirement for you to back up your claims.

(If any BAUT member came to a forum of yours about thermoregulation, you'd not accept them saying "the body gets hot because of invisible cheese elves" without evidence.)

Even the final paragraph of your post #33 of this thread is irrelevant. Sure, if mythbusters agreed with you, that would validate your claim. But that's simply a hypothetical scenario. The evidence presented in this thread is that you made a claim, but did not have the knowledge required to back it up.

Please do not make such (unsupportable) claims in future. Please do not reply to this comment in thread.

R.A.F.
2011-May-08, 08:16 PM
DoctorTea, the thing is that if you can't articulate any reasoned argument as to why the experiments were flawed then why should anyone take you seriously?

Exactly Garrison...we want to see the evidence that those experiments were flawed, not just Dr.T's "say so" that they are...

If you can't provide that evidence, Dr. T, then withdraw your claim....

R.A.F.
2011-May-08, 08:21 PM
My point in my last posting was that if the Mythbusters themselves who created the experiment give me an audience...

Why post this as a hypothetical? The discovery website has a forum where you may criticize the mythbusters. Have you attempted to contact them with your concerns regarding the Moon hoax show?

Strange
2011-May-08, 10:13 PM
If I say that I don't believe the Mythbusters did a good job because they used a little astronaut model instead of a full sized person to reproduce the conditions of the photo, I may ultimately be proven to be wrong.

So you don't know if this is an appropriate demonstration or not?


I NEED NOT MASTER BOTH APOLLO PROGRAM HISTORY AND HOAX HISTORY

And you don't know much about either side of the argument you are commenting on?


TO GIVE A MEANINGFUL CRITIQUE OF THE MYTHBUSTER APPROACH TO FALSIFYING THE CLAIMS OF HOAXERS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALDRIN DISEMBARKATION PHOTO, PROVIDED I GIVE MY REASONS FOR THE SUBSTANCE OF MY CRITIQUE

But you have produced no data or evidence to suggest that it isn't a valid approach. You just "feel" it might not be.

For example, why would the use of a small model not be just as valid as using a full-sized person or mannequin? Please feel free to use any suitable data or experimental evidence from photography, lighting, the psychology of vision, etc. to support this argument.


Do we have nothing meaningful to offer because we are not experts in the world of Apollo?

All you have offered is your opinion that the experiment was not very convincing based on .... well nothing at all.


Is it not possible that enthusiastic amateurs might not have something meaningful to add?

Many of the people here are "enthusiastic amateurs" and are able to add a lot of factual information, rather than just a "vague feeling that something might not be quite but what do I know, I'm no expert".


I feel if an individual has some interest, he or she should be encouraged to participate, and give an opinion, their own opinion with regard to the issue at hand.

This is primarily a science forum. Opinions are OK, but facts, evidence and solid theories are preferred.

Geo Kaplan
2011-May-08, 10:49 PM
So you don't know if this is an appropriate demonstration or not?



And you don't know much about either side of the argument you are commenting on?



But you have produced no data or evidence to suggest that it isn't a valid approach. You just "feel" it might not be.

For example, why would the use of a small model not be just as valid as using a full-sized person or mannequin? Please feel free to use any suitable data or experimental evidence from photography, lighting, the psychology of vision, etc. to support this argument.



All you have offered is your opinion that the experiment was not very convincing based on .... well nothing at all.



Many of the people here are "enthusiastic amateurs" and are able to add a lot of factual information, rather than just a "vague feeling that something might not be quite but what do I know, I'm no expert".



This is primarily a science forum. Opinions are OK, but facts, evidence and solid theories are preferred.

And, here in the CT Forum, evidence and solid theories are required.

astromark
2011-May-08, 11:09 PM
I delve into this with a welcome to you 'Doctor Tea.' and that yes the logic function seems lacking from some
'myth busters' programs..

However in 'this' case they were right. The Apollo missions did not have flood lighting as it was known to be not necessary
as the other light source was reliable and free... the sun.

Under the heading of if ya do not need it. Do not take it. As every ounce was counted as a penalty to performance...

and notice my over the top spacing and set out... it might be wrong., but it gets your attention...

pzkpfw
2011-May-08, 11:09 PM
OK, I'm sure DoctorTea gets it now, let's not overdo it.

(Message to thread, not to specifc post.)

nomuse
2011-May-09, 02:23 AM
I am willing to entertain the notion that the Mythbusters conducted a flawed experiment. But before you can determine that, you need to determine what the experiment was designed to show. Just want to clarify this!

Cobra1597
2011-May-09, 04:10 AM
To be fair, they're providing entertainment. They're not doing an experiment in a lab with the intent of getting the results published in Nature. I've heard people groan about the approaches they've taken in some of their other shows, in terms of not following correct experimental procedure. For me, the most important thing about Mythbusters is teaching people to do experiments to test things, rather than sitting back in a chair and announcing that they know this or that.

Another thing to remember is that each Mythbusters episode is only an hour long (well, 45 minutes or so). In that time, they test at least two myths, often more. I see Mythbusters get a lot of flack from people for "not being rigorous enough" or "not doing an experiment more than once to check results." Oftentimes this just isn't true. The cast has outright said that there is a LOT of testing and experimenting, both filmed and unfilmed, that goes into working each myth. Most of the work that these guys do doesn't make it onto the episodes. Some of it ends up on the website, but I bet a lot doesn't get there either.

These guys are more thorough and rigorous than meets the eye. Certainly I'd agree that it isn't to the level needed for a Nature article, but as you said, the important thing is that they are "teaching people to do experiments to test things, rather than sitting back in a chair and announcing that they know this or that."

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 04:19 AM
This is so much fun you guys! OK , I will write to the Mythbuster Boys for yuks. If they do indeed respond to me, i will be sure to ask their permission to share with everyone here their/Mythbuster feedback/impressions/conclusions as regards my criticism. i will also ask for their impression with regard to their view as to whether I do or do not understand the intention and logic of said experiment in some general sense. May take a while as I'll go back to work tomorrow. Within the limitations of my schedule, i'll get back with my book report. Of course i will share with everyone here the explicit language of my "challenge" to the Mythbuster Boys. Thanks again to all, this is fun, and I am learning something screwing around and exchanging ideas on this web site/in this forum. Also, I want to emphasize that I am not mad at Hornblower anymore. No big. Silly I lost my temper. If I don't like what is written here, it is my choice to "stay or leave". With a smile, best, DoctorTea.

Gillianren
2011-May-09, 05:54 PM
If you go to the official MythBusters (I bet they'd prefer it if you capitalized it properly) board, there's an entire section on "tell us how we screwed up." They don't respond to every post, because there are new ones after every episode. When I was a member of that board, people would start new threads complaining about reruns. I can't tell you how many "ice bullet" threads there were!

Quantum Leap
2011-May-09, 06:20 PM
DoctorTea, it's quite simple. In the CT section (actually mostly anywhere on BAUT) if you make a claim like the one you made in this thread, you will be expected to back up that claim.

To now say "I am no expert in hoaxes, I don't have time to be an expert" does not remove the requirement for you to back up your claims.

(If any BAUT member came to a forum of yours about thermoregulation, you'd not accept them saying "the body gets hot because of invisible cheese elves" without evidence.)

Even the final paragraph of your post #33 of this thread is irrelevant. Sure, if mythbusters agreed with you, that would validate your claim. But that's simply a hypothetical scenario. The evidence presented in this thread is that you made a claim, but did not have the knowledge required to back it up.

Please do not make such (unsupportable) claims in future. Please do not reply to this comment in thread.


good lord

lighten up man

Abaddon
2011-May-09, 06:30 PM
DoctorTea can I offer you a bit of advice, paragraphs are your friends, you should make use of them. The great walls of text you keep throwing up are nearly unreadable as they are, breaking them up will make them much more readable. I suggest making use of the preview function available in the advanced version of the posting interface (accessed through the "Go Advanced" button).

Oddly enough, there is a hoax proponent on DIF with the very same disfunctional non-use of paragraphs. In fact, that poster uses it (and admits to it) as a tool to make debunkers give up in despair of reading responses. Coincidence?

Swift
2011-May-09, 06:34 PM
good lord

lighten up man
Quantum Leap,

Whether a warning posted by a moderator is aimed at you, another member, or everyone in the thread, a response such as your's is not the proper response. Our rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/32864-**-Rules-For-Posting-To-This-Board-**) specifically prohibit arguing with moderation in thread (rule 17) and also state how to dispute moderation. If you have not done so, I suggest you review these rules.

DoctorTea
2011-May-09, 09:43 PM
Thanks Gillianren. DoctorTea

eburacum45
2011-May-10, 06:14 AM
I see no reason why a small model would not faithfully reproduce the conditions of ambient light on the lunar surface. If the respective surfaces all have realistic, accurate reflectivities, it doesn't matter if the model is ten centimetres tall, full size or a kilometer tall.

The most important quantity in this question (and in the other question about seeing stars in the sky) is how much ambient light reaches the astronaut, to illuminate his suit or to ruin the dark-adaptation of his eyes? Perhaps we might do a few back-of-the envelope calculations.

The surface brightness per unit area of the moon is the same, whether we see it in our skies or stand on its surface. I remember, way back when Armstrong and Aldrin first stood on the Moon, my friend's grandmother asking 'if they are so close to the Moon, why aren't they blinded by the Moonlight'? We all laughed, but in many ways she was correct - they were brilliantly lit by the moonlight, it was just comparatively dim compared to the sunlight which was also present.

How much moonlight did each astronaut receive while standing on the Moon? If Grant Hutchison was still around he could no doubt have given an exact answer, allowing for the opposition effect and the Bond albedo, but I'll have to be a lot less precise. The full moon subtends approximately a quarter of a square degree in the sky (actually slightly less), so each square degree of the Moon's surface shines with the brilliance of four full Moons. If an astronaut were standing on the lunar surface at noon, with a negligible shadow, he would receieve four full-moon's worth of illuminance from each square degree of illuminated surface visible to him, which fills half of the entire visible area considered as a sphere.

How many square degrees are there in half a visible sphere as seen from the inside? A surprisingly high number. In a full sphere there are 41253 square degrees, and in half a sphere that makes 20626 square degrees. Each degree has the brightness of four full moons (remember?) so that means that the surface of the Moon, if perfectly flat and seen from the surface at noon, would shine with the brightness of 80,000 full Moons. Feel free to refine my estimate.

Plenty of brightness there to illuminate an astronaut's suit, and ruin your dark-adapted eye.

But compared to the Sun, which shines with the brightness of 398,110 full Moons, this illuminance is comparatively small. Under ideal conditions the Moon's surface would be about 1/5 as bright as the Sun. Of course the presence of the lunar lander would cause a shadow, and so would any rocks and craters - so the illuminance would be reduced considerably. But it must be realised that the shadow of the Lunar Lander only covered a fraction of the visible lunar surface, so ambient illuminance falling on an astronaut halfway up a ladder suspended above the Moon's surface in shadow would still be quite high, probably well over twenty thousand times the brightness of the full moon. About as much light as we perceive on Earth just after sunset. A bright environment in many ways.

nomuse
2011-May-10, 06:39 AM
You just helped me realize why the situation is so non-intuitive for many. In my head, I've been abstracting it from how I know light behaves when I light for the stage, and I imagine many photographers can do the same. I can also look at the lighting on a beach -- but, again, I am used to thinking of light sources in isolation, so it isn't hard for me to focus on the reflection from the sand and ignore the light from the sky.

What you made me realize, though, is that there is no close analog of the lighting situation on the Moon. There are artificial light sources that might light your surroundings from horizon to horizon, but they are almost never all coming from the same direction. The only situation where from horizon to horizon is brightly lit from a single source is when that source is the Sun, and at that point sky light confuses the issue.

Unless you have the professional experience or mental tools to separate out lighting elements, I can see it could be very difficult to wrap your mind around the lighting situation on the Moon.

eburacum45
2011-May-10, 06:46 AM
Absolutely. The Moon is a different world.

nomuse
2011-May-10, 07:11 AM
I wonder if the essential here is not the mental model or the mental tools, but having experience in extracting numbers from abstracted situations. When I light for the stage (and studio photographers do the same thing) I am re-creating a look by varying the levels between two or more sources (or, for the stage, more usually groups of sources). But these are not arbitrary levels; they relate directly to voltages, standard lamp efficiency curves and published instrument photometrics, or to something as simple and direct as lumens measured by a meter, or what gets captured on film. And I can make direct comparisons to what I've seen when light bounces off a stage floor. I look, and without even turning a switch my trained instinct tells me the white wall behind the actor is going to act roughly like such-and-such a fixture at such-and-such a distance.

So I look at Apollo photographs and the only issue is working out the geometry which is not always immediately obvious from the picture. And knowing little things like the anisotropy of the surface (something that can be a bane of focusing a wash yourself from the grid...the light you are working on will always look brighter than the others!) And after that, the lighting drops into the admittedly generous ballpark of "yeah, I can see that source looking like that in a photograph."

It feels to me (I'm rambling, sorry...been a crazy week so far with Pippin and all and its not going to get better) that similar sorts of relating-it-back-to-known-numbers comes into play in various aspects of the lunar environment and the equipment there. Our telecommunications buffs also have that trained instinct with numbers, where they can look at a video signal, look at an antenna, know more-or-less what the power source is, and go "Yeah, that falls into the ballpark of possible." People without that almost-numerical instinct -- that instinct you need to know what to throw on the truck _before_ you go out to the job site and have access to the actual working numbers -- have a lot more trouble accepting either the possibility or the limitations of that signal (depending on which side of the error their guess falls on).

That's why I keep reaching for models, I think. Simplified models, but things like beach balls (to get a grasp of what 4.7 psi means) or thermos bottles (to get a grasp of thermodynamics) help to get you to that spot where you have that "feel" for where the numbers are going to go before you implicitly calculate them.

And even motion on the Moon. The landing denier is free to imagine wire rigs, but there is again that grasp that comes from actually rigging and working around actual flying actors (that is, flying on wire rope, not...well...) where you can, because you've actually done the numbers/built the hardware in that field, have that trained intuition that what the landing deniers say ain't gonna work right.

Gillianren
2011-May-10, 05:12 PM
Pippin--that's an interesting show. Have fun and good luck.

But the comment about how the Moon is a different world is a valid one, I think, and a good summary of a lot of the problems people may have with the footage. Things on the Moon don't necessarily act the way we expect them to, because our expectations are created by a set of experiences which do not apply elsewhere. Perversely, I think some of the other problems are because things aren't different enough. If some things are, everything should be, right?

nomuse
2011-May-10, 05:40 PM
I like that. "Not different enough." Although I'd put it more that many people -- but particularly conspiracy believers -- find themselves trapped by surface similarity. The motions of an astronaut on the Moon look "sorta like" slowed-down footage (something Hollywood figured out many years ago), and sometimes "sorta like" what they think an actor being flown on a cable looks like.

It takes either a conscious effort or a greater familiarity with the thing being compared to realize the comparison is faulty.

The "too hot on the Moon" is a similar failure of the easy analogy. Yes; it is a barren landscape under the pitiless sun. If you think of it as a desert, then the analogy traps you into not understanding how the astronauts could possibly stay cool. You have to consciously work out the ways in which the model is not the reality -- and take the hot desert _air_ out of your model. Conspiracy believers don't do this. Their map becomes the territory. They seem to think that once they've identified a possible similarity, their job has ended; they don't see the need to investigate to see whether the similarity holds up.

(Or, even, if the thing they think they are comparing the Lunar experience to actually looks anything like what they imagine it does. Case in point for the flying on a wire -- anyone who has watched actual theatrical flying has seen several very specific and instantly identifiable things that are present in almost all theatrical flying. The "Peter Pan" posture, for one. The fact that almost all wire flights make use of the arc of the wire. And the fact that there is for the most common flight a single pick point, meaning the talent freely rotates around the axis of the wire, but "bounces" in every other axis. Once you have seen these things, they become the "resemblances" you look for in asking whether theatrical flying is a good comparison.)

Okay, we've gone completely meta here. Until there is more material from the original poster to consider, though...

Skyfire
2011-May-10, 10:29 PM
....... , so ambient illuminance falling on an astronaut halfway up a ladder suspended above the Moon's surface in shadow would still be quite high, probably well over twenty thousand times the brightness of the full moon. About as much light as we perceive on Earth just after sunset. A bright environment in many ways.

Well, IIRC the photos of the astronaut on the ladder were taken by the other astronaut already standing on the surface. He is standing in bright sunlight and he is wearing ..... a white spacesuit, designed to be highly reflective. This must also have been a factor with at least some of these photos. It would be as effective as reflectors often seen on film sets ..... (errrrm ....)




:)

DoctorTea
2011-May-10, 11:04 PM
Thanks Quantumleap. DoctorTea

Jason Thompson
2011-May-11, 06:50 AM
Well, IIRC the photos of the astronaut on the ladder were taken by the other astronaut already standing on the surface. He is standing in bright sunlight and he is wearing ..... a white spacesuit, designed to be highly reflective. This must also have been a factor with at least some of these photos. It would be as effective as reflectors often seen on film sets ..... (errrrm ....)

Absolutely right. In the infamous 'Aldrin's heel hotspot' photo analysis in David Percy's Dark Moon, the claim is that this can be shown by calculation to be caused by a studio light just behind and to the right of the astronaut taking the picture. However, the degree of precision to which the size and location of the hot spot is measured is absurdly impractical (the claim is that it was measured with a ruler, but no ruler exists capable of measuring down to the fractions of a millimetre given in the calculations in the book). If you reduce the precision to the degree afforded by the measurement method used, you find that the area in which the light source for this hotspot must be located encomapsses the astronauts himself: in other words his reflective, bright white spacesuit is the most likely source for the existence of the hotspot in the picture. (I believe that might be on Clavius.)

gwiz
2011-May-13, 10:49 PM
Absolutely right. In the infamous 'Aldrin's heel hotspot' photo analysis in David Percy's Dark Moon, the claim is that this can be shown by calculation to be caused by a studio light just behind and to the right of the astronaut taking the picture.
I can't remember if it was on this forum or Apollo Hoax, but someone dug out the TV image of Armstrong taking the picture in question. He is standing partly in the shadow of the LM, but his right shoulder is in full sunlight. This makes Percy's claimed light position remarkably accurate.

Jason Thompson
2011-May-14, 04:23 PM
Indeed. There is nothing wrong with the calculation, only with the number fed into it at the start.