PDA

View Full Version : Could NASA create a moon hoax even today?



pvtpylot
2002-Jun-06, 10:49 PM
OK, you've got all of today's technology available to you. Could the experts in this group create a hoax even today that would be convincing enough to fool people as knowledgeable as you?

Wiley
2002-Jun-06, 10:56 PM
Well, they did it 1969. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

*Just kidding, folks. Really. No, please put down the tomatoes. And that head of cabbage... Eek!*

Donnie B.
2002-Jun-06, 10:58 PM
I think we've come pretty close to being able to produce convincing photos, film, and video of a lunar mission, including the landing and EVAs.

But the problem of creating a convincing simulation of a spacecraft in a translunar trajectory -- both the telemetry and visual sightings -- is not solvable without resort to a real spacecraft of about the right size flying to the Moon. If you're willing to go that far for the sake of a hoax, you might as well just make the s/c manned and go.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Donnie B. on 2002-06-06 19:00 ]</font>

Silas
2002-Jun-06, 11:00 PM
On 2002-06-06 18:49, pvtpylot wrote:
OK, you've got all of today's technology available to you. Could the experts in this group create a hoax even today that would be convincing enough to fool people as knowledgeable as you?


Without someone blowing the whistle? I doubt it...

The very, very most I could conceive of is a plan to add a small secret component to a Space Shuttle Scientific Experiment. Now, this is getting far out, but suppose...

One of the space shuttle scientific experiment boxes is available, and my group puts in a bid to perform a search for high-energy cosmic rays, with a small detector array. The boffins like the idea, and the grant money comes through. Then, with the knowledge only of me and maybe two other people, we secretly add a new circuit board to the assembly, that beeps out "Things Go Better with Coke" on some little-used radio frequency.

Something like that *could* happen. It's within the realm of possibility.

Faking an entire manned lunar landing? No way.

Silas

Jigsaw
2002-Jun-07, 03:17 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1917000/1917826.stm

Monday, 8 April, 2002, 22:41 GMT 23:41 UK
Space shuttle lifts off

...As part of a new safety policy, the US space agency kept the new launch time secret until Sunday.
Yeah? Remember how "secret" that was? We were discussing it here, IIRC. You could look it up on the Internet, where various Astronomy Geeks had done all the math on their pocket calculators and would be happy to tell you when the shuttle liftoff time would be.

So, if NASA couldn't even keep THAT a secret, how they gonna keep a fake moon landing a secret?

Also found this, from 1987.
http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/archives/87/871023.html

The 19 shuttle flights planned through 1990 include six secret Defense Department flights, the launch of two Global Positioning Satellites that are part of a new military precise navigation system, and a Starlab mission for secret Defense Department experiments.
Now, maybe back during the Cold War the Powers That Be could get away with "We don't have to tell you what's going on because of National Security" secret space experiments, but I doubt whether that would go over with the American public today. Today everything that goes on at NASA is on somebody's web page somewhere. They'd have to at least send up a rocket, and folks would be looking for it from Earth, with their Webcams running. Then what? Pretend to have a moon lander go off to the moon, while really leaving the astronauts in Earth orbit? Shut down the Earth orbiter camera feed, and start up a fake Moon orbiter camera feed? It's feasible, I suppose, but again--how in the world would they keep the fact that the entire moon landing was just CGI a secret?

David Hall
2002-Jun-07, 05:02 AM
A lot of good points here.

First, the technical ability to create such a hoax has improved. Digital editing techniques and such could create media such as photos and video that were nearly flawless in my opinion, if it was kept to a small enough scope (one mission, not seven, and limited in public exposure). Other aspects of a hoax, such as fake hardware, could be created easily too.

But second, it is also easier to expose such a hoax. the same technology that can create a hoax, can also undo it. For example, the paper trail of such a scam would be easier to track, and more people could examine the 'evidence' and spot the fakery. A single skilled hacker could pull up damning evidence. And there are some things that just can't be faked. Orbital trajectories are one. Any "moon rocks" brought back would be another.

Finally, as mentioned before, there's almost no way in which a conspiracy of such magnitude could be kept secret. Not for long in any case. Someone or something would probably give it away before the first "launch" was even undertaken. There are just too many ways for it to go wrong. And that's if you keep it an inside job. Try to bring in outside contractors and it goes from ridiculous to impossible.

But in the end, none of this really matters. If NASA or someone were to create a hoax, do you know what would happen? In order to fool the scientific community, they'd have to deliberately create the same "anomalies" that HB's claim exist now. A true hoax would have to look exactly like what we see in the Apollo missions to be believeable. Which would mean that it would be unbelievable to the HB's.

So, if they create a hoax that doesn't have all these "anomolies", then it would be so fake-looking as to be laughable. But if they created a hoax according to true scientific understanding, the HB's would claim it wasn't real anyway. So there's just no way to win.

M_Welander
2002-Jun-07, 12:40 PM
No, I certainly don't think we can produce convincing fake pictures or video of a lunar mission even today. The very best CG combined vith the very best special effects used today in movies might fool an amateur, but I think everyone who's part of the CG/SFX community can still spot the fake quickly.

Basically, we can't fake a lunar mission even today.

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-08, 02:35 PM
I firmly believe that Hollywood could recreate any of the Apollo missions easily. Anyone catch 'Final Fantasy The Movie'? That whole film was created without using any actors.

'Finally, as mentioned before, there's almost no way in which a conspiracy of such magnitude could be kept secret.'

Don't kid yourselves that information could not be kept under wraps by our Governments. A good point is Laika, the Soviet Dog sent out into space. For 30 years the Soviets kept it secret that the craft she was travelling in was actually designed so that the nose cone tore off and she would bake to death. They told everyone that she died because of a lack of oxygen. Also, perhaps you could remind yourself about Kennedy's assasination!

M_Welander
2002-Jun-08, 02:38 PM
Yes, cosmicdave, Final Fantasy is a very good example of why we can *not* create a CG moon landing or anything similar even today. Final Fantasy looks *extremely* CG!

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-08, 02:46 PM
On 2002-06-08 10:35, cosmicdave wrote:
I firmly believe that Hollywood could recreate any of the Apollo missions easily. Anyone catch 'Final Fantasy The Movie'? That whole film was created without using any actors.


No but I’ve seen a trailer and stills, to me it is painfully obvious!

Firefox
2002-Jun-08, 02:47 PM
Don't kid yourselves that information could not be kept under wraps by our Governments. A good point is Laika, the Soviet Dog sent out into space.

We didn't necessarily have the motivation the Soviets would have had to uncover that. Yes, we'd spend a lengthy investigation into how a dog died...

Also, it wasn't planned for Laika to die from oxygen deprivation, but was injected with a poison, IIRC.


Adam

M_Welander
2002-Jun-08, 02:47 PM
Also note that it is much easier to create photorealistic CG stills than movies, and when even the stills from FF look CG, then you can figure out on your own how unrealistic the movie looks.

The truth is, FF is not as state-of-the-art as it was claimed to be (for obvious reasons), and as such is not a very good example of photorealistic rendering at all. However, even today, whenever you put a shot into motion, you will inevitably end up with CG artifacts that can easily be spotted by anyone who knows what to look for.

To make things worse for faking a lunar mission, the lighting properties of the lunar surface are quite a bit different from other surfaces usually used in CG, as has been pointed out on this board. My guess is that it'll take at least five more years, perhaps ten, before CG technology is at a level where it is possible to fake a lunar landing, if money is no objective.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-08, 02:48 PM
Actually, the most realistic “up close” CG I’ve seen in theatrical release is Sully’s fur in Monsters, Inc., and even that is obviously CG.

M_Welander
2002-Jun-08, 03:19 PM
The best CG I've seen in a movie is Spiderman, but that's so remote from faking a lunar landing that it doesn't apply. And even in Spiderman you can see it's CG if you know what to look for.

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-08, 03:26 PM
On 2002-06-08 11:19, M_Welander wrote:
The best CG I've seen in a movie is Spiderman, but that's so remote from faking a lunar landing that it doesn't apply. And even in Spiderman you can see it's CG if you know what to look for.

I'll take that as a recommendation to see the movie, if only for the effects!

jrkeller
2002-Jun-08, 06:08 PM
I think it would be a lot harder now to fake a moon landing than it would be in the sixties. With the hugh advances in computers, such as storage ability, overall size, speed and the miniturization of sensors, massive amounts of data about vehicle performance could be collected and evaluated. The people who spend years designing and analyzing all that equipement would have have all sorts of data to evaluate their systems performance. It would be extremely difficult fool these people who have an intimate knowledge of hardware performance.

I've said this before, you might be able to fool the people who worked on the operations side of things, but there is no way that anyone could fool all those engineers and scientists who designed, built, analyzed, tested, retested, and eventually evaluated flight data on all the components that are on a Apollo Flight to the Moon.

johnwitts
2002-Jun-08, 07:34 PM
If we were to try to fake a landing today, it may fool 1960's folks, but not todays. HBs say how they can now fake, using CGI, various bits of the Apollo record, the hammer and feather experiment is one. What we don't ask in whether the equipment and techniques used to reproduce this effect today were available in 1969.

Imagine if NASA went to the Moon today. No more fuzzy TV pictures. No more waiting for the snaps to be released after processing. We'd have 24/7 coverage, via the internet and NASA TV. We'd have multiple camera angles, multiple sound tracks, helmet cams, leg cams, MCC cams, toilet cams, etc. Almost as it happens. New photos would be downloadable straight away. There would be absolutely no margin for error. No way would all that be faked.

James
2002-Jun-08, 10:04 PM
Now that we've discussed NASA faking a mission to the moon nowadays, I have a question for everyone: Would it be possible for NASA to fake a mission to Mars or another planet in our system? Or, like M_Welander said, is it still five-ten years down the road?

M_Welander
2002-Jun-08, 10:46 PM
From a CG point of view, Mars is even more difficult to fake than the moon. There are all sorts of CG/live action integration issues there that does not arrise on the moon. Also, the rendering models are significantly more complicated for Mars. Look at the surface sequences from "Mission to Mars" or "Red Planet" - the images doesn't even remotely look like the real place!

On Spiderman... the CG effects aren't *that* spectacular from an SFX point of view, simply because you probably won't notice most of them. From a CG point of view, they are breathtaking, for the very same reason.

David Hall
2002-Jun-09, 06:53 AM
On 2002-06-08 15:34, johnwitts wrote:

We'd have 24/7 coverage, via the internet and NASA TV. We'd have multiple camera angles, multiple sound tracks, helmet cams, leg cams, MCC cams, toilet cams, etc. Almost as it happens. New photos would be downloadable straight away. There would be absolutely no margin for error. No way would all that be faked.


That's why I said it would have to be a limited coverage event. The more you put out, the less likely you will be to hide manipulation.

And one point that seems to be missing here regarding CG is that it wouldn't necessarily be used everywhere. I think most of the scenes would still be filmed with normal techniques and the CG only used to touch up, cover up, or depict things that couldn't be done any other way. If done right, I think it could look pretty realistic. Though I also agree that it would be very difficult to hide such things from the real experts.

M_Welander
2002-Jun-09, 10:37 AM
I think it would be perfectly possible to make it look good. I also think it would be impossible to make it look realistic. Those things are very different. Almost all research into SFX/CG focus on making movies look good, not realistic. We have a lot of good, proven technology for making good looking movies. We have virtually none for creating realistic movies.

M_Welander
2002-Jun-09, 04:26 PM
Actually, I don't think anyone here seriously meant that all footage should be faked using CG. That was just cosmicdave's Final Fantasy related idea.

I would fake the footage in three steps (I'm sure other people would do it differently):

First, a background plate consisting of a digital matte painting created from real photographs of the lunar surface. This layer should be pretty convincing.

Second, a middle layer consisting of a 3D digital matte painting of the lunar surface. The problem here is to come up with a shading model that looks like the real lunar surface, so while the lighting should be acceptable, the surface shader might not be as realistic as we would like.

Third, a close range physical layer, consisting of a stage filled with something that looks like lunar soil. Here, animatronic actors would run around.

The purpose of using animatronic actors is this: You use motion capture on real actors, feed that into a computer that simulates the impact of lunar gravity on the motion, and feed the recomputed motions out to the animatronic astronauts.

The third layer would have to be lit very carefully, with a very strong, very distant and very uniform light. If we can't use the real sun for this, we'd have to construct some kind of extreme equipment to do this, and then run the film through an additinal CG step using a digital model of the third layer and a simulated sun, to fill in incorrect shadows.

This is how I would do it. I don't know if it would work, since I haven't tried. All I know is that it is extremely difficult, extremely expensive, and will still not fool a trained eye.

JimB
2002-Jun-10, 03:41 AM
You've forgotten the "hard" evidence.
We can't fake hundreds of pounds of moon rocks.
Baking doesn't get rid of water bound in the minerals, meteorite sources are too limited and don't have the correct surfaces, melting and recrystalizing doesn't give the right mineral ages, and the solar wind doesn't reach the earth's surface.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-10, 04:45 AM
While I agree that faking hundreds of pounds of moon rocks would be hard, I think the hardest part about faking the moon rocks would be faking the very small rocks.

Like the one shown here.

http://web.utk.edu/~pgi/lunar/page4.html

The whole article is great. A bit over my head in places. There is a great part about elemental iron which is produced by the solar wind. On Earth this exists as iron oxide. Another hoax arguement shot apart.

http://web.utk.edu/~pgi/lunar/page1.html

AstroMike
2002-Jun-10, 04:57 AM
Also:

Top Ten Scientific Discoveries Made During Apollo Exploration of the Moon. (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/expmoon/science/lunar10.html)

cosmicdave
2002-Jun-10, 10:36 AM
'You've forgotten the "hard" evidence.
We can't fake hundreds of pounds of moon rocks.'

Whats stopping anyone from going to Antartica to retrieve some, perhaps thats why Von Braun went there two years before the Apollo missions?

M_Welander
2002-Jun-10, 11:01 AM
A) The total mass of collected moon rocks compared to the total mass of lunar meteorites.

B) Lunar meteorites aren't moon rocks just becase they come from the moon. Lunar meteorites are lunar meteorites. Moon rocks are moon rocks. While the chemical composition might be similar, the structure is entirely different.

I'm sure there are C) to Z) as well, but I'll leave that up the the rest of you.

Also, I've been thinking, when did we become sure that the lunar meteorites really are from the moon? I mean, if NASA *did* indeed use them for a fake mission, they could not have done so before we knew without a doubt that they were from the moon. Otherwise, it would have been quite embarrasing when scientist later might have found out that the so called moon rocks were actually from the asteroid belt or Mars or wherever.
Does anyone here know?

Andrew
2002-Jun-10, 11:23 AM
"Whats stopping anyone from going to Antartica to retrieve some, perhaps thats why Von Braun went there two years before the Apollo missions?"

Not alot is stopping people from going to Antarctica to get some moon rocks.
There's quite alot preventing people from going to Antarctica and collecting eight hundred and fifty pounds worth though. Perhaps most significantly the fact that 850lbs worth of lunar material probably doesn't exist in Antarctica.

Why the heck would Von Braun go to get moon rocks? He's a rocket scientist not a geologist.

2002-Jun-10, 11:28 AM
Dense^6th ?

jrkeller
2002-Jun-10, 01:57 PM
HUb well said.

More lunar rock stuff.

C) The outer surfaces of the rocks are not melted due to friction forces from the atmosphere.

D) Small particles and rocks would vaporize before they hit the ground. Yet we have many of these rocks.

E) For those rocks that reached the surface, the heating and subsequent vaporization of their outer surfaces would remove their micro-craters ("zip-pits"), yet all the rocks have these features, even the very small ones

F) The solar winds particles which are imbedded on the surfaces of these rocks would be cooked out during entry into Earth's atmosphere.

G) Since the surfaces of the rocks are not melted that would mean that they would have had to have these surfaces removed. They remaining surfaces would be pristine. Microscopic evaluation of the rocks shows this not to be the case. FYI, some of Eric Von Daniken's (SP?) claims were shown to be a hoax using this method. (He produced some rock cravings of medical operations which he claimed to be hundreds of years old. Upon microscopic examination of the cravings, the edges were extremely sharp indicating that craving was newly manufactured.

More later.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-10 09:58 ]</font>

M_Welander
2002-Jun-10, 03:34 PM
H) Suppose lunar meteorites could actually be used as lunar rocks returned by a fake mission. As the mission would not have taken place, we would know very little about actual lunar geology. So we just pick out some of the meteorites that look similar, call them Batch A, and say they're from this site on the moon, and assign them to a mission, and then we pick out some more, call them Batch B, and assign them to another mission, and so on.

So far it works, and we do actually succeed in fooling everyone that the rocks really are from the moon. But then, 50 years later, a real lunar geologist go to the moon in a real mission, and visits one of the "landing sites" (where NASA of course has planted a lander through a robotic ship). However, it turns out that the rocks from Batch A looks nothing like the rocks found on landing site A. Instead Batch D looks more like it...

My point is, if you want to fake something like this, you need to consider future evidence (as it would have been clear even in the 60's that we would some day *really* go to the moon, even if we couldn't by then). And in this case, there is no way of knowing what that future evidence would be, so it's simply not possible. That the NASA fake guys would have been able to correctly match five or six batches of meteorites to the proper lunar landing sites, without ever having been there, is just impossible!

JayUtah
2002-Jun-10, 03:40 PM
perhaps thats why Von Braun went there two years before the Apollo missions?

It's already been explained that meteoritic samples from the lunar surface would not sufficiently masquerade as rocks actually collected from the lunar surface.

You might also explain why non-geologist von Braun allegedly went to Antarctica in 1968 to collect moon rocks when it was not realized until 1969 that Antarctica was a viable source of such materials.

Looter
2002-Jun-10, 03:40 PM
This could be an explanation of why they never went back to the Moon. Since collecting Moonrocks played a central role in the Apollo Show, and we now know that we can get the same rocks here on Earth, for a fraction of the cost, going to the Moon has become obsolete. Those silly people back in the 60's may have had to go all the way to the Moon to get their Moonrocks but nowadays we are much more worldly and realize how unnecessary that is. It's a pity they didn't know that back in the 60's 'cause they could have saved a lot of money, which could have been better spent bombing Vietnam back to the Stone Age.

Jim
2002-Jun-10, 04:12 PM
On 2002-06-10 06:36, cosmicdave wrote:
... perhaps thats why Von Braun went there two years before the Apollo missions?


Just to add to the points already made, why send a high-profile non-geologist like von Braun? He's sure to draw all sorts of undesirable attention and wouldn't have the foggiest what to look for or bring back. ("Jeez, Werner, I know they look otherworldly, but 850 pounds of petrified penguin droppings!?")

If you really wanted to do this, you'd send a low-profile geologist to Antarctica and send von Braun to some other place at the same time to distract attention.

AstroMike
2002-Jun-10, 05:26 PM
On 2002-06-10 11:40, Looter wrote:
and we now know that we can get the same rocks here on Earth,

Wrong. Here are 4 characteristics which distinguish Moon rocks from any Earth rocks.

1. Cosmic Radiation Bombardment
The Moon rocks were bombarded with cosmic radiation, which has much higher energies than ones achieved in any particle accelerator on Earth. And even if you could do that, you would have to do it for about 4 billion years.

2. Lack of Organic Molecules
The Moon rocks have no native organic molecules. All living organisms (including those which inhabit rocks) on Earth leave behind organic molecules.

3. Richer Titanium Content
The lunar basalts are 10 times richer in titanium than all most all Earth basalts.

4. Zap pits
The lunar samples have "zap pits", which are impacts caused by micrometeoroids, which can't be formed in an atmosphere.

JayUtah
2002-Jun-10, 05:34 PM
Trivia question: While in Antarctica, von Braun joined the "200 Club". What is the qualification for membership in that club?

Kaptain K
2002-Jun-10, 05:46 PM
AstroMike,

I think that Looter was refering to the lunar meteorites being found in antarctica, but they are not the same as "virgin" lunar rocks.

1) There is a minimum size to meteorites, since small ones get burned up in the atmosphere. The real rocks that were brought back come in all sizes.
2) The surface of meteorites is ablated and melted, leaving it smoothed and rounded. The surface of real moon rocks is jagged and rough. The ablation also removes the zap pits, which cannot be duplicated on Earth.
3) When exposed to our atmosphere, these rocks undergo physical and chemical changes that cannot be reversed without leaving indelible signs.

jrkeller
2002-Jun-10, 05:50 PM
Forgot about point 3, which is an excellent point.

Karl
2002-Jun-10, 06:06 PM
On 2002-06-10 13:34, JayUtah wrote:
Trivia question: While in Antarctica, von Braun joined the "200 Club". What is the qualification for membership in that club?


Dredging up something from the depths of my memory, is it the temperature difference running from a hot sauna to outside? (NOT in Celsius degrees!)

Jim
2002-Jun-10, 07:40 PM
On 2002-06-10 14:06, Karl wrote:


On 2002-06-10 13:34, JayUtah wrote:
Trivia question: While in Antarctica, von Braun joined the "200 Club". What is the qualification for membership in that club?


Dredging up something from the depths of my memory, is it the temperature difference running from a hot sauna to outside? (NOT in Celsius degrees!)


That's the 300 club. For the 200 (degree) club, the initiate goes from a hot shower to the outside... naked.

(Oh, great. Now I've got a mental image of Werner von Braun in the buff. Arggh.)

SpacedOut
2002-Jun-10, 08:10 PM
I think Christopher Ferro’s signature applies! /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif



"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)

DaveC
2002-Jun-13, 02:22 AM
On 2002-06-10 11:40, Looter wrote:
This could be an explanation of why they never went back to the Moon.



By this statement I take it you acknowledge they did indeed go?



Since collecting Moonrocks played a central role in the Apollo Show, and we now know that we can get the same rocks here on Earth, for a fraction of the cost, going to the Moon has become obsolete.



But it has been explained that they aren't "the same rocks". They may have the same origin, but meteorites bear no resemblance to rocks collected on the moon. And the sum total of lunar meteorites collected on earth to date numbers something like 15 totalling something like 30 pounds.



Those silly people back in the 60's may have had to go all the way to the Moon to get their Moonrocks but nowadays we are much more worldly and realize how unnecessary that is.


Which might not be a bad argument if the sole purpose of Apollo was to collect moon rocks. If there was a single overriding purpose, it was to get there before the Soviets. All the other stuff - rocks, photos, film, scientific experiments were just icing on the "we wuz first" cake.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2002-Jun-13, 02:54 AM
On 2002-06-10 16:10, SpacedOut wrote:
"Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never,
ever get it out."
-Thomas Cardinal Wolsey (1471-1530)


Great, and where were you, Before we went, and Polluted our Minds.

Argh, I close my Eyes, and I can still see it, and it's Huge, and it's Shiny, and it has a Huge Navel!

TERRANCIO
2007-Jul-10, 04:28 AM
Still alive??? well, Have you guys seen the 2004-5 Playstation commercials, the Blair Witch Project, the Bad-Robot movie, etc?
A little creativity, some not-so-perfect image video, meaning: shaking cameras, Handycam quality, etc, and you are set up, come on, we could have been fooled a thousand times, anyone with imagination and common sense can do it! Dont believe everything you see, think, ur not stupid or are you?

PhantomWolf
2007-Jul-10, 04:56 AM
If you can't tell the difference between CGI special effects and real things then I suggest you don't try and analyse video or photos. Even the latest Hollywood attempt Magnificant Desolation couldn't get the effects right for the Lunar surface. Shaking a handicam and CGI don't make near perfect video. Far from it. But hey, you think that a bit of imagination and common sense can do it, here's the challenge. Create your own footage and prove that it can be done. Hollywood can't do it, but hey they are paid off not to right? For you it should be a sinch. I await your efforts.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-10, 05:01 AM
Still alive??? well, Have you guys seen the 2004-5 Playstation commercials, the Blair Witch Project, the Bad-Robot movie, etc?


Your first post is on a five year old thread? And what does this have to do with a successful moon hoax?



A little creativity, some not-so-perfect image video, meaning: shaking cameras, Handycam quality, etc, and you are set up, come on, we could have been fooled a thousand times, anyone with imagination and common sense can do it! Dont believe everything you see, think, ur not stupid or are you?

Did you mean "you're not stupid"?

I base my beliefs on the evidence, not handwaving. If you want to make specific arguments, please do so.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jul-10, 05:06 AM
well even 2/3 of his examples are out of date.

sts60
2007-Jul-10, 06:02 AM
Hi, Terrancio. A bit odd that you start out with some rather extreme thread necromancy, but I'll play along.

Still alive???

Last time I checked.

well, Have you guys seen the 2004-5 Playstation commercials, the Blair Witch Project, the Bad-Robot movie, etc?

No. What do any of them have to do with the Apollo lunar explorations?

A little creativity, some not-so-perfect image video, meaning: shaking cameras, Handycam quality, etc, and you are set up,

Set up to watch advertisements, crude animations, or fake documentary-in-a-forest, yes. What does any of this have to do with the Apollo lunar explorations?

come on, we could have been fooled a thousand times,

None of your examples had anything to do with Apollo, or looked anything like an attempt to fake Apollo, or anything like the style of photography/cinematography/videography used in Apollo.

anyone with imagination and common sense can do it!

Anyone with imagination and common sense can retrieve several hundred kilograms of differentiated lunar samples from the Moon, including core samples? Or place isotope-powered experiment packages which unmistakably transmit data from the Moon for years? Or provide hundreds of hours of motion imagery and thousands of detailed still images, all tightly correlated with published mission data, telemetry, voice communications, and physical samples?

Dont believe everything you see, think, ur not stupid or are you?

Nope. But then again, I happen to be aware that reality doesn't really care about YouTube.

Did you have a specific claim?

EDG
2007-Jul-10, 07:12 AM
Someone on the first page (way back in 2002!) mentioned this:


To make things worse for faking a lunar mission, the lighting properties of the lunar surface are quite a bit different from other surfaces usually used in CG, as has been pointed out on this board. My guess is that it'll take at least five more years, perhaps ten, before CG technology is at a level where it is possible to fake a lunar landing, if money is no objective.

I'm pretty sure that we now have the capacity to get the photometric functions right in 3D CGI now. Lightwave 3D 9.x has been out for several months now and has the capacity to support user-defined photometric functions for surfaces - I'm sure someone must have done a lommel-seeliger function by now. I keep meaning to try making one myself but I wasn't all that great at the LW8 and although I've got it I've not even had a chance to look at the new version yet.

I'm sure the more expensive programs like Maya must be able to do this, or that there are plugins available that can.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-10, 07:50 AM
I assume this was part of Terrancio's archaeology thesis.

Maksutov
2007-Jul-10, 01:36 PM
Based on the tone and content it seems almost as though he's channeling comicdave.

OneHotJupiter
2007-Jul-10, 02:37 PM
:lol:

Eat him up fellas , I can't get enough of this , though it might be a bad thing , I feel almost like a Roman watching the lions eat the Christians ,
Hi-larious , It's a rare treat for an HB to come to this board and call this group stupid , It's too funny , where is his retort?

This is the best website ever!!

Swift
2007-Jul-10, 04:51 PM
By the way TERRANCIO, even if somehow CGI could fake the photos and the video, it could not fake the rocks. As a solid state chemist, I can assure you of that, certainly not the 100s of kg that were brought back. But if you bothered to read through the early part of this thread, or any of the other threads we have on this topic, you would know that.

Ban Me
2007-Jul-10, 05:25 PM
Very pleased to make your acquaintance, Terrancio.


anyone with imagination and common sense can do it!

Do you have imagination and common sense? If so, I would very much like to see your fake moon landing video. That would be a very convincing demonstration, wouldn't it?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-10, 05:35 PM
Dont believe everything you see, think, ur not stupid or are you?

That sounds very much like you're trying to say disagreement with you is equivalent to being stupid. Not only is that a fact-free argument, some of us are very well versed in the sciences of image synthesis and analysis and bring that knowledge to the table here. It's going to take a lot more than vague handwaving at game console commercials to convince us that CGI has anything to do with faking moon landing evidence.

Swift
2007-Jul-10, 05:44 PM
Dont believe everything you see, think, ur not stupid or are you?
You're right Terrancio, I don't believe everything I read or see. Your post is a perfect example of such a thing. ;)

Fazor
2007-Jul-10, 05:53 PM
That's the problem, methinks. The argument of whether or not moon-mission videos and photographs could be faked is only a small part of the overall hoax that would have to be pulled off to fake the mission. As mentioned, there's hard samples from the lunar surface. There's the fact that the shuttle/command module would be observable from ground-based observers. There's the problem that once you put hardware specs out there for the equipment, engineers would be able to quickly "reverse engineer" the designs to see if they would actually work. And, as also noted, you'd have to either find a way to keep thousands of employees quiet, or find a way to make it appear like thousands of employees who don't really exist took part in the mission.

Could they fake a mission that would fool the general public, at least temporarily? Sure...these are the same people who would probably say that too many electrolites in your Gatorade would electrocute you. But to pull off a hoax that thoroughly convinces the whole world, as well as the thousands of contractors and companies who's very products use technology that you actually faked for a fake mission? I wager there's about as much of a chance of that happening as there is of Mike Tyson winning a Nobel Peace Prize.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-10, 07:11 PM
There is far more chance of Mike Tyson winning a Nobel Peace Prize. That merely requires a radical shift in character.

Fazor
2007-Jul-10, 07:22 PM
There is far more chance of Mike Tyson winning a Nobel Peace Prize. That merely requires a radical shift in character.
Good point, but that was the inexplicably obscure similie that popped into my head at the time. :)

Occam
2007-Jul-10, 08:10 PM
In my opinion, the answer to this question is a simple "NO"
For such a hoax to succeed, ignoring all of the literal millions of factors to be covered, it would have to fool absolutely everybody. HB's would have you believe that the entire world was fooled for 30+ years until Youtube came along but the simple fact is that EVERY argument can be countered and blown out of the water with cold, hard facts. A true hoax, no matter how carefully planned, could not possibly cover every contingency.

The suggestions that contemporary CGI is capable of convincngly faking such a mission is flying in the face of reason. Given enough time to prepare, it is barely feasible that a small group of people could be convinced that what they were shown was real. For the hoax to succeed, though, it would have to be verifiable, every step of the way. The problem with HB's, is they don't have any conception of what is actually required, basing all their opinions on what they've 'learned' from Youtube and the like. It's quite pathetic that these people have so tenuous a grasp on reality.

captain swoop
2007-Jul-10, 09:59 PM
why the obsession with CGI and video? it's the hardware that would be hard to fake, it would have to look like it could do the job.

Fazor
2007-Jul-11, 02:11 AM
why the obsession with CGI and video? it's the hardware that would be hard to fake, it would have to look like it could do the job.

That's the other part. It seems like everyone's assuming it would be 100% CGI. But current CGI effects coupled with bluescreen/live action could no doubt pull of a fairly convincing video or picture. But, again, there's more than just video and pictures that would need to be faked.

Swift
2007-Jul-11, 03:24 AM
That's the other part. It seems like everyone's assuming it would be 100% CGI. But current CGI effects coupled with bluescreen/live action could no doubt pull of a fairly convincing video or picture. But, again, there's more than just video and pictures that would need to be faked.
I have some doubts about current CGI, but I'm not sure. But there is no way it could have been done in 1969.


But to pull off a hoax that thoroughly convinces the whole world, as well as the thousands of contractors and companies who's very products use technology that you actually faked for a fake mission? I wager there's about as much of a chance of that happening as there is of Mike Tyson winning a Nobel Peace Prize.
And don't forget that the "whole world" includes countries that either then or now dislike(d) the US and would have been thrilled to embarrass it by showing how the landings were faked.

captain swoop
2007-Jul-11, 07:20 AM
No doubt we will see a bunch of HBs claiming the new missions are all done with CGI.

Fazor
2007-Jul-11, 01:22 PM
I have some doubts about current CGI, but I'm not sure. But there is no way it could have been done in 1969. No, not in '69, but now that wasn't the question posed by the OP was it? :)

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-13, 03:59 PM
I think that even if they could recreate the lunar surface convincingly, they would not be able to recreate the appearance of 1/6th g. Even the latest attempt (as Phantomwolf mentioned) Magnificent Desolation, which used actual photos of the moon as the background for their set, couldn't duplicate the look and feel from the original films.

I can't remember if it was on this film that they attached large helium-filled balloons to the actors, but the walking, the kicked up dust, the rooster tails from the rovers, nothing looked right. So no, I don't think that, even with our current CGI ability and advanced technology, we could create a believable fake moon landing.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-13, 04:18 PM
The helium balloons were used in From the Earth to the Moon. Suspension wires were removed digitally.

While CGI technology has improved dramatically, so has the ability to detect the use of CGI in the final product. You'd have to fool not just Joe Sixpack, but also all the image analysts of the world.

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-13, 04:31 PM
The helium balloons were used in From the Earth to the Moon. Suspension wires were removed digitally.

While CGI technology has improved dramatically, so has the ability to detect the use of CGI in the final product. You'd have to fool not just Joe Sixpack, but also all the image analysts of the world.

Speaking of which, I've been meaning to ask you Jay, were you involved in FTETTM or was that another Clavius Base?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-13, 04:43 PM
I was not involved in producing the HBO From the Earth to the Moon. However, I did work with some of the FTETTM crew in a later production that was reported at Clavius. Zig Zag Productions (London) specifically requested some of the FTETTM crew to help them attempt to reproduce the lunar environment in the way some conspiracy theorists say it might have been done. I worked on that production, both on- and off-camera; it goes by various names depending on the market in which it airs.

The aim, I guess, was to be able to say that the best minds of Hollywood couldn't do it. Not very good logic, since you can always say they didn't try their best in our case.

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-13, 04:55 PM
Ah, from Good old Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavius_Base)


Clavius Base is also the name of a film production company. To date, its productions are:

From the Earth to the Moon (Miniseries)1998
That Thing You Do! 1996

Although not readily verifiable, it appears that this production company was started by actor Tom Hanks, who was part of both of its productions and who has stated in interviews that 2001 is his favorite film.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-13, 08:04 PM
Ah, I see. My Clavius is not affiliated in any way with Tom Hanks' production company. I have, however, done research for Arthur C. Clarke on the matter of ALSEP longevity, but let's not tangle the web any more.

Ilya
2007-Jul-13, 08:46 PM
Dredging up something from the depths of my memory, is it the temperature difference running from a hot sauna to outside? (NOT in Celsius degrees!)

That's the 300 club. For the 200 (degree) club, the initiate goes from a hot shower to the outside... naked.

(Oh, great. Now I've got a mental image of Werner von Braun in the buff. Arggh.)

"300 Club", as in "300 F temp difference", is supposedly done on South Pole Vostok station, and I think it is an urban legend. Or rather, I believe that something like it IS done, but not that it is called "300 Club". Vostok is a Russian station. Why would they use Farenheit scale?

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-13, 09:01 PM
The 300 club is from Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, and is a true club. Infact, one of our fellow BAUTers, IMO is familiar with the club (http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/18988-ultimate-astronomy-quiz-77.html#post871060) (although not a member, as he did not winter-over)

ETA: Here's a first hand account (http://www.ast.leeds.ac.uk/haverah/spaseman/club300.shtml) of the initiation, with pictures :)

Larry Jacks
2007-Jul-13, 11:54 PM
We had similar exotic events when I was stationed at Shemya (in the Aleutians) back in 1990. Double-dipping (swimming in the Pacific Ocean and the Bering Straits - both extremely cold), beacon riding (riding the airport beacon), bat hanging (drinking a beer while hanging upside down), etc. Strangely enough, most of those activities involved large quantities of alcohol. Imagine that. Some things are just too stupid to consider doing while sober.

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-13, 11:59 PM
Yea I think I would be a member of the 300 club, but I would be making the trip out to the Pole with my bottle of Patron in hand :p

Orion437
2007-Jul-14, 12:02 PM
I don´t think it could be possible to do today. As JayUtah said, CGI has improved but the skills to detect and analize CGI has improved as well.



Sorry for my english.

antoniseb
2007-Jul-14, 01:37 PM
One of the hardest things to do would be to have created the sets and materials so that the science we get from them is not contradicted by later discoveries as our instruments get better. I don't think we could do that no matter when we tried to create such a hoax, unless the goal was for the hoax to be short-lived.

Ilya
2007-Jul-17, 05:23 PM
The 300 club is from Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, and is a true club. Infact, one of our fellow BAUTers, IMO is familiar with the club (http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/18988-ultimate-astronomy-quiz-77.html#post871060) (although not a member, as he did not winter-over)

I see. I always thought it is a Russian thing.

Or, I know that jumping from sauna into snow and back is a Russian thing. I just did not know Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station took up the same practice. :)

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-17, 09:01 PM
With the Amundsen-Scott 300 club, it's not only from sauna into snow, it's sauna for 15 mins, then a 100 yard dash to the Ceremonial South Pole and another 100 yards back. Different stories I've read have people talking about how their skin crackles and stuff as they run from the coating of sweat-turned-ice. Brr!

JonClarke
2007-Jul-17, 11:19 PM
The Australians at their stations have a tradition involving a mid winter skinny dip in the ocean through a hole in the ice.

I can imagine eventually the Moon and Mrs may have similar traditions, involving short sprints through vaccum, to separate the adults from the children.

:)

Jon

Kelfazin
2007-Jul-17, 11:44 PM
That would be...uh...fun..lol

*exhale exhale exhale*

Count Zero
2007-Jul-18, 03:10 AM
Then there is Larry Niven's idea: Walking on the Moon, barefoot. (http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/larryniven/niven_making_somebody_pay_000914.html)

BigDon
2007-Jul-18, 06:32 AM
Why is it then, that before we used to pull into Hawaii one of the things they would warn us about was specific pools of water that come down from high glaciers insulated by lava tubes so they were about 33 to 34 degrees F? It was said that on a hot day folks who didn't know about the facts would drown due to the unexpected shock or suffer cardiac arrest from the sudden contraction of the surface blood vessels. Must have seen that film half a dozen times.