PDA

View Full Version : New Hoax Website



Ian R
2002-Jan-03, 06:17 PM
http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/hdf/lunarfropas/mirror.jpg



I found this new hoax site while I was browsing though Google. Here is the link:

New Apollo Hoax Site (http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/hdf/lunarhoax.html)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-01-03 13:18 ]</font>

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-03, 06:56 PM
Heh. The reason the crater wall isn't lit by downSun reflected light is that the crater wall is below the surface reflecting the light! The light is reflected up, towards the Sun, not down, so the wall stays shadowed.

I wonder if these HBs ever go outside and experience the real world. They might get insight into how things like shadows and light work.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-03, 07:54 PM
I like his contention that the Fox special was so bad that it was obviously done to show HBers as "crazy irrational people."

JayUtah
2002-Jan-03, 10:35 PM
I agree with our esteemed B.A.'s analysis of the argument. The far crater wall is more or less parallel to the incident light from the sun as well as the reflected light at the zero phase angle. The astronaut, however, is more or less perpendicular to the zero phase angle.

We might ask the conspiracist why, if an artificial fill light was used to lighten the down-sun side of the astronaut, that same light neither causes the astronaut to cast a shadow, nor illuminates the far crater wall, nor introduces a "pool" of light around the astronaut. Either the speculated light source is somewhat localized (so as not to touch the far crater wall) and therefore will augment the surface illumination around the astronaut, or the light source is large (so as not to cause a pool of light) and should illuminate the far crater wall.

The answer to the question is found in the visor reflection. Note how the astronaut's own shadow is reflected, and near the shadow's head in the reflected image we see the familiar Heiligenschein associated with the characteristics of lunar soil as viewed from the zero phase angle.

Conspiracists maintain that these halos are the pools of augmented illumination caused by the artificial lights used to create the shadow. But we see no such pool around the shadow itself, only in the reflection of the shadow.

The hoax believers can only explain this phenomenon by an elaborate and completely unsubstantiated chain of arguments involving improbable artificial lights, post-processing, and mythical whistle-blowers. But if we simply ascribe to lunar soil the characteristics it has been observed to exhibit for centuries, all the questions are answered. The reflection exhibits Heiligenschein because from the visor's angle of view the tip of the shadow is at the zero-phase angle. But from the photographer's point of view it is not.

While the lunar soil displays a fair amount of diffuse (lambertian) reflection, the zero phase effect which is supplying the majority of the fill effect on the astronaut's suit far outshines it. And basic geometry shows that little if any of this zero-phase illumination will strike the far crater wall.

Peter B
2002-Jan-03, 11:56 PM
I chuckled when I saw a comment about John Young's bad photos as a sign of a possible conspiracy.

Don't other HBs talk about the excellent quality of other astronauts' photos as a sign of a possible conspiracy?

Talk about having it both ways...

Simon
2002-Jan-04, 06:33 AM
Hey, here's an interesting experiment...

Take some REAL fake pictures of Apollo astronauts, for instance at the Apollo exhibit at some museum, and send them to a HB with REAL Apollo photos. And wait and see if they can tell the difference.

ToSeek
2002-Jan-04, 02:47 PM
On 2002-01-03 18:56, Peter B wrote:
I chuckled when I saw a comment about John Young's bad photos as a sign of a possible conspiracy.



And his definition of a "bad photo" is one that doesn't show all of Charlie Duke. It was obvious to me that the photos were intended to be taken of the Moon - I mean, isn't that why they were there?

David Hall
2002-Jan-04, 06:57 PM
I haven't looked through the site yet, but just catching this quote at the beginning starts me fuming:

As well, I don't react kindly to the arrogance NASA presented in the FOX special, denouncing those (you -- the tax payer) who funded the program.

Well, what is he supposed to see in an oversensationalized propoganda piece? Of course NASA looked arrogant. The producers went to great pains to MAKE them look that way. And incompetent and clueless as well. We seem to be dealing with a person easily swayed by appearances here.

JayUtah
2002-Jan-04, 10:47 PM
Well, what is he supposed to see in an oversensationalized propoganda piece? Of course NASA looked arrogant. The producers went to great pains to MAKE them look that way.

Of course. Brian O'Leary has already publicly denounced the Fox program for selectively quoting and misrepresenting him. He gave them a half-hour interview, and they used only the ten seconds in which he said something that appeared to support the hoax theory. For the record, Brian O'Leary believes the moon landings were authentic.

It seems the conspiracy crowd's gullibility blinds them to the obvious fact that editors, not interviewees, control the content. If the pro-conspiracy editor wants NASA to appear incompetent or evasive, it's not too hard to do. All these programs introduce diluted straw-man testimony culled from the opposition to convey the illusion of fair treatment of the issue. The typical format is a two- or three-minute exposition of the conspiracy theory evidentiary point, followed by a 15-second rebuttal from an anti-conspiracy expert.

If a charge of arrogance is to be leveled, I prefer to level it at the conspiracy theorists. After all, they challenge a well-documented historical occurrence on the basis of nothing more substantial than conjecture, and often with very poor understanding of the technical and scientific principles that bear on their evidence. To present an essentially unfounded accusation so forcefully is arrogant.

Regarding the charge that good and/or bad photography is evidence that it was falsified, it's astounding that the conspiracy theorists have such a poor grasp of reasoning that they can't see the inherent contradiction.

Tautological reasoning is a hallmark of the conspiracy theorist. A tautology, as you may recall, is an expression of conditional logic which always results in a satisfied consequent. That is, the conclusion is always true no matter how the evidence is observed. Thus it's quite common to hear arguments such as both good and bad photography supporting a contention that it was falsified, or that faux moon rocks and/or real moon rocks both fit into a hoax hypothesis.

Unfortunately in order to test a hypothesis it must be possible for that hypothesis to fail. It must be possible to vary the antecedents in a controlled manner and observe a correlated effect in the consequent. The conspiracy theorists formulate their hypothesis so that the desired conclusion is always supported, thus separating their conclusion causally from the evidence they say supports it.

Tautological arguments cannot be reliable because they cannot be tested. Reliability is not inferred from the ability of the hypothesis to support the conclusion, but from the inability of the hypothesis to support the conclusion when contrary evidence is observed. Thus to the gullible the conspiracist argument appears substantial and infallible, but this is because the conspiracists have avoided the test for reliability, not passed it.

After having examined several thousand of the Apollo photographs, it is my opinion that they represent what might be expected from well-trained but inexperienced amateurs photographing under adverse conditions in the field. One can selectively present photographs and make a case that the astronauts were either excellent or inept photographers, but the truth is that while many of the photographs are of superb quality, a significant portion of them exhibit the shortcomings to be expected under the circumstances: poor composition, poor focus, poor exposure, motion blur, inadvertent exposures.

The contention that the Apollo photographs are universally of suspiciously high quality is not supported. But since the typical conspiracy theorist can simply present a few well-taken photographs and imply that all are of such quality, and since the average conspiracy enthusiast is neither motivated nor equipped to verify that implication, it's an easy assertion to make.

The Bad Astronomer
2002-Jan-04, 11:30 PM
JayUtah's my hero. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif

johnwitts
2002-Jan-05, 12:16 AM
Mine too. He's helped me out of a few scrapes in the past, and he's sure to do it again in the future. Thanks Jay.

jkmccrann
2005-Oct-30, 02:28 PM
http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/hdf/lunarfropas/mirror.jpg

I found this new hoax site while I was browsing though Google. Here is the link:

New Apollo Hoax Site (http://www.angelfire.com/tx3/hdf/lunarhoax.html)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Ian R on 2002-01-03 13:18 ]</font>

The creepy thing is, this site has been taken down. Must be NASA and the government removing all those who know the real truth!

::rolls::

Gillianren
2005-Oct-30, 07:59 PM
The creepy thing is, this site has been taken down. Must be NASA and the government removing all those who know the real truth!

::rolls::

. . . or the fact that it was three years ago!

SolusLupus
2005-Oct-31, 06:11 PM
I was fooled again. I thought it was a new thing...

hmm... Fun topic, though.