PDA

View Full Version : What Happened on the Moon?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Reynoldbot
2006-Apr-29, 08:50 AM
Hi folks, long time lurker first time poster. I found the entire movie "What Happened on the Moon" available on Google Video and gave it a watch. After about 45 minutes I got sick of it and gave up. I mentioned this on the Apollo Hoax forum and somebody told me to write a review for it on amazon since the only existing review was unabashadly positive. So I did. I didn't want to do the usual thing of debunking the video point by point but I did feel that certain things warranted comment. Here it is in full for you guys to enjoy/pick out any errors or argue over:

"This film is awful. I could only stomach the first 45 minutes of this 2 hour epic. The same information is available in much greater detail on the internet for free, and you get the availability of hearing both sides of the issue.

Not only is the film boring and ridiculously cheesy, but the arguments are weak. At one point, David Percy shows a video from Apollo 16 showing the jump salute. His argument is that a flap hanging loose from the PLSS backpack is visible in the still photos of the event but not in the video. It would be a good argument if the flap wasn't plainly visible in the video. They show the video multiple times and the flap is clearly flopping around during the jump. If you didn't catch it the first time, they give you another chance.

At another point, they reference the "anomalous" shadow directions in the lunar photographs by showing a photograph of a row of trees and their "correctly aligned" shadows. Big honking white lines are drawn on top of the picture to show the shadow angle. Too bad one of the trees directly to the right of the big honking line has a shadow that appears horizontal in comparison to the line and the rest of the shadows. They used a picture showing diverging shadow angles to try and prove that shadow angles do not diverge under a single light source.

Finally (at least to the point that I could handle watching), they show the famous photo of Buzz Aldrin standing next to the leg of the LM. They claim that the center fiducial is significantly below the center of the frame. They also claim that they are using high quality duplicates from the original master prints. They are as bold as to say that the photo must have been manipulated in nefarious ways. They are correct. The photo has been manipulated but it wasn't by NASA. People epxerienced with the Apollo record know that the top of Buzz's PLSS backpack is cut off by the top of the frame in that famous shot, but in their copy they place the top of the frame well above the backpack and to compensate they cut off a similar amount at the bottom to keep the dimensions correct. Percy and his crew either deliberately recropped the photograph themselves or are lying about their source of the photo.

When the makers of this film aren't unintentionally showing us the mistakes in their arguments they are creating the anomalies themselves. They are hacks and this film is the proof."

Afterwards I had a change of heart and watched the rest of the video. No longer content with my review I added some discussion board topics. I won't quote them here but they are freely available to look at on the site.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007UVXI6/ref=pd_kar_gw_1/103-7033152-4551863?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=130

Could you guys read the review and discussion board topics and give me some feedback? I want to make sure all information I present is as correct as possible.

Num chucks pete
2006-Apr-30, 09:47 AM
have you heard of bart sibril the astronaut ambusher

The skeptic
2006-Apr-30, 10:36 AM
Thanks for the links and reviews, RB...Having laughed myself sick watching some moonhoax garbage on Channel 4 some years' back, I'll not be purchasing such rubbish anyway...A good warning to potential buyers non-the-less...

PS: the 'arguments' don't seem to have changed much over the years. More a case of 'recycling' methinks?

sts60
2006-Apr-30, 12:58 PM
have you heard of bart sibril the astronaut ambusher
Welcome to the board. Yes, most of the regulars here are quite familiar with Bart Sibrel and the other well-known HBs, and have dissected their arguments, techniques, and motivations at some length. Try searching this forum for Sibrel, Collier, Kaysing, Percy, White, for some.

BTW, regarding some of your other posts - profanity and ad hominem attacks are forbidden by this board's terms of service.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-21, 11:52 PM
I really can't believe that seemingly intelligent human beings really believe that we went to the moon, the Van Allen belt would make that an impossibility in itself.

There is so much evidence out there that debunks that silly theory that its obvious that we never went near the moon.

Or do you all also think that our Government would never tell us a lie?

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 12:04 AM
I really can't believe that seemingly intelligent human beings really believe that we went to the moon, the Van Allen belt would make that an impossibility in itself.


Incorrect. Intelligent people do intelligent research. See here:

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html



There is so much evidence out there that debunks that silly theory that its obvious that we never went near the moon.


Incorrect. There are many (often repeated) claims, but they are based on misunderstanding of the underlying science and technology - like the one you just repeated.



Or do you all also think that our Government would never tell us a lie?

Do you think that the U.S. government always lies?

In any event, it's irrelevant to the evidence, including many lunar rock samples,

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 12:48 AM
That link on the radiation tells me nothing. Nasa can barely get a shuttle into low earth orbit without mishap and you want me to believe that they went to the moon, landed and took off, reestablished docking with the orbiter and thrusted back to earth, peeeelllleeeeaaase. Your 10 dollar calculator has more computer power than they had on the Apollo missions.

And yes, I do believe that the Government lies about 90 percent of the time to its people, you need to do the research and pull your head out of the sand

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 01:20 AM
Anyhow, I can see what level of intelligence I'm dealing with here, Clavius website for debunking the debunkers, give me a break, there is absolutely no REAL evidence that Nasa ever went to the moon, everything that they did was done in a studio or in area 51, anybody can see that after looking at the real evidence provided to us by nasa, I can see that the gentlemen frequenting this forum are shills for the powers that be.

We are living in interesting times. But believe me, they would never attempt another moon landing hoax because people now are too saavy and would immediately see through their lies.

You guys just keep dreaming, crack another beer and tune into to the latest star trek episode

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 01:24 AM
That link on the radiation tells me nothing.


Then you either didn't read it, didn't understand it, or ignored it. Let's reverse this: Please show the evidence that astronauts, given their trajectory, would die due to radiation exposure.



Nasa can barely get a shuttle into low earth orbit without mishap


Close to 120 flights now. Then there is the space station, space probes across the solar system, probes heading out of the solar system, rovers on Mars . . .


and you want me to believe that they went to the moon, landed and took off, reestablished docking with the orbiter and thrusted back to earth, peeeelllleeeeaaase.


"I don't believe it, so there!"



Your 10 dollar calculator has more computer power than they had on the Apollo missions.


Another tired argument, and one I find particularly ridiculous. I know computers and I've worked with computers roughly comparable with the AGC. We still use computers comparable to the AGC in embedded applications, and it was plenty good enough for what was needed.



And yes, I do believe that the Government lies about 90 percent of the time to its people, you need to do the research and pull your head out of the sand

Ah, there we go: "The government always lies so it must have been a lie!"

Well, you certainly are fitting the profile of a typical moon hoax believer: Same tired arguments, doesn't understand the science or technology, and assumes the government is just one big conspiracy.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 01:31 AM
Anyhow, I can see what level of intelligence I'm dealing with here, Clavius website for debunking the debunkers, give me a break, there is absolutely no REAL evidence that Nasa ever went to the moon, everything that they did was done in a studio or in area 51, anybody can see that after looking at the real evidence provided to us by nasa, I can see that the gentlemen frequenting this forum are shills for the powers that be.


Oh, I forgot that one: "If you disagree with me, you must be a government disinformation agent!"

You are supporting my OCTT. (http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/62427-one-ct-theory-octt.html#post1034470)

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 01:36 AM
The fact that I do understand the "science and technology" is exactly why I don't buy the official conspiracy theory put forth by nasa and nuts like you.

Its been exposed already, give it up, watch "Dark Side of the Moon" with Kubricks wife, Dick Cheney and the rest of the hoaxers. Sheessh, why do you guys continue to beat a dead horse.

Thousands of questions, everything exposed in half a dozen documentaries, no answers, just more cover ups.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 01:43 AM
The fact that I do understand the "science and technology" is exactly why I don't buy the official conspiracy theory put forth by nasa and nuts like you.


Then show the evidence that astronauts, given their trajectory, would die due to radiation exposure.



Its been exposed already, give it up, watch "Dark Side of the Moon" with Kubricks wife, Dick Cheney and the rest of the hoaxers.


:lol: "Dark Side of the Moon" was a HOAX. See here, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Side_of_the_Moon_%28documentary%29

It is finally revealed that this is a mockumentary as the end credits roll over a montage of blooper reels, with the main participants laughing over the absurdity of their lines or questioning if particular ones would give the joke away too soon. Besides being a comedic documentary, it is also an exercise in Jean Baudrillard's theories of hyperreality.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 01:46 AM
Ok guys, its been fun, I think I'll continue my search for "intelligent" life on earth, I can see why this site is called bad astronomy, its all been torn to pieces by much more "intelligent" life forms than myself. Nuff said

Clavius government coverup websites, what a pile of dodo, no stars? no dust? no high jumps? no reflector left behind to prove that they were there, now that would have been hard to do, no wonder!

Keep dreaming

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 01:51 AM
Dark side hoax or not, I'm a photographer and the lighting was done in a studio, they should have not protrayed it as done on the moon, If they didn't lie about that, maybe we'd be more inclined to believe the rest of the story

frenat
2007-Jul-22, 01:51 AM
In other words, your best piece of evidence was proven to be a joke and now you're taking your toys and going home. Classic. Why don't you come back when you really understand the science. For example, by claiming there should be stars in the pictures you show you know nothing about photography or exposure times.

Count Zero
2007-Jul-22, 01:55 AM
The fact that I do understand the "science and technology" is exactly why I don't buy the official conspiracy theory put forth by nasa and nuts like you.

OK, so if Gemini 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, Soyuz 3, 4, Apollo 9 and 10 could all perform orbital rendezvous, why couldn't Apollo 11?

Its been exposed already, give it up, watch "Dark Side of the Moon" with Kubricks wife, Dick Cheney and the rest of the hoaxers. Sheessh, why do you guys continue to beat a dead horse.

:lol: Pwned! If you'd watched "Dark Side of the Moon" to the end you would have seen that the whole movie was a parody to yank the chains of gullible conspiracy fans - and you fell for it, hook line & sinker! :lol::lol::lol:

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 01:57 AM
If any of you reading this can think outside the box, check out these documentaries, and even if they hurt your sensibilities, a lot of good points are made:

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
EVIDENCE Apollo Moon Landing is a Hoax!

and the one that the gentleman at the top of the page really likes:
What happened on the Moon

Too much evidence, not enough proof, good try Van Rijn, say hi to your buddies at Nasa or the Cia or whatever numbered agency you work for.

frenat
2007-Jul-22, 02:04 AM
Yawn. Same old tired fallback. Losing the argument so those that disagree with you must be paid to post that way. Ever consider the fact that many that post here are engineers actually involved in the manufacture and operation of various satellites and spacecraft?

Every single one of your "documentaries" use circular logic, half truths, and outright lies to try to make their points. That is not a single piece of "evidence" for a moon hoax that has not been refuted dozens of times. If you actually researched both sides you might realize that. The funny thing is that many here have probably seen more hoax "evidence" than you have because they have taken the time to research both sides and analyze what exactly is being said. You on the other hand just swallow what the hoax theorists have to say because it fits your predefined conclusions.

Count Zero
2007-Jul-22, 02:07 AM
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Moon
EVIDENCE Apollo Moon Landing is a Hoax!

Actually, that one is evidence that Bart Sibrel is a liar and a con-man. Here (http://lokishammer.dragon-rider.org/Apollo/Apollo11/) is one of many good disections of that particular comedy of errors. Note that there is no "belief" called for; simply analysis of the relevant data.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:12 AM
Yes yawn is right, you religious zealots will always believe whatever the faith demands. I have looked at the mainstream explanations for the questions asked by the moonlanding hoax debunkers, sounds bad "debunkers" , kinda conspiracy theorist like doesn't it, no proof boys, lots of taxpayer dollars and no proof, just like some of the things going on today.

pzkpfw
2007-Jul-22, 02:14 AM
Yes yawn is right, you religious zealots will always believe whatever the faith demands. I have looked at the mainstream explanations for the questions asked by the moonlanding hoax debunkers, sounds bad "debunkers" , kinda conspiracy theorist like doesn't it, no proof boys, lots of taxpayer dollars and no proof, just like some of the things going on today.

This is a discussion forum. Do you have anything to discuss?

Count Zero
2007-Jul-22, 02:20 AM
Note that there is no "belief" called for; simply analysis of the relevant data.

you religious zealots will always believe whatever the faith demands.

Tsk-tsk. Couldn't even read to the second line. :rolleyes:

I have looked at the mainstream explanations...

...but if you don't read them, how can you ever understand what is being said? Speaking of 'believing whatever the faith demands...'

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:20 AM
I thought we were discussing moon landing hoaxes? At least thats what I read at the top of the page, how Reynoldbot thought that a documentary proving that there couldn't have been a moon landing was such a lie and laughable. So he is allowed to make fun of the opinion of those that made that documentary, but I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the same subject.

I guess that fair mindedness and liberal thinking is why you are all here.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 02:21 AM
Yes yawn is right, you religious zealots will always believe whatever the faith demands. I have looked at the mainstream explanations for the questions asked by the moonlanding hoax debunkers, sounds bad "debunkers" , kinda conspiracy theorist like doesn't it, no proof boys, lots of taxpayer dollars and no proof, just like some of the things going on today.

Are you ever going to show the evidence that Apollo astronauts would die due to radiation exposure? I'd like to see some hint that you actually understand the concepts.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:31 AM
Are you ever going to show the evidence that Apollo astronauts would die due to radiation exposure? I'd like to see some hint that you actually understand the concepts.

Here we go again, do me and yourself a favour and watch some of the videos and look at the pictures taken with the hasselblads, with film that would melt or at least deform at 150 degrees fahrenheit, I presume you know how hot it gets on the lunar surface in the middle of the day?

And if the radiation is a nonissue with film, why do they not put it through the xray machines at airports. I'm sure you'll have some hokus pokus explanation for that too.

Brother, this is getting old, attack, attack, attack, we are engineers and scientists and we are so smart. Well show it.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:34 AM
And how about those spacesuits, I know they conveniently said they left them behind to lessen the weight for liftoff from the lunar surface, but surely they must have the prototypes that they used, why hasn't anyone been allowed to test one out in the california desert to see if it did really cool anything. Or did I miss that test as well. Give me a link to it.

Count Zero
2007-Jul-22, 02:35 AM
Reynoldsbot made detailed, point-by-point arguments why that documentary was wrong and possibly deliberately deceptive. You, on the other hand, are thowing mud and hoping something sticks. If you have an argument, make it.

Here are some possibilities that you can use to prove your point:
- Radiation: What type of radiation is in the Van Allen Belts? What energy and fluxes? What type of shielding blocks it, and what shielding did the US Apollo and Russian Zond spacecraft have? This will prove whether or not living organisms could have survived the trip.

- No Stars: What camera settings (shutter speed & f-stop) would you use to photograph stars? How much light does the earth's atmosphere block? These are things that you can check yourself - no "belief" and no assumptions. Just raw experimental evidence you can use to prove whether we should see stars in the photographs.

Let's see it, Johuatree. Let's see some real data - not somebody's documentary that you saw and believed without question.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 02:38 AM
I thought we were discussing moon landing hoaxes? At least thats what I read at the top of the page, how Reynoldbot thought that a documentary proving that there couldn't have been a moon landing was such a lie and laughable.


Which was a fair evaluation based on the evidence. The documentary was nonsense.



So he is allowed to make fun of the opinion of those that made that documentary, but I'm not allowed to have an opinion on the same subject.

I guess that fair mindedness and liberal thinking is why you are all here.

Sure, you can have an opinion, but don't be surprised to find your opinion challenged, per the evidence. Have you read the board rules yet? Here they are:

http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/32864-rules-posting-board.html

See Section 13 in particular:

13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

[snip]

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:46 AM
It appears that in this forum, everyone wants to preach to the choir, no other opinions are accepted, I do not purport to be a technician or a scientist, but I do believe that I have as much right to believe what someone else says as another has to disbelieve it.

I know that free speech is being destroyed in north america, or should that be the north american union?

If the rules dissallow that most basic of human rights in these countries, then I will continue my search for it elsewhere.

Keep the faith guys, I hope you attract lots more choirboys to your religion

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 02:48 AM
Here we go again,


Yes, and still again: What is the evidence that Apollo astronauts would die due to radiation exposure? This was your claim, after all.



do me and yourself a favour and watch some of the videos and look at the pictures taken with the hasselblads, with film that would melt or at least deform at 150 degrees fahrenheit, I presume you know how hot it gets on the lunar surface in the middle of the day?


Wow. You're hitting one tired argument after another. I know that it wasn't the middle of the lunar day, and I know that the cameras were in a vacuum. Do you understand heat transfer in a vacuum?


And if the radiation is a nonissue with film, why do they not put it through the xray machines at airports.


What would be the exposure level of the film inside the camera?

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 02:59 AM
It appears that in this forum, everyone wants to preach to the choir, no other opinions are accepted, I do not purport to be a technician or a scientist, but I do believe that I have as much right to believe what someone else says as another has to disbelieve it.


You can believe what you want, but this is a science board. If you (for example) state that the Van Allen belts will kill astronauts, you will be challenged to provide the evidence.



If the rules dissallow that most basic of human rights in these countries, then I will continue my search for it elsewhere.


Free speech does not mean that you have the right to use someone else's printing press or (in these days) BBS. It's up to the owner to decide. If you aren't willing (or more likely, able) to respond to our requests and are just going off in a huff, well, bye!

Grashtel
2007-Jul-22, 03:00 AM
Clavius government coverup websites, what a pile of dodo, no stars?
You mean exactly as expected when using a camera setup to photograph sunlit objects? Also the UV telescope used on Apollo 16 got photos of the UV sky that have been independently verified. And finally Venus has been located in a number of pictures from Apollo 14, which from knowing the performance of the film and the settings used on the cameras is dimmest object that will show up and is eight times brighter than the brightest star.

no dust?
You mean apart from the fine powdery stuff covering the surface that shows up in just about every photo?

no high jumps?
Yeah, its not as if the astronauts were wearing stiff suits with backpacks heavy enough to throw their balance off which were also full of stuff that if it broke they would die? Or the various feats of acrobatics that they managed to (mostly accidentally) accomplish, including at least one incidence of an astronaut jumping with barely bent legs and pulling himself with one arm to a step well up the LM ladder (which didn't start until a fair way off the ground).

no reflector left behind to prove that they were there, now that would have been hard to do, no wonder!
You mean apart from the ones left by Apollos 11, 14, and 15 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_Experiment), please, at least try to do your homework.

Grashtel
2007-Jul-22, 03:09 AM
And how about those spacesuits, I know they conveniently said they left them behind to lessen the weight for liftoff from the lunar surface, but surely they must have the prototypes that they used, why hasn't anyone been allowed to test one out in the california desert to see if it did really cool anything. Or did I miss that test as well. Give me a link to it.
Because A) spacesuits are very expensive, too expensive to just let people mess with them for no good reason, B) anyone who actually bothers to learn how they work knows that they won't work in air because the operating principle of their cooling system relies on the behavior of water in vacuum, and C) the suits that are used on the shuttle as ISS are direct descendants of the Apollo ones and use the same principles proving that they operate just fine.

Daryl71
2007-Jul-22, 03:19 AM
Joshuatree has already attacked the intelligence of everyone on this forum multiple times, ad hominem style.

Isn't about time for a temporary ban? :hand:

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 03:23 AM
Because A) spacesuits are very expensive, too expensive to just let people mess with them for no good reason, B) anyone who actually bothers to learn how they work knows that they won't work in air because the operating principle of their cooling system relies on the behavior of water in vacuum, and C) the suits that are used on the shuttle as ISS are direct descendants of the Apollo ones and use the same principles proving that they operate just fine.

Also, I have no doubt sublimation cooling was tested extensively under proper conditions before the equipment went into space. Jay might have links to references, but then again, not everything is on the web.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:26 AM
...no other opinions are accepted

Whether studio lighting can produce Apollo photographs and whether the radiation in the Van Allen belts would kill the astronauts are not matters of opinion. They are matters of testable allegations of fact. You have alleged facts, but decline to provide any test or engage in discussion those who have tested these claims themselves.

You simply accuse everyone of being brainwashed and brush off evidence that disputes your belief. If you allege fact on this board, you will be called upon to provide evidence of it. That's the way things work in the real world.

I do not purport to be a technician or a scientist...

Then please tell us exactly what you meant when you said
The fact that I do understand the "science and technology" is exactly why I don't buy the official conspiracy theory put forth by nasa and nuts like you.

I am a professional engineer. I have worked in the aerospace industry on and off for 15 years. I most certainly do propose to be a technician and a scientist, and I have investigated the Apollo hoax theory for a number of years as well as NASA's claims. It is my firm professional assessment that NASA's claims explain the evidence far better than any conspiracy theory. I find the conspiracy theories highly ignorant, based on selective and misinterpreted evidence, and deriving from clearly specious lines of reasoning.

If the rules dissallow that most basic of human rights in these countries, then I will continue my search for it elsewhere.

Freedom of speech does not excuse you from the consequences of your statements. You have the right to say essentially whatever you want. But you do not have the right to demand your statements be respected as intelligent and well-founded simply by virtue of having poured forth from you.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:28 AM
People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.



Oh and by the way, here's a quote from your own forum rules, I guess that it only applies to new members. The old boys club gets to dismiss any new theories or ideas. The standard model is that "we believe we landed on the moon" and that is our belief and it will never change no matter what is said by who, even though there is no evidence that it happened and so much that it didn't.

All the bunk about proof is so easily played with and everyone will believe what they want in the end. Take the reflectors left supposedly by Apollo 11, why was no mention of them made till years later when the question was asked why they were'nt left behind, then they magically appeared.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:29 AM
It's relatively easy to test a sublimator because all you need is a few cubic meters of vacuum. It's extremely reliable, very simple technology. In fact, you can buy one these days off the shelf from Hamilton Sunstrand.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:30 AM
Take the reflectors left supposedly by Apollo 11, why was no mention of them made till years later when the question was asked why they were'nt left behind, then they magically appeared.

Factually false. The LRRR tests were conducted while the Apollo 11 crew were still on the lunar surface. The results were part of the live EVA telecast. Clearly you've never made any significant study of the Apollo record.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:35 AM
Also, I have no doubt sublimation cooling was tested extensively under proper conditions before the equipment went into space. Jay might have links to references, but then again, not everything is on the web.

I understand, just wondered why references to the workings of the systems were never explained in any of the official nasa videos.

And why didn't the astronauts just adjust the aperture on the cameras to get the stars? They had to be able to adjust them for the moon shots, they even have them on audio talking about the right aperture for a particular time of day.

Too many questions

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jul-22, 03:36 AM
have you heard of bart sibril the astronaut ambusher
Yes, not even just here I bought a book on how the moon formed, and the astronauts going there to get the samples to find the composition of the moon. The author of the book debunked Sibril in the last chapter.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:39 AM
The old boys club gets to dismiss any new theories or ideas.

The Apollo hoax theory is not a new theory or a new idea. The theory itself is more than 30 years old, and it has been discussed on this site and its predecessors for seven years. Just because it's new to you doesn't mean it's new to everyone. I guarantee most of the regular posters here know far more about the hoax theories than you do. Many of us have tested elements of those theories empirically.

The standard model is that "we believe we landed on the moon" and that is our belief and it will never change no matter what is said by who, even though there is no evidence that it happened and so much that it didn't.

You haven't supplied any evidence that hasn't already been discussed at length, and the answers compiled and summarized on Clavius and other easily-accessed places. You seem to believe the re-opening a stale debate with the same stale claims somehow breathes new life into them that others are bound to respect. It does not.

If you can prove the Apollo missions are faked, then you will find a critical but fair audience for that proof. If your proof instead is merely the same old conspiracist hogwash that's been sold to gullible people for decades, then you will receive a reception commensurate with that lack of original thought.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jul-22, 03:39 AM
And why didn't the astronauts just adjust the aperture on the cameras to get the stars? They had to be able to adjust them for the moon shots, they even have them on audio talking about the right aperture for a particular time of day.

Too many questions
Can you see the stars during the day?

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:40 AM
Take the reflectors left supposedly by Apollo 11, why was no mention of them made till years later when the question was asked why they were'nt left behind, then they magically appeared.

Factually false. The LRRR tests were conducted while the Apollo 11 crew were still on the lunar surface. The results were part of the live EVA telecast. Clearly you've never made any significant study of the Apollo record.

I plan to peruse the clavia moon base site and see what I can glean from it, just because you say its true, doesn't mean it is. I will check out those LRRR tests to see how I overlooked them.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:42 AM
I understand, just wondered why references to the workings of the systems were never explained in any of the official nasa videos.

They were explained at length in many NASA documents from the 1960s. I have read several period descriptions and seen engineering diagrams available to the public. Not everything's on YouTube.

And why didn't the astronauts just adjust the aperture on the cameras to get the stars?

You said you're a photographer. 38 millimeter lens. 65 millimeter frame format. ISO 160 film, Kodak E-3 process. Maximum aperture is f/5.6. What shutter speed will be necessary to expose stars, and how did you determine it?

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:43 AM
Can you see the stars during the day?

Is there enough atmosphere on the moon to create a condition that the stars are invisible? It was mentioned recently that there is no atmosphere on the moon by one of the people here. That the cameras were being operated in a vacuum and thats why there is no heat buildup on the moon, you can't have it both ways


Hmmmm

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:46 AM
I plan to peruse the clavia moon base site...

So when you dismissed it as a government disinformation site, that was evidently before you read it. Of what possible value is the opinion of someone who renders them in ignorance?

...just because you say its true, doesn't mean it is.

Have you applied that test to the conspiracy theorists?

The reality of the LRRR operations need not be attested to. It is a matter of objective record.

Since you clearly have not studied the Apollo record to a degree consistent with your claims, kindly withdraw your blusterous insults until you have educated yourself appropriately.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:47 AM
I understand, just wondered why references to the workings of the systems were never explained in any of the official nasa videos.

They were explained at length in many NASA documents from the 1960s. I have read several period descriptions and seen engineering diagrams available to the public. Not everything's on YouTube.

And why didn't the astronauts just adjust the aperture on the cameras to get the stars?

You said you're a photographer. 38 millimeter lens. 65 millimeter frame format. ISO 160 film, Kodak E-3 process. Maximum aperture is f/5.6. What shutter speed will be necessary to expose stars, and how did you determine it?

I thought the hasselblads were 70 mm according to the manufacturer, the film was ASA in those days not ISO and I was under the assumption that it was 64 not 160. I may be wrong. I didn't determine anything about exposure to expose the stars, but correct me if I'm wrong, but the stars would be visible in a vacuum, even in broad daylight? Correct?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:48 AM
Is there enough atmosphere on the moon to create a condition that the stars are invisible?

The atmosphere doesn't prevent stars from being seen from Earth at night. Please tell us exactly what camera settings would be required to photograph stars from the lunar surface and how you derived them.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jul-22, 03:49 AM
Is there enough atmosphere on the moon to create a condition that the stars are invisible? It was mentioned recently that there is no atmosphere on the moon by one of the people here. That the cameras were being operated in a vacuum and thats why there is no heat buildup on the moon, you can't have it both ways


Hmmmm
It has nothing to do with atmosphere or heat build up but with sunlight. The suns light reflecting from the surface of the moon would be much brighter then the light from the stars. When the moon is near or at full, you can just make out the brightest objects, the effect would be much stronger if you were on the moon itself.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:50 AM
I plan to peruse the clavia moon base site...

So when you dismissed it as a government disinformation site, that was evidently before you read it. Of what possible value is the opinion of someone who renders them in ignorance?

...just because you say its true, doesn't mean it is.

Have you applied that test to the conspiracy theorists?

The reality of the LRRR operations need not be attested to. It is a matter of objective record.

Since you clearly have not studied the Apollo record to a degree consistent with your claims, kindly withdraw your blusterous insults until you have educated yourself appropriately.


Just because I said I would check it out doesn't mean I'm going to believe everything they say as you obviously do.

I understand that nothing needs to be attested to. Hearsay is sufficient in this court.

Boy this is fun

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:53 AM
It has nothing to do with atmosphere or heat build up but with sunlight. The suns light reflecting from the surface of the moon would be much brighter then the light from the stars. When the moon is near or at full, you can just make out the brightest objects, the effect would be much stronger if you were on the moon itself.

So do your astronauts say that they could see stars? They say they couldn't see them, is that true?

Can you see stars from the surface of the moon in broad daylight?

Yes or No? Anyone?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:55 AM
I thought the hasselblads were 70 mm according to the manufacturer...

The strip of film is 70 millimeters wide, but the frame is only 65 millimeters wide (square). The rest of the room is occupied by sprocket holes.

..the film was ASA in those days not ISO

If you really were a photographer, as you claimed, you'd know that those terms are interchangeable and that ISO is the preferred usage today.

...and I was under the assumption that it was 64 not 160.

A variety of speeds were used. Most of the photographs conspiracists refer to were taken on ISO 160 Ektachrome (E-3) color film. Since those are the pictures allegedly missing stars in an anomalistic way, that is the film I wish you to discuss.

I didn't determine anything about exposure to expose the stars...

Then I submit you really don't know whether stars could be effectively photographed using that equipment.

I, on the other hand, have tried to use that equipment to photograph stars. Shutter speeds of 15-30 seconds are required, making it impractical to photograph stars with the Hasselblad cameras. That is why it was not attempted.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:57 AM
Well goodnight guys, thanks for the fun, sure beats the usual we're all on the same page stuff that I bet usally goes on here.

I'll be back for more education if thats ok. I'll check out the propoganda on that Clavia site, I'm sure that I'll have lots of questions for all you genius's

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:59 AM
Just because I said I would check it out doesn't mean I'm going to believe everything they say as you obviously do.

I am the author of the Clavius web site. Clearly I do believe it, and I do so reasonably because I have done the research to support it. Since you haven't done any research to dispute it, I find it suspicious that you're so willing to dismiss it.

I understand that nothing needs to be attested to. Hearsay is sufficient in this court.

Observable fact need not be attested in order to have evidentiary value. The evidence of the LRRRs is documentary and is thus relatively objective. Your attempts to poison the well reveal your inability to deal with evidence.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 03:59 AM
So do your astronauts say that they could see stars? They say they couldn't see them, is that true?

Can you see stars from the surface of the moon in broad daylight?

Yes or No? Anyone?

The only way you could see stars on the sunlit lunar surface would be to walk into shadow and avoid all direct or reflected sunlight for a period of time for your eyes to adjust. So, the general answer is "No."

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:02 AM
Can you see stars from the surface of the moon in broad daylight?

Changing horses. The question is whether they can be photographed. Again, if you really were a photographer you wouldn't confuse those concepts. Clearly you're willing to claim whatever expertise sounds right, whether you have it or not.

The Apollo 11 crew reported that they could not see stars from the lunar surface. The Apollo 14 crew reported that if they took pains to shield their eyes from sunlit objects and allowed time for their eyes to adjust, they could make out some stars. This latter claim is consistent with, e.g., observations from Earth orbit.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:02 AM
I thought the hasselblads were 70 mm according to the manufacturer...

The strip of film is 70 millimeters wide, but the frame is only 65 millimeters wide (square). The rest of the room is occupied by sprocket holes.

..the film was ASA in those days not ISO

If you really were a photographer, as you claimed, you'd know that those terms are interchangeable and that ISO is the preferred usage today.

...and I was under the assumption that it was 64 not 160.

A variety of speeds were used. Most of the photographs conspiracists refer to were taken on ISO 160 Ektachrome (E-3) color film. Since those are the pictures allegedly missing stars in an anomalistic way, that is the film I wish you to discuss.

I didn't determine anything about exposure to expose the stars...

Then I submit you really don't know whether stars could be effectively photographed using that equipment.

I, on the other hand, have tried to use that equipment to photograph stars. Shutter speeds of 15-30 seconds are required, making it impractical to photograph stars with the Hasselblad cameras. That is why it was not attempted.


Of course I know that ASA and ISO is same your majesty, boy how indignant we are.

You have been on the moon? Is that where you tried to photograph stars with this equipment?

The Hasselblad camera that I used could hold the shutter open indefinetely, would have been an easy retrofit to be able to do that with those clumsy gloves, if a film cartridge back could be changed, then I'm sure a button could be pushed or a ring turned to open the shutter for 30 seconds

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:06 AM
Just because I said I would check it out doesn't mean I'm going to believe everything they say as you obviously do.

I am the author of the Clavius web site. Clearly I do believe it, and I do so reasonably because I have done the research to support it. Since you haven't done any research to dispute it, I find it suspicious that you're so willing to dismiss it.

I understand that nothing needs to be attested to. Hearsay is sufficient in this court.

Observable fact need not be attested in order to have evidentiary value. The evidence of the LRRRs is documentary and is thus relatively objective. Your attempts to poison the well reveal your inability to deal with evidence.


Oh god, I should have know that I was talking to the pope, thats why everybody else has scurried under the pulpit.

Well I can see that no more objective conversation will be had here.

Good night your majesty, or should I say your worship.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:06 AM
I'll check out the propoganda on that Clavia site...

The fact that you keep misspelling it and that you're already sure it's "propaganda" before you've even read it does not bode well for your sincerity in reading it.

I'm sure that I'll have lots of questions for all you genius's

I hope you get a chance to ask them before a moderator decides your demeanor is inappropriate.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:10 AM
I'll check out the propoganda on that Clavia site...

The fact that you keep misspelling it and that you're already sure it's "propaganda" before you've even read it does not bode well for your sincerity in reading it.

I'm sure that I'll have lots of questions for all you genius's

I hope you get a chance to ask them before a moderator decides your demeanor is inappropriate.

Of course, banning me is the easiest way to ensure that no dissenting word is ever expressed in this forum.

I don't really care one way or another. I actually find you all very limited in your ability to accept any other ideas or assumptions. And I know that the hard questions will never be answered by you or you clavius propogenda. Did I spell that right?

Night your majesty

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:11 AM
Of course I know that ASA and ISO is same your majesty, boy how indignant we are.

You are the one who tried to draw the distinction, thinking you were pointing out an error.

Is that where you tried to photograph stars with this equipment?

No, in various places on Earth where astronomical photography is habitually done. Have you ever taken pictures of stars with that equipment? Yes or no.

...then I'm sure a button could be pushed or a ring turned to open the shutter for 30 seconds

Of what possible use would be handheld photographs of stars taken with such a long exposure? You asked why the astronauts didn't try to take pictures of the stars. I never said it was mechanically impossible; I said the photographs wouldn't be useful. Nothing you have said changes that.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:15 AM
I actually find you all very limited in your ability to accept any other ideas or assumptions.

No one is ever obliged to accept another's assumptions. As for ideas, the ones you have proposed are largely allegations of fact for which you have declined to offer proof. No one is obliged to accept an allegation of fact with no proof.

You seem desperate to believe we are closed-minded, but in fact we have studied these questions far more extensively than you. We have taken them at face value, put them to the test, and found them wanting. Your mindless repetition of them does not change that, unless you have something original you haven't yet said.

I know that the hard questions will never be answered by you or you clavius propogenda.

You haven't asked any hard questions. And in fact, you haven't been able to answer any that have been put to you. You have further demonstrated unawareness of some of the most basic elements of the Apollo record.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 04:15 AM
Of course I know that ASA and ISO is same your majesty, boy how indignant we are.

You have been on the moon? Is that where you tried to photograph stars with this equipment?

The Hasselblad camera that I used could hold the shutter open indefinetely, would have been an easy retrofit to be able to do that with those clumsy gloves, if a film cartridge back could be changed, then I'm sure a button could be pushed or a ring turned to open the shutter for 30 seconds

What would be the point?

As has been noted, there were UV photos taken from the moon, where the equipment was protected from direct and reflected sunlight. There are also pictures taken from the Apollo capsule. You either accept these are real or not. What you aren't going to see are photographs of sunlit lunar landscape and stars in the same image. Any attempt to photograph stars would massively overexpose the landscape.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:15 AM
Of course I know that ASA and ISO is same your majesty, boy how indignant we are.

You are the one who tried to draw the distinction, thinking you were pointing out an error.

Is that where you tried to photograph stars with this equipment?

No, in various places on Earth where astronomical photography is habitually done. Have you ever taken pictures of stars with that equipment? Yes or no.

...then I'm sure a button could be pushed or a ring turned to open the shutter for 30 seconds

Of what possible use would be handheld photographs of stars taken with such a long exposure? You asked why the astronauts didn't try to take pictures of the stars. I never said it was mechanically impossible; I said the photographs wouldn't be useful. Nothing you have said changes that.


Except that a picture of the stars, handheld leaning up against the lunar module for instance, would prove that the placement of those stars in the sky would give away that it wasn't taken on the moon.

And no, if you read back in your arrogant comments "did I spell that correctly?" You were the one that brought up the ISO vs ASA thing.

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 04:18 AM
Ah, the old searing radiation hell...what exactly are the radiation conditions of the VAB, and what are your sources for this data, JTree? How do you "konw" it's lethal in short exposures...or even really dangerous?
And what was the temperature inside the cameras case on the Moon, shifting from daylight to shadow very frequently, attached to the astronauts' chest?

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 04:20 AM
Except that a picture of the stars, handheld leaning up against the lunar module for instance, would prove that the placement of those stars in the sky would give away that it wasn't taken on the moon.


Wow. How much different would the star patterns be, 235,000 miles from our Earth viewpoint...parallax...again...

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 04:20 AM
Except that a picture of the stars, handheld leaning up against the lunar module for instance, would prove that the placement of those stars in the sky would give away that it wasn't taken on the moon.


How would it do that? The locations of the stars are identical as seen from the Moon or the Earth.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jul-22, 04:23 AM
I thought the hasselblads were 70 mm according to the manufacturer, the film was ASA in those days not ISO and I was under the assumption that it was 64 not 160. I may be wrong. I didn't determine anything about exposure to expose the stars, but correct me if I'm wrong, but the stars would be visible in a vacuum, even in broad daylight? Correct?
you were the one that mentioned ASA vs. ISO first.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:24 AM
Ah, the old searing radiation hell...what exactly are the radiation conditions of the VAB, and what are your sources for this data, JTree? How do you "konw" it's lethal in short exposures...or even really dangerous?
And what was the temperature inside the cameras case on the Moon, shifting from daylight to shadow very frequently, attached to the astronauts' chest?

All very good questions. I'm sure I'm wrong and all those thousands of perfectly exposed and framed pictures were just magically taken by a guy in a spacesuit that couldn't even see the camera. Boy I hope that he or they went on to start a photography business after the mission. Many of the Astronauts had to leave nasa because they couldn't stand lying when asked about the moon. Watch some of the video clips. Its so obvious.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:24 AM
Except that a picture of the stars, handheld leaning up against the lunar module for instance, would prove that the placement of those stars in the sky would give away that it wasn't taken on the moon.

Why would the placement of stars differ as seen from the lunar surface than from Earth orbit or the Earth's surface? You seem to believe that the reason no long-exposure photos of stars were taken from the lunar surface is because they couldn't get the stars right while faking those pictures. That's an entirely circular argument for motive.

If, hypothetically, the Apollo astronauts really did go to the Moon, why would they take such a shot? If, hypothetically, the Apollo missions were real, why isn't the absence of such photography more easily explained by there not being any point to attempting it?

You were the one that brought up the ISO vs ASA thing.

Explain exactly what you meant in post #48 where you said, "...the film was ASA in those days not ISO."

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:29 AM
I'm sure I'm wrong and all those thousands of perfectly exposed and framed pictures...

There are many photographs in the Apollo record that are patently not well taken.

...were just magically taken by a guy in a spacesuit that couldn't even see the camera.

I had no problem using those cameras without a viewfinder. And I didn't even get to practice first.

Many of the Astronauts had to leave nasa because they couldn't stand lying when asked about the moon.

What is your evidence that this is the reason why they left NASA?

Watch some of the video clips. Its so obvious.

No, it's your highly-biased interpretation of those clips. You don't seem to distinguish belief from fact. If it were obvious, the clips would show astronauts saying, "I left NASA because I couldn't stand lying when asked about the Moon." That would be obvious. Instead it's just your armchair psychology trying to tack your wishes as motives onto behavior you question-beg to be improper.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jul-22, 04:30 AM
All very good questions. I'm sure I'm wrong and all those thousands of perfectly exposed and framed pictures were just magically taken by a guy in a spacesuit that couldn't even see the camera. Boy I hope that he or they went on to start a photography business after the mission. Many of the Astronauts had to leave nasa because they couldn't stand lying when asked about the moon. Watch some of the video clips. Its so obvious.
Well many photographs were not publishe because of poor quality, any proof the astronauts left because the got tired of telling lies, go up up to Buzz Aldrin and ask to swaer on a bible it was lies. Oh that was ready done.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:30 AM
Except that a picture of the stars, handheld leaning up against the lunar module for instance, would prove that the placement of those stars in the sky would give away that it wasn't taken on the moon.

Why would the placement of stars differ as seen from the lunar surface than from Earth orbit or the Earth's surface? You seem to believe that the reason no long-exposure photos of stars were taken from the lunar surface is because they couldn't get the stars right while faking those pictures. That's an entirely circular argument for motive.

If, hypothetically, the Apollo astronauts really did go to the Moon, why would they take such a shot? If, hypothetically, the Apollo missions were real, why isn't the absence of such photography more easily explained by there not being any point to attempting it?

You were the one that brought up the ISO vs ASA thing.

Explain exactly what you meant in post #48 where you said, "...the film was ASA in those days not ISO."

Your right as usual, but like I just said to another member, how did all those perfectly exposed and framed pictures come from the moon, if you calculate how many pictures were taken versus the actual time on the surface, there is no way that those guys could have had time to take all those perfect pictures. Remember that the Hasselblad had no autoexposure metering. The exposures had to be calculated in the heads of the astronauts. However they estimated those I don't know, seeing as it was an Alien landscape and no one had ever attempted to do that before. And I don't recall a Light Meter being mentioned in the Apollo 11 mission or any other for that matter.


Hmmmmmm

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 04:33 AM
Just because I said I would check it out doesn't mean I'm going to believe everything they say as you obviously do.

I understand that nothing needs to be attested to. Hearsay is sufficient in this court.

Boy this is fun

Everything that you have claimed is based on misunderstanding or ignorance of basic science that is readily available and easily obtained by any diligent researcher. The "proofs" you bring up have all been thoroughly debunked by many and various experts, the vast majority of whom are not connected with NASA or the government. That you totally don't get the reasons that stars are not visible in almost all of the moon photos makes me hope that photography is not your sole source of income, lest you go hungry.

All you bring up is either already debunked drivel or is unsubstantiated hearsay. Who is trying to have it both ways?

tbm

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 04:33 AM
All very good questions.


Great! So when are you going to start answering?



I'm sure I'm wrong and all those thousands of perfectly exposed and framed pictures were just magically taken by a guy in a spacesuit that couldn't even see the camera.


There were plenty of cruddy pictures along with the better ones. I'm sure someone will provide a link to some examples, but I can't see a reason to bother.

Grashtel
2007-Jul-22, 04:33 AM
Of course I know that ASA and ISO is same your majesty, boy how indignant we are.
Then why did you try to correct him by saying that it was rated in ASA instead of ISO when you knew they were identical?

You have been on the moon? Is that where you tried to photograph stars with this equipment?
Does it matter? How much difference does the atmosphere make to photographing stars?

The Hasselblad camera that I used could hold the shutter open indefinetely, would have been an easy retrofit to be able to do that with those clumsy gloves, if a film cartridge back could be changed, then I'm sure a button could be pushed or a ring turned to open the shutter for 30 seconds
If you were really a photographer you would know that taking exposures of that length would require a tripod, its not physically possible to hold the camera still enough to not leave the photo badly blurred for exposures longer than about 1/60 of a second.

Also what is so significant about photos of the stars from the Moon? They will be identical in any measurable fashion to ones taken from Earth or LEO, its only 384,403km from Earth, far too little to produce detectable parallax in stars.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:33 AM
Well many photographs were not publishe because of poor quality, any proof the astronauts left because the got tired of telling lies, go up up to Buzz Aldrin and ask to swaer on a bible it was lies. Oh that was ready done.

If many pictures were not publised, then how did they have time to do anything but take pictures?

Just the picture evidence alone debunks the whole hoax

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:39 AM
if you calculate how many pictures were taken versus the actual time on the surface, there is no way that those guys could have had time to take all those perfect pictures.

So you compute the average interval between photographs and conclude that it represents the actual photography schedule? Pretty silly. Don't you know what an average means?

So far you're just running down the list of stale conspiracy arguments. Have you done any original thinking on this problem?

Remember that the Hasselblad had no autoexposure metering.

Neither did my first camera. You youngsters and your dependence on technology!

The exposures had to be calculated in the heads of the astronauts.

No, they were given on a label on the magazine for each lighting condition. Shutter speed was kept at 1/250 and f-stops varied from f/5.6 to f/11.

However they estimated those I don't know, seeing as it was an Alien landscape...

...lit by the same sun that lights Earth and under whose light people have been manually-exposing photographs for years. Is there some reason why "sunny 16" stopped working?

...and no one had ever attempted to do that before.

Except on all those Gemini missions.

Why do you think it was so hard to figure out photographic exposure?

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 04:40 AM
I remember seeing somewhere in this forum or a similar one where somebody figured out that there was PLENTY of time and opportunity to take all the pictures in question, with time to spare.

tbm

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:41 AM
Then why did you try to correct him by saying that it was rated in ASA instead of ISO when you knew they were identical?

Does it matter? How much difference does the atmosphere make to photographing stars?

If you were really a photographer you would know that taking exposures of that length would require a tripod, its not physically possible to hold the camera still enough to not leave the photo badly blurred for exposures longer than about 1/60 of a second.

Also what is so significant about photos of the stars from the Moon? They will be identical in any measurable fashion to ones taken from Earth, its only 384,403km from Earth, far too little to produce detectable parallax in stars.


In the 70's the terminology for film speed was expressed in ASA, he quoted ISO, I was just nitpicking as he was to me.

I am well aware of the inability of taking a long exposure hand held, but I was making a point. I know that you must try to tear apart the conspiracy theorist, thats how its done. Interesting how in the good ole USA, anyone that doesn't tow the mainstream propogenda fed to us by the powers that be becomes a conspiracy theorist. Even his highness referred to me as one. Laughable

So what is the temperature on the surface of the moon at 3:00 in the afternoon, I believe that that would have been the time the photos were taken, oh my, lets see, ah yes, the pictures would all have to be taken in a short time during which the temperature would be suitable. Ok I get it, hmmm I wonder how they shot all those perfect pictures in such a short time.

Oh I'm making assumptions again, with no proof, and I'm talking to people that can't think for themselves, damn it sorry about that.

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 04:42 AM
[b]........................

Why do you think it was so hard to figure out photographic exposure?

C'mon, Jay, the guy is an expert at photography. And radiation. And.......

tbm

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 04:44 AM
..........Oh I'm making assumptions again, with no proof, and I'm talking to people that can't think for themselves, damn it sorry about that.

You'll have to cut us some slack, J, the chemtrails have been affecting us lately.

tbm

Grashtel
2007-Jul-22, 04:45 AM
A note and apology, I had deleted the post that this one was in reply to, I hadn't seen the third page and had assumed that as it wasn't up long enough to be replied to, I will contact a mod to try and get it reinstated.


In the 70's the terminology for film speed was expressed in ASA, he quoted ISO, I was just nitpicking as he was to me.

I am well aware of the inability of taking a long exposure hand held, but I was making a point. I know that you must try to tear apart the conspiracy theorist, thats how its done. Interesting how in the good ole USA, anyone that doesn't tow the mainstream propogenda fed to us by the powers that be becomes a conspiracy theorist. Even his highness referred to me as one. Laughable

So what is the temperature on the surface of the moon at 3:00 in the afternoon, I believe that that would have been the time the photos were taken, oh my, lets see, ah yes, the pictures would all have to be taken in a short time during which the temperature would be suitable. Ok I get it, hmmm I wonder how they shot all those perfect pictures in such a short time.

Oh I'm making assumptions again, with no proof, and I'm talking to people that can't think for themselves, damn it sorry about that.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:46 AM
if you calculate how many pictures were taken versus the actual time on the surface, there is no way that those guys could have had time to take all those perfect pictures.

So you compute the average interval between photographs and conclude that it represents the actual photography schedule? Pretty silly. Don't you know what an average means?

So far you're just running down the list of stale conspiracy arguments. Have you done any original thinking on this problem?

Remember that the Hasselblad had no autoexposure metering.

Neither did my first camera. You youngsters and your dependence on technology!

The exposures had to be calculated in the heads of the astronauts.

No, they were given on a label on the magazine for each lighting condition. Shutter speed was kept at 1/250 and f-stops varied from f/5.6 to f/11.

However they estimated those I don't know, seeing as it was an Alien landscape...

...lit by the same sun that lights Earth and under whose light people have been manually-exposing photographs for years. Is there some reason why "sunny 16" stopped working?

...and no one had ever attempted to do that before.

Except on all those Gemini missions.

Why do you think it was so hard to figure out photographic exposure?

Oh what does average mean? Yes I was one of those non photographers that manually computed pictures on earth for years, then I bought a light meter in the mid sixties, then magically some of those smart japenese started building them into cameras in the late sixties. Wow that made things easy.

So how long do the astronauts have to take pictures in a day before the sun gets too hot or it gets too cold?

And how many perfect pictures were released to the public from the Apollo 11 mission? That should be on the top of your head.

I guess my age is showing

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:46 AM
If many pictures were not publised, then how did they have time to do anything but take pictures?

Roll 40 comprises approximately 180 photographs taken over a period of approximately 150 minutes. Yes, you can work out an "average" duration between shots, but that doesn't mean anything.

Let's simplify. Let's say I take 60 photographs in 30 minutes. That's an average of two photos per minute -- one every 30 seconds. If I had other stuff to do besides take pictures, you might indeed ask how I was able to get all that done.

But let's say I take 20 of those photographs in the first 20 seconds, do some stuff, take 20 other photographs in 20 seconds, do some stuff, and then take 20 photographs in another 20 seconds. So out of those 30 minutes I really spent only one minute taking pictures. I had 29 minutes to do other stuff.

Taking 60 pictures in 30 minutes does not mean taking one photograph regularly every half a minute. That's what Jack White doesn't understand.

Just the picture evidence alone debunks the whole hoax

Except that in the real world you don't decide inductive cases on one cherry-picked bellwether.

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 04:49 AM
If many pictures were not publised, then how did they have time to do anything but take pictures?

Roll 40 comprises approximately 180 photographs taken over a period of approximately 150 minutes. Yes, you can work out an "average" duration between shots, but that doesn't mean anything.

Let's simplify. Let's say I take 60 photographs in 30 minutes. That's an average of two photos per minute -- one every 30 seconds. If I had other stuff to do besides take pictures, you might indeed ask how I was able to get all that done.

But let's say I take 20 of those photographs in the first 20 seconds, do some stuff, take 20 other photographs in 20 seconds, do some stuff, and then take 20 photographs in another 20 seconds. So out of those 30 minutes I really spent only one minute taking pictures. I had 29 minutes to do other stuff.

Taking 60 pictures in 30 minutes does not mean taking one photograph regularly every half a minute. That's what Jack White doesn't understand.

Just the picture evidence alone debunks the whole hoax

Except that in the real world you don't decide inductive cases on one cherry-picked bellwether.

Thanks, Jay, that's what I was thinking about.

tbm

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 04:49 AM
So what is the temperature on the surface of the moon at 3:00 in the afternoon, I believe that that would have been the time the photos were taken, oh my, lets see, ah yes, the pictures would all have to be taken in a short time during which the temperature would be suitable. Ok I get it, hmmm I wonder how they shot all those perfect pictures in such a short time.


3:00 in the afternoon where? And how is earth time measurement relevant to sunlight on the Moon? You aren't suggesting that the moon has a 24 hour rotation rate, are you?

Also, I ask again, do you understand heat transfer in a vacuum?



Oh I'm making assumptions again, with no proof,


Yes, you certainly are, and they are suggesting how little you understand about the subject.



and I'm talking to people that can't think for themselves, damn it sorry about that.

Funny how there's only one person here who hasn't been answering questions: You.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:50 AM
If many pictures were not publised, then how did they have time to do anything but take pictures?

Roll 40 comprises approximately 180 photographs taken over a period of approximately 150 minutes. Yes, you can work out an "average" duration between shots, but that doesn't mean anything.

Let's simplify. Let's say I take 60 photographs in 30 minutes. That's an average of two photos per minute -- one every 30 seconds. If I had other stuff to do besides take pictures, you might indeed ask how I was able to get all that done.

But let's say I take 20 of those photographs in the first 20 seconds, do some stuff, take 20 other photographs in 20 seconds, do some stuff, and then take 20 photographs in another 20 seconds. So out of those 30 minutes I really spent only one minute taking pictures. I had 29 minutes to do other stuff.

Taking 60 pictures in 30 minutes does not mean taking one photograph regularly every half a minute. That's what Jack White doesn't understand.

Just the picture evidence alone debunks the whole hoax

Except that in the real world you don't decide inductive cases on one cherry-picked bellwether.


Of course your right again, how silly of me to think that though I would not be able to do such a trick here on earth, that it couldn't be done with those nimble suits and gloves that were worn on the moon. And who needs to be able to see the camera one is using? Such frivolty to have that nicety thrown in. Us young kids just have it too easy now a days.

My apologies for even suggesting such drivel.

I knew you'd have the pat answer. Thanks.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:52 AM
Yes I was one of those non photographers that manually computed pictures on earth for years...

Then you agree it's not suspicious that the astronauts were able to set exposure plausibly without a light meter.

So how long do the astronauts have to take pictures in a day before the sun gets too hot or it gets too cold?

Since the camera bodies reflected away about 95% of the incoming solar illumination, that's not an issue. And since a lunar "day" is 29 Earth days long, I'm not sure what you mean.

And how many perfect pictures were released to the public from the Apollo 11 mission? That should be on the top of your head.

All the photos were released to the public very shortly after the missions, however that doesn't mean that various third-party publishers chose to mass-produce them. As for "perfect," I have no idea what your criteria for that are.

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 04:53 AM
when it comes to the Aulis time/photograph study, they seem to conveniently forget that there were 2 astronauts taking pictures (except on Apollo 11), not just 1...that alone doubles the allowable time for photography.
And you still think that the vast majority of photos were "excellent" quality. You need to study, and look at at least a lot of the pictures. You'll see the claim is just plain wrong.
They were on the Moon in the lunar morning, when the surface was well below it's maximum. But the surface tempertature has virtually no affect on film inside the camera in a vaccuum environment.

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 04:56 AM
......
And you still think that the vast majority of photos were "excellent" quality. You need to study, and look at at least a lot of the pictures. You'll see the claim is just plain wrong.


Perhaps he is thinking in comparison with his own photography prowess.

tbm

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 04:56 AM
So what is the temperature on the surface of the moon at 3:00 in the afternoon...

3:00 where?

...the pictures would all have to be taken in a short time during which the temperature would be suitable.

Temperature figures for the lunar surface are generally quoted only for the lunar surface itself. Why would that affect photography?

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:58 AM
Yes I was one of those non photographers that manually computed pictures on earth for years...

Then you agree it's not suspicious that the astronauts were able to set exposure plausibly without a light meter.

So how long do the astronauts have to take pictures in a day before the sun gets too hot or it gets too cold?

Since the camera bodies reflected away about 95% of the incoming solar illumination, that's not an issue. And since a lunar "day" is 29 Earth days long, I'm not sure what you mean.

And how many perfect pictures were released to the public from the Apollo 11 mission? That should be on the top of your head.

All the photos were released to the public very shortly after the missions, however that doesn't mean that various third-party publishers chose to mass-produce them. As for "perfect," I have no idea what your criteria for that are.


Ok mr. deflect all the questions and try to demean the conspiracy theorist, what was the temperature when the photos were taken in that 150 minutes?

Easy to release pictures shortly after a mission if they are already printed before the mission?

And how is it that those camera bodies didn't get hot? The manufacturer stated that they were just regular bodies. Are you saying that the surface was not hot?

I'm confused

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:00 AM
So what is the temperature on the surface of the moon at 3:00 in the afternoon...

3:00 where?

...the pictures would all have to be taken in a short time during which the temperature would be suitable.

Temperature figures for the lunar surface are generally quoted only for the lunar surface itself. Why would that affect photography?

Oh I see now, the temperature on the "surface" is different than it is 3 feet above it right?

So those spacesuits had to be pretty impressive technology to be able to do all that variable cooling and heating, correct?

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 05:01 AM
Ok mr. deflect all the questions and try to demean the conspiracy theorist, what was the temperature when the photos were taken in that 150 minutes?

Easy to release pictures shortly after a mission if they are already printed before the mission?

And how is it that those camera bodies didn't get hot? The manufacturer stated that they were just regular bodies. Are you saying that the surface was not hot?

I'm confused

The surface of the moon being "hot" has no significant bearing on the temperature of the camera. There is no air or other medium to transfer heat from the moon's surface to the camera.

tom

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:01 AM
...that it couldn't be done with those nimble suits and gloves that were worn on the moon.

I didn't seem to have any trouble.

My apologies for even suggesting such drivel.

As long as we both agree it's drivel. Unlike you, I've actually tried (and succeeded) to do the things you say were impossible and would have impeded photography to the point of making it suspicious.

I knew you'd have the pat answer. Thanks.

Pat questions tend to have pat answers. Missing viewfinders and cumbersome gloves are allegations you simply read from David Percy's web site and apparently didn't question. I read them too, wondered if they might be true, and set about testing them. Because I exercised original thought, I know something you don't and David Percy doesn't. And yes, that makes my opinion better support than yours.

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 05:02 AM
Oh I see now, the temperature on the "surface" is different than it is 3 feet above it right?

So those spacesuits had to be pretty impressive technology to be able to do all that variable cooling and heating, correct?

Oh, bother!!

SCIENCE 101!!!!!

tbm

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:03 AM
Perhaps he is thinking in comparison with his own photography prowess.

tbm

Well, this one is very witty, you don't like people that have different oppinions than yourself?

Does that mean that you have dislikes for other characteristics as well?

Or is it just an attack to back up his Majesty who has been doing the same since he arrived on the scene?

Very witty indeed

Ah yes the reference at the bottom of your post to farts says it all

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 05:04 AM
Oh I see now, the temperature on the "surface" is different than it is 3 feet above it right?


The temperature of what 3 feet above the surface?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:04 AM
Oh I see now, the temperature on the "surface" is different than it is 3 feet above it right?

Yes. Because 3 feet above the surface there's nothing to have a temperature. Clearly you know very little about heat transfer, and that would be an important thing to understand before you made wild handwaving claims about what would get too hot and what would get too cold.

So those spacesuits had to be pretty impressive technology to be able to do all that variable cooling and heating, correct?

No, just the ordinary technology. It's well known to engineers. I'm sorry you don't seem to know about it.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:06 AM
Oh, bother!!

SCIENCE 101!!!!!

tbm

Really? So give me an answer mr. science 101. What was the surface temperature when they were supposedly walking on the moon? And what was it at camera level?

Should be a walk in the park with your scientific prowess

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 05:07 AM
Well, this one is very witty, you don't like people that have different oppinions than yourself?

Does that mean that you have dislikes for other characteristics as well?

Or is it just an attack to back up his Majesty who has been doing the same since he arrived on the scene?

Very witty indeed

Nah, I'm just a little goofy 'cause I tired. Plus, I'm not in a mood to try to explain basic science to somebody who doesn't understand it and has no desire to learn it.

BTW, Jay (his Majesty) doesn't wear his poufy wig in public on Tuesdays.

tbm

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 05:08 AM
Really? So give me an answer mr. science 101. What was the surface temperature when they were supposedly walking on the moon? And what was it at camera level?

Should be a walk in the park with your scientific prowess

Have you ever put cold or hot liquid in a thermos? EVer wonder why they stay that way for a long time?

tbm

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:11 AM
Oh I see now, the temperature on the "surface" is different than it is 3 feet above it right?

Yes. Because 3 feet above the surface there's nothing to have a temperature. Clearly you know very little about heat transfer, and that would be an important thing to understand before you made wild handwaving claims about what would get too hot and what would get too cold.

So those spacesuits had to be pretty impressive technology to be able to do all that variable cooling and heating, correct?

No, just the ordinary technology. It's well known to engineers. I'm sorry you don't seem to know about it.

Duck and Dive, seems to be all you scientists and engineers know about here.

This is obviously not going to garner me any real knowledge, just attacks and diversion, kinda like your heroes at nasa act wouldn't you say?

Such a pile of drivel, not one of you geniuses has a clue how to answer any questions. Its all about towing the party line and putting up a fancy website proclaiming that we know it all. What a waste of time.

Thanks for the reasurrance that I was correct about my conspiracy theory, lol

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:13 AM
Nah, I'm just a little goofy 'cause I tired. Plus, I'm not in a mood to try to explain basic science to somebody who doesn't understand it and has no desire to learn it.

BTW, Jay (his Majesty) doesn't wear his poufy wig in public on Tuesdays.

tbm

Another cop out, if its so basic, then it should be on the tip of your tongue.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:13 AM
...what was the temperature when the photos were taken in that 150 minutes?

The temperature of what?

Easy to release pictures shortly after a mission if they are already printed before the mission?

I suppose it would be too much to ask for proof that they were printed before the mission.

And how is it that those camera bodies didn't get hot?

Because they underwent extensive thermal design and testing. An object heated mostly by radiant heat transfer controls its temperature by controlling how much light it absorbs at various wavelengths and how readily it can emit to its surroundings.

The manufacturer stated that they were just regular bodies.

No, they were not, nor does the manufacturer claim that. They were coated with a thermal coating, very similar to the one applied to Thermos bottles. That coating has emissive and absorptive properties that help regulate the heat absorption and re-emission.

Are you saying that the surface was not hot?

No. I'm saying that the temperature of the lunar surface has nothing to do with the temperature of the film in the camera or the temperature of the camera body.

Further, the film base was Estar made from polyesther. What is the melting point of polyesther?

I'm confused

Clearly. And therefore in such a condition it is unwise of you to insult those who are trying to educate you.

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 05:14 AM
Duck and Dive, seems to be all you scientists and engineers know about here.

This is obviously not going to garner me any real knowledge, just attacks and diversion, kinda like your heroes at nasa act wouldn't you say?

Such a pile of drivel, not one of you geniuses has a clue how to answer any questions. Its all about towing the party line and putting up a fancy website proclaiming that we know it all. What a waste of time.

Thanks for the reasurrance that I was correct about my conspiracy theory, lol

Since when is answering you question as plainly as possible "Duck and Dive"?

The temp of the moon's surface is irrelevent because there is no air to transfer the surface's heat to the camera. Got it?

tbm

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:16 AM
...what was the temperature when the photos were taken in that 150 minutes?

The temperature of what?

Easy to release pictures shortly after a mission if they are already printed before the mission?

I suppose it would be too much to ask for proof that they were printed before the mission.

And how is it that those camera bodies didn't get hot?

Because they underwent extensive thermal design and testing. An object heated mostly by radiant heat transfer controls its temperature by controlling how much light it absorbs at various wavelengths and how readily it can emit to its surroundings.

The manufacturer stated that they were just regular bodies.

No, they were not, nor does the manufacturer claim that. They were coated with a thermal coating, very similar to the one applied to Thermos bottles. That coating has emissive and absorptive properties that help regulate the heat absorption and re-emission.

Are you saying that the surface was not hot?

No. I'm saying that the temperature of the lunar surface has nothing to do with the temperature of the film in the camera or the temperature of the camera body.

Further, the film base was Estar made from polyesther. What is the melting point of polyesther?

I'm confused

Clearly. And therefore in such a condition it is unwise of you to insult those who are trying to educate you.

This is getting tedious, its obvious you know nothing except a few irrelevant tidbits about crap that doesn't matter. My theory stands firm. Your conspiracy theory is so full of holes.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:17 AM
What was the surface temperature when they were supposedly walking on the moon?

For Apollo 11, an average of 35 F. Obviously some parts will have been hotter and some colder.

And what was it at camera level?

At camera level there is nothing to take the temperature of. You seem confused by our custom of measuring air temperature on Earth. So if we say "It's 75 F in Los Angeles," it's understood to mean the temperature of the air at some point close to the ground (say, 3 feet) in some area of Los Angeles.

There is no such thing as air temperature on the Moon, so please explain exactly what we're taking the temperature of at 3 feet above the moon.

Should be a walk in the park with your scientific prowess

No, because you keep asking stupid questions based on wrong premises.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:18 AM
Since when is answering you question as plainly as possible "Duck and Dive"?

The temp of the moon's surface is irrelevent because there is no air to transfer the surface's heat to the camera. Got it?

tbm

So I can only assume that you have no idea what the "estimated" temperature was inside the camera at the film. Is that easy enough to understand?

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 05:19 AM
On the beach here on Earth, the sand can get blistering hot, yet single use film cameras operate just fine. This, with the hot sand heating the air above it, around the camera.
So why should photography on the Moon, with no air to heat and surround the camera, be impossible?

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 05:20 AM
This is getting tedious, its obvious you know nothing except a few irrelevant tidbits about crap that doesn't matter. My theory stands firm. Your conspiracy theory is so full of holes.

Actually, your arguments against the facts of the moon landings are full of holes.

tbm

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:21 AM
What was the surface temperature when they were supposedly walking on the moon?

For Apollo 11, an average of 35 F. Obviously some parts will have been hotter and some colder.

And what was it at camera level?

At camera level there is nothing to take the temperature of. You seem confused by our custom of measuring air temperature on Earth. So if we say "It's 75 F in Los Angeles," it's understood to mean the temperature of the air at some point close to the ground (say, 3 feet) in some area of Los Angeles.

There is no such thing as air temperature on the Moon, so please explain exactly what we're taking the temperature of at 3 feet above the moon.

Should be a walk in the park with your scientific prowess

No, because you keep asking stupid questions based on wrong premises.


So let me try and pry some real info out of you, was the temperature on the sun side of an object, say a space suit or a camera, the same as it was on the dark side? And if not, what was the difference in temperature between dark side and light side?

Lets see how you can dodge that one, I know you'll figure something out

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 05:21 AM
What was the surface temperature when they were supposedly walking on the moon?


My recollection (but I could be wrong,) is that the average sunlit regolith temperature was around 120F. (Edit: Looks like I was wrong on this one.)



And what was it at camera level?


Again, the temperature of what at camera level? There IS NO ATMOSPHERE on the moon.

The temperature of individual objects in a vacuum would depend on whether they were in sunlight, the properties of the object (for instance, how reflective it is) and whether it is contact with other objects (for instance, an astronaut holding a camera).

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:23 AM
This is getting tedious...

Agreed. You're simply parrotting the same claims that have been around for 30 years and laughed at by anyone who really understands the science.

...its obvious you know nothing except a few irrelevant tidbits about crap that doesn't matter.

Amusing, isn't it, that the "irrelevant tidbits" that "don't matter" just happen to be the basics of heat transfer, photography, thermal design, astronomy, physics, and history that go straight to the heart of the reasons you're giving why Apollo was allegedly fake. And even more amusing that you can't go beyond what your conspiracy theory web sites have spoon-fed you. As soon as one question is answered, you swerve off to a completely different subject rather than continue the discussion.

You can delude yourself all you want into thinking you have some greater truth, but the rest of us know this science because it's basic science that applies to many endeavors and many of us use them on a daily basis.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:29 AM
So I can only assume that you have no idea what the "estimated" temperature was inside the camera at the film.

That would be a bad assumption. If I recall the results of the thermal testing, the temperature of the film was expected to vary between a few degrees F and 80 F or so, depending on the particulars of solar exposure.

Your mistake is in assuming that the temperature of the lunar surface has anything to do with the temperature of the film.

tbm
2007-Jul-22, 05:30 AM
I'm thinking maybe that Joshua is really Phil testing us to see if we have our thinking caps on and how patient we really are.

tbm

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:32 AM
This is getting tedious...

Agreed. You're simply parrotting the same claims that have been around for 30 years and laughed at by anyone who really understands the science.

...its obvious you know nothing except a few irrelevant tidbits about crap that doesn't matter.

Amusing, isn't it, that the "irrelevant tidbits" that "don't matter" just happen to be the basics of , and history that go straight to the heart of the reasons you're giving why Apollo was allegedly fake. And even more amusing that you can't go beyond what your conspiracy theory web sites have spoon-fed you. As soon as one question is answered, you swerve off to a completely different subject rather than continue the discussion.

You can delude yourself all you want into thinking you have some greater truth, but the rest of us know this science because it's basic science that applies to many endeavors and many of us use them on a daily basis.


We can talk when you go back to the moon, this time it won't be so easy to fake it, why don't you think that you've never gone back? Too hard a question?

Too expensive? Money doesn't seem to be any object. Oh I remember, you don't have the technology Mr. heat transfer, photography, thermal design, astronomy, physics know it all.

No you can't go back, because you destroyed all the technology you had 40 years ago and can't figure out how now.

Or is it just because us sheeple are going to be harder to fool???

Thanks for the uniformative interaction.

You guys are a real crew. LOL

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 05:33 AM
I'm thinking maybe that Joshua is really Phil testing us to see if we have our thinking caps on and how patient we really are.

tbm

I think this is evidence for my one CT theory, either that or CT clones. (There's a good name for a movie: Attack of the CT Clones).

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:34 AM
So I can only assume that you have no idea what the "estimated" temperature was inside the camera at the film.

That would be a bad assumption. If I recall the results of the thermal testing, the temperature of the film was expected to vary between a few degrees F and 80 F or so, depending on the particulars of solar exposure.

Your mistake is in assuming that the temperature of the lunar surface has anything to do with the temperature of the film.

How convenient

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:35 AM
So let me try and pry some real info out of you, was the temperature on the sun side of an object, say a space suit or a camera, the same as it was on the dark side?

Which is it? That's not a simple question. Most real science questions aren't.

In general an object subjected to unidirectional radiant heat loading with a perfect radiant heat sink on all other views will exhibit a temperature gradient at equilibrium. However, the exact magnitude of the gradient and the exact temperatures on either side of it will vary according to the incident light at certain wavelengths and the properties (size, shape, and optical nature) of the object.

In particular cameras and space suits don't show a gradient because they don't present one aspect to the heat source for long enough to come to equilibrium. The astronauts are constantly moving (and the cameras with them) and changing which side faces the sun. No object in practice is isothermal.

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 05:36 AM
The temperature of an object on the Moon...a camera...a spacesuit. These objects were designed with reflective properties, and they didn't get that hot. Add to this the fact that objects were moving around, so the camera went from absorbing some radiated solar heat in sunlight to radiating that heat away when the astronaut turned and put the camera in shadow. Same with parts of the suit. Simple foil coverings effectively protected objects that would spend extended time in sunlight. But everything had a shadow side, which constantly radiates heat away while the sunny side absorbs small amounts.
The main heat the suits had to deal with was the body heat generated by the astronauts' exertion on the Moon, the white suits effectively reflected most of the sun's heat energy.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:36 AM
How convenient

What temperature do you say the film should have reached, and by what means did you arrive at that figure?

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:37 AM
So I can only assume that you have no idea what the "estimated" temperature was inside the camera at the film.

That would be a bad assumption. If I recall the results of the thermal testing, the temperature of the film was expected to vary between a few degrees F and 80 F or so, depending on the particulars of solar exposure.

Your mistake is in assuming that the temperature of the lunar surface has anything to do with the temperature of the film.

So its a nice balm california afternoon on the moon and I'm still wondering if that applies to both the dark and light side of the spacesuit and camera?

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 05:39 AM
How convenient

No, that is internal camera temperature they designed for.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jul-22, 05:40 AM
I'm thinking maybe that Joshua is really Phil testing us to see if we have our thinking caps on and how patient we really are.

tbm
well he would be banned for being a sock puppet.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:42 AM
The temperature of an object on the Moon...a camera...a spacesuit. These objects were designed with reflective properties, and they didn't get that hot. Add to this the fact that objects were moving around, so the camera went from absorbing some radiated solar heat in sunlight to radiating that heat away when the astronaut turned and put the camera in shadow. Same with parts of the suit. Simple foil coverings effectively protected objects that would spend extended time in sunlight. But everything had a shadow side, which constantly radiates heat away while the sunny side absorbs small amounts.
The main heat the suits had to deal with was the body heat generated by the astronauts' exertion on the Moon, the white suits effectively reflected most of the sun's heat energy.

So what happened at night? When it gets down to minus 150 degrees celcius?

Musashi
2007-Jul-22, 05:43 AM
Joshua, do you know how long a lunar day is?

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:45 AM
The temperature of an object on the Moon...a camera...a spacesuit. These objects were designed with reflective properties, and they didn't get that hot. Add to this the fact that objects were moving around, so the camera went from absorbing some radiated solar heat in sunlight to radiating that heat away when the astronaut turned and put the camera in shadow. Same with parts of the suit. Simple foil coverings effectively protected objects that would spend extended time in sunlight. But everything had a shadow side, which constantly radiates heat away while the sunny side absorbs small amounts.
The main heat the suits had to deal with was the body heat generated by the astronauts' exertion on the Moon, the white suits effectively reflected most of the sun's heat energy.

As his lordship will attest, photographic film will crack when exposed to minus 150 degrees celcius, how did they get around that one? You telling me that the LEM was heated?

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 05:45 AM
So what happened at night? When it gets down to minus 150 degrees celcius?

They were never there at lunar night.

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 05:45 AM
They were not on the Moon during lunar night, their activities were confined to the lunar early to mid mornings...remember, the lunar day is 14 Earth days long, followed by an equally long lunar night.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:46 AM
We can talk when you go back to the moon...

That project is in progress.

...why don't you think that you've never gone back? Too hard a question?

Not at all. No private enterprise has yet deemed it cost-worthy, as considered by their shareholders. And the two previous public proposals to return to the Moon failed to receive funding. G.W. Bush's initiative is the third since Apollo, and the only one to have been funded.

Money doesn't seem to be any object.

It does if the taxpayers do not vote to spend money on new Moon missions. NASA cannot simply create its budget out of nothing, nor can it spend money on projects that have not been approved for it by Congress. Perhaps you should aquaint yourself with the U.S. federal budgetary process.

No you can't go back, because you destroyed all the technology you had 40 years ago and can't figure out how now.

Hogwash. "Having the technology" can mean many things. The fact that it takes Boeing several years to develop an airliner design to flight status does not mean they "don't have the technology" for commercial flight. It means aerospace takes time.

Of course when we go back to the Moon we won't simply be duplicating the Apollo missions. So we'll have to do many new things and develop new technologies (largely in terms of consumables and durability), building on the basic principles from Apollo. The new CEV already builds upon the aerodynamics of the Apollo CM. The lunar lander builds upon Grumman's work with the original lander, using updated structures, materials, and propulsion.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 05:46 AM
Joshua, do you know how long a lunar day is?

I asked a similar question, and have yet to receive an answer. I'd certainly appreciate one.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:48 AM
So what happened at night?

They weren't on the lunar surface during lunar night.

When it gets down to minus 150 degrees celcius?

When what gets down to -150 C?

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:52 AM
We can talk when you go back to the moon...

That project is in progress.

...why don't you think that you've never gone back? Too hard a question?

Not at all. No private enterprise has yet deemed it cost-worthy, as considered by their shareholders. And the two previous public proposals to return to the Moon failed to receive funding. G.W. Bush's initiative is the third since Apollo, and the only one to have been funded.

Money doesn't seem to be any object.

It does if the taxpayers do not vote to spend money on new Moon missions. NASA cannot simply create its budget out of nothing, nor can it spend money on projects that have not been approved for it by Congress. Perhaps you should aquaint yourself with the U.S. federal budgetary process.

No you can't go back, because you destroyed all the technology you had 40 years ago and can't figure out how now.

Hogwash. "Having the technology" can mean many things. The fact that it takes Boeing several years to develop an airliner design to flight status does not mean they "don't have the technology" for commercial flight. It means aerospace takes time.

Of course when we go back to the Moon we won't simply be duplicating the Apollo missions. So we'll have to do many new things and develop new technologies (largely in terms of consumables and durability), building on the basic principles from Apollo. The new CEV already builds upon the aerodynamics of the Apollo CM. The lunar lander builds upon Grumman's work with the original lander, using updated structures, materials, and propulsion.




Why wasn't the LEM ever successfully tested on earth and allowed to be used on the moon? Wasn't that a risk for the astronauts?
Didn't the missions last longer than one day?
How did they cope with the minus 150 degree celcius temperatures?
Was the LEM presurrized?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:52 AM
As his lordship will attest...

Patronizing is not necessary.

...photographic film will crack when exposed to minus 150 degrees celcius

Some will. Estar is polyesther. Although available as a base for many common Kodak stocks today, it was not widely employed in 1969. It was developed for Project Corona, specifically to survive the space environment.

So why didn't the Russians' film crack or melt?

...how did they get around that one?

By not letting the film get cold enough to crack or hot enough to melt. This was accomplished by thermal design of the camera bodies, paying special attention to surface optical characteristics and minimizing conduction paths within the mechanisms.

You telling me that the LEM was heated?

As a matter of fact it could be, by using waste heat from the electronics. But since that has nothing to do with lunar night or film temperatures, it's irrelevant.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:53 AM
So what happened at night?

They weren't on the lunar surface during lunar night.

When it gets down to minus 150 degrees celcius?

When what gets down to -150 C?

So there is no temperature on the moon?

Well I'll be damned

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 05:56 AM
Didn't the missions last longer than one day?


Joshua, I'm getting tired of answering questions when you don't seem to be reading them, and you won't answer questions yourself. I'm sure other people here are growing tired of this as well.

Please look at the preceding posts. What is the length of the lunar day? How many hours do you think the astronauts were on the lunar surface? Compare for yourself.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 05:57 AM
As his lordship will attest...

Patronizing is not necessary.

...photographic film will crack when exposed to minus 150 degrees celcius

Some will. Estar is polyesther. Although available as a base for many common Kodak stocks today, it was not widely employed in 1969. It was developed for Project Corona, specifically to survive the space environment.

So why didn't the Russians' film crack or melt?

...how did they get around that one?

By not letting the film get cold enough to crack or hot enough to melt. This was accomplished by thermal design of the camera bodies, paying special attention to surface optical characteristics and minimizing conduction paths within the mechanisms.

You telling me that the LEM was heated?

As a matter of fact it could be, by using waste heat from the electronics. But since that has nothing to do with lunar night or film temperatures, it's irrelevant.

According to Kodak, the film used was standard film you bought on earth. But if its 80 degrees fahrenheit, its a non issue.

The camera bodies were not modified to any degree according to the technicians at hasselblad

Ok I've run in circles long enough, I'm gonna go watch the new Apollo 11 missions dvd I just bought.

I'm sure I'll have lots more questions if I don't get Banned.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:57 AM
Why wasn't the LEM ever successfully tested on earth and allowed to be used on the moon?

Because it wasn't intended for the Earth environment. Any test done on Earth would be irrelevant. That's like asking why I didn't test my canoe by dragging it through the desert.

Wasn't that a risk for the astronauts?

Flying any new design is risky, whether in air or in space. The astronauts were test pilots and accustomed to flying new designs.

If you mean to imply that the LM was insufficiently tested for its mission, that's a matter of expert judgment. In my professional opinion, the LM was adequately tested.

Didn't the missions last longer than one day?

Longer than one Earth day. Days on the lunar surface are not Earth days. This is basic astronomy, and frankly you are demonstrating colossal ignorance at this point.

Was the LEM presurrized?

Yes, except when the astronauts were outside on the lunar surface; it was left unpressurized during the moon walks.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 05:59 AM
So there is no temperature on the moon?

When you say "it" is -150 C on the Moon, you have to be specific about exactly what is that temperature. The surface itself? The spaceship? The camera?

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 06:06 AM
Ok I've run in circles long enough, I'm gonna go watch the new Apollo 11 missions dvd I just bought.


Circles? You've asked many questions, and received many answers.



I'm sure I'll have lots more questions if I don't get Banned.

When you come back, there are a number of questions waiting for you. If you continue to ignore them, I will ask a moderator to review your activity. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 06:16 AM
According to Kodak, the film used was standard film you bought on earth.

No. The emulsion was standard Ektachrome emulsion using the E-3 process. The base was Estar, a then-secret material for film bases but now commonly available. You say you are photographer yet you don't understand the difference between emulsion and base.

The camera bodies were not modified to any degree according to the technicians at hasselblad

Totally false. I have personally verified this with Hasselblad representatives, personally inspected at length an Apollo camera built by Hasselblad to note the Apollo modifications, and have read many times the brochure Hasselblad publishes detailing the changes they made to the 500/EL Data model for use on the lunar surface.

You're simply secondhand-quoting David Percy's cherry-picked interview of Jan Lundberg -- one Hasselblad worker. Explain why Jan Lundberg, who says he headed up the Apollo Hasselblad project, would even need to have a job if the Apollo cameras were simply stock cameras? If no changes were necessary, NASA could simply have gone down to the Houston Hasselblad dealer and picked up 20 or so cameras. They wouldn't need a project engineer.

Apollo cameras have no viewfinders. You were adamant that this was a serious handicap. So if there were no modifications to the 500/EL Data for Apollo, that must meant that stock Hasselblad 500/EL Data cameras don't have viewfinders either. And that being such a serious handicap, the 500/EL must not be a big seller in general since no photographer could possibly take pictures without one. But since stock EL/500s from the 1960s are readily available at second-hand stores and on eBay, it would be easy for people to verify whether they differ in any way from the Apollo cameras. Guess what? I've done that, and EL/500s clearly have viewfinders, tiny shutter release buttons, and smaller magazines.

Granted, the magazine isn't tecnnically part of the body, but I bring it up for two reasons: Apollo cameras used a magazine built by a third party company in Hollywood, not Hasselblad; and the darkslide interlock mechanism was removed as part of the adaptation.

In short, your claim that some technician at Hasselblad said they didn't modify the bodies is observed to be factually incorrect. We don't need anyone to tell us; we can see that the cameras are markedly different.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 07:20 AM
Isn't it interesting to all those that follow this JayUtah, that he is so blind to all the evidence concerning the falsification of the apollo missions and that he has a whole website dedicated to justifying the nasa rhetoric about the apollo missions.

Ever wonder who butters his bread?

Any of you sheeple got enough balls "rocky mountain oysters" to look at the "other evidence" with an open mind. Of course you could never post it here, his majesty's scorn would have to be dealt to you.

The Moon missions were all about the cold war and a show of power to the russians. They had done everything before the americans, first satellite, first animal, first man in space. Nixon had to do something. Create the biggest Conspiracy of all time.

This mr. jayutah has all the tricks of the trade mastered, avoid, avoid, avoid, and deny, deny, deny, always sidestepping issues and answering questions with questions, I hope that my little interaction with some of you has shown that closed mindedness and the need to be a follower is prevalent on this forum.

Here's what you leader had to say to me in his last post:When you come back, there are a number of questions waiting for you. If you continue to ignore them, I will ask a moderator to review your activity. Frankly, I'm tired of it.

Is this the kind of guy you bow to, threats to anyone who questions his unabashed authority? He is sounding like Bill O'reilly, next thing he'll be threatening to send the fbi after me.


The truth will enlighten you

pzkpfw
2007-Jul-22, 07:30 AM
[
Right on time.

Inability to actually debate, inability to use facts, inability to understand simple science; leads to attack on perceived "figurehead".

Same thing again and again. I start to believe the every CT'er is the same CT'er theory.

http://www.bautforum.com/conspiracy-theories/62427-one-ct-theory-octt.html
]

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-22, 08:08 AM
This mr. jayutah has all the tricks of the trade mastered, avoid, avoid, avoid, and deny, deny, deny, always sidestepping issues and answering questions with questions,


You've asked most of the questions, and Jay has provided detailed answers. Several of us have answered your questions and asked you questions, but you repeatedly change the subject without answering. That is, sadly, common behavior for moon hoax believers.



Here's what you leader had to say to me in his last post:When you come back, there are a number of questions waiting for you. If you continue to ignore them, I will ask a moderator to review your activity. Frankly, I'm tired of it.


That was my comment - Van Rijn - not Jay. And, I am no "leader" here. I am just a regular poster, and have grown tired of your obvious refusal to respond to questions and ignoring answers.

jt-3d
2007-Jul-22, 08:28 AM
This mr. jayutah has all the tricks of the trade mastered, avoid, avoid, avoid, and deny, deny, deny, always sidestepping issues and answering questions with questions, I hope that my little interaction with some of you has shown that closed mindedness and the need to be a follower is prevalent on this forum.


Dude, you're the one jumping around like a tick on a hotplate. I've seen all of your questions answered and you hardly bothered acknowlege any of the replys. You just spout off another batch of standard hoax speak.

I really think you're pulling our chain.

One of these days I'm going to be able to not read one of these threads. :(

Maksutov
2007-Jul-22, 10:41 AM
As the HBs and CTs run out of "ideas", their material becomes increasingly humorous.

This thread has been quite entertaining.

First we have the HB who just can't say goodbye or keep promises.
Yesterday, 10:57 PM
joshuatree

Well goodnight guys, thanks for the fun, sure beats the usual we're all on the same page stuff that I bet usally goes on here.
Yesterday, 11:06 PM
joshuatree

Good night your majesty, or should I say your worship.
Yesterday, 11:10 PM
joshuatree

Night your majesty
Today, 12:57 AM
joshuatree

Ok I've run in circles long enough, I'm gonna go watch the new Apollo 11 missions dvd I just bought.
Then there is the paucity of new material. About the only two things the HB wrote that have some kind of credibility are
Ok I've run in circles long enough,

I'm confusedThere are the attempts at sarcasm. Sarcasm can be very effective when it is based on knowledge and experience. Sarcasm based on ignorance (in this instance, of science, astronomy, photography, the details of the Apollo program, the history of space exploration, thermodynamics, and so on) tends to be embarrassing to all but the one trying to be sarcastic.

Finally there's the usual dodging of questions, inability to provide objective evidence to back up the usual claims, and almost instinctive attempts to change the subject when backed into a corner by logic, reason, and science.

BTW, joshuatree, I "met" JayUtah here in 2004. I have been debunking HB and CT baloney slice by slice since the 1950s. I've never seen a group better at toeing the party line than the HBs and CTs.

For some reason I'm reminded of one of those computer programs that will automatically generate output that resembles a certain form, such as this poetry bot (http://www.robopoem.com/index.html).

In this case, given the dearth of any original material provided by joshuatree, I wonder if we're dealing with a similar program, only in this case, producing output per the following:

10 REM THIS PROGRAM REPRODUCES DEBUNKED APOLLO HOAX <return>
12 REM CLAIMS FOR THOSE WHO CAN'T COME UP WITH
14 REM ANYTHING NEW

20 INPUT "ENTER MAIN SUBJECT";N$ <return>

30 PSEUDOSCIENCE = 1 <return>

40 INPUT "ENTER SUBSET SUBJECT";H <return>

50 IF (H=APOLLO HOAX) THEN GOTO 120 <return>

...

120 PRINT TO FILE "APOLLO HOAX **"<return>


Meanwhile, whoever is behind this, thanks for the chuckles.

:lol:

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 10:44 AM
joshuatree, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject of basic astronomy.

For example, the astronauts were on the moon for more than one earth day. However, for the moon to go around its own axis 360 degrees it takes about 28 earth days. The astronauts weren't on the lunar surface long enough to actually experience a huge change of day-to-night.

Another example, you were unable to answer the question "what gets down to -150 degrees Celsius". Instead you chose to dodge the question. Why, I don't know. The answer to the question is: The lunar surface. Which is not in direct contact with the camera.and does not affect the camera in such a big way. There is no temperature in the "sky" of the Moon that could affect the camera's temperature. The moon has no atmosphere; there is a vacuum all around it. Vacuums do not have a "temperature"; they do not contain molecules that can vibrate and generate a temperature (that's how it works, in a nutshell). You not being able to answer this question again shows your lack of knowledge.

But despite your lack of knowledge on even how long a lunar day is, you go about and attack Jay Windley, calling us "sheeple". Tell me, what (or who) made you think that the astronauts would experience any transition from lunar day to lunar night? Why didn't you do any research, and just assumed you were right?

Also, where did you get these ideas? Did you think them up all by yourself? For example, did you know that the russians were closely monitoring the launch of, let's say, Apollo 11? If it was faked and Apollo 11 never landed on the moon, then why didn't the Russians say anything? They did nothing at all, even though they're America's biggest enemy. You didn't know this, did you? You just assume this "biggest conspiracy' was done, not even thinking on how the Russians would blow the whistle at anything suspicious, anything at all.

Let's just face it, you blindly accept what is told to you (or what you have thought up yourself) without caring to do even the slightest bit of research to make sure you're actually right (or wrong). It seems that this given would make you exactly what you have called us, a "sheeple". That is, if your definition of "sheeple" is that what I think it is. Someone blindly following something without questioning whether or not it is right or wrong.

- BertL

PS Spread the Love! :)

Obviousman
2007-Jul-22, 10:58 AM
I'm surprised. The so-called "experts" claiming fakery always seem to be fixated on the Moon.

There were photographs taken during EVAs in Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle / ISS, Voskhod, Soyuz, Salyut, and Mir. Conditions that were in most cases very similar to that experienced on the lunar surface.

So all those photographs are faked too, right?

m1omg
2007-Jul-22, 12:50 PM
they are envious that they have no chance to get there

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:04 PM
joshuatree, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject of basic astronomy.

For example, the astronauts were on the moon for more than one earth day. However, for the moon to go around its own axis 360 degrees it takes about 28 earth days. The astronauts weren't on the lunar surface long enough to actually experience a huge change of day-to-night.

Another example, you were unable to answer the question "what gets down to -150 degrees Celsius". Instead you chose to dodge the question. Why, I don't know. The answer to the question is: The lunar surface. Which is not in direct contact with the camera.and does not affect the camera in such a big way. There is no temperature in the "sky" of the Moon that could affect the camera's temperature. The moon has no atmosphere; there is a vacuum all around it. Vacuums do not have a "temperature"; they do not contain molecules that can vibrate and generate a temperature (that's how it works, in a nutshell). You not being able to answer this question again shows your lack of knowledge.

But despite your lack of knowledge on even how long a lunar day is, you go about and attack Jay Windley, calling us "sheeple". Tell me, what (or who) made you think that the astronauts would experience any transition from lunar day to lunar night? Why didn't you do any research, and just assumed you were right?

Also, where did you get these ideas? Did you think them up all by yourself? For example, did you know that the russians were closely monitoring the launch of, let's say, Apollo 11? If it was faked and Apollo 11 never landed on the moon, then why didn't the Russians say anything? They did nothing at all, even though they're America's biggest enemy. You didn't know this, did you? You just assume this "biggest conspiracy' was done, not even thinking on how the Russians would blow the whistle at anything suspicious, anything at all.

Let's just face it, you blindly accept what is told to you (or what you have thought up yourself) without caring to do even the slightest bit of research to make sure you're actually right (or wrong). It seems that this given would make you exactly what you have called us, a "sheeple". That is, if your definition of "sheeple" is that what I think it is. Someone blindly following something without questioning whether or not it is right or wrong.

- BertL

PS Spread the Love! :)


Where's the evidence, even the so called lunar rocks that supposedly were brought back are of the same geological consistency with rocks that are in your backyard, according to nasa itself, all the pictures have fill lighting, no lights were taken on the moon according to nasa, you people fight so hard to justify the lie by trying to sound so selfrighteous and "intelligent" what a load.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:18 PM
I'm surprised. The so-called "experts" claiming fakery always seem to be fixated on the Moon.

There were photographs taken during EVAs in Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Shuttle / ISS, Voskhod, Soyuz, Salyut, and Mir. Conditions that were in most cases very similar to that experienced on the lunar surface.

So all those photographs are faked too, right?

All the experts appear to be here on this forum. The soviets didn't use film, they used a fax type electronic technology to send their pitures back, the brits actually intercepted the pics and got them in their newpapers before the soviets.

Obviously they knew that film wouldn't work.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 02:24 PM
The soviets didn't use film, they used a fax type electronic technology to send their pitures back

And what do you think they were faxing? The early Soviet probes took pictures on film, developed them, and then scanned the developed images line-by-line to transmit back. The signal was a telefacsimile protocol, but the photos were physical.

Obviously they knew that film wouldn't work.

Obviously they knew it would. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_3 So I ask you again -- why wasn't the Soviet film destroyed?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 02:38 PM
...he is so blind to all the evidence concerning the falsification of the apollo missions

On the contrary, I'm one of the people who knows most about that so-called "evidence," including many of the people who believe and repeat it.

...he has a whole website dedicated to justifying the nasa rhetoric about the apollo missions.

No, I have a whole website answering the conspiracy theory with scientific principles.

Ever wonder who butters his bread?

You certainly do, since you have absolutely no evidence who I work for or by what means Clavius was brought into being. But because you can't approach it on its face, you have to find some other reason to discount or dismiss it. So you make up fantasies that I'm some sort of government disinformationist and my site is some sort of official damage-control.

You can't grasp that there are plenty of ordinary people who have the technical knowledge to see through that conspiracy hogwash and who simply collect their answers together for convenient reference. Clavius as a private, science-oriented site simply doesn't fit into your worldview, so you make it go away.

Of course you could never post it here, his majesty's scorn would have to be dealt to you.

If you had paid attention, you'd see that people disagree with me and correct me all the time.

But now, unfortunately, since you're running out of conspiracy arguments from websites, you do what every other conspiracy theories does: turn to one of the outspoken debunkers and try to paint him as a despicable traitor.

Nixon had to do something.

The only thing Nixon did to the U.S. space program was essentially to shut it down. Lyndon B. Johnson is the motivating force behind Apollo. He persuaded Kennedy that a NASA mission to the Moon would be the kind of thing Kennedy was looking for to one-up the Soviets.

This mr. jayutah has all the tricks of the trade mastered, avoid, avoid, avoid, and deny, deny, deny, always sidestepping issues and answering questions with questions...

No, that's you. For the most part, you seem to believe your questions are pointed and reasonable, but in fact they simply display your impressive ignorance and your utter reliance on your conspiracy theorists to spoon-feed you information. When you repeatedly ask what "the temperature" is at night or three feet above the lunar surface, or how the astronauts managed to keep warm during the lunar night, you simply show that you really don't know what you're talking about.

I hope that my little interaction with some of you has shown that closed mindedness and the need to be a follower is prevalent on this forum.

It certainly has, although I'm not sure you would agree with whom they've decided is the closed-minded blind follower.

Is this the kind of guy you bow to...

I said none of the things you have attributed to me.

The truth will enlighten you

And it will enlighten you, if you choose to pay attention to it. I've spent a number of years investigating the history of Apollo and performing my own tests. You clearly have simply read the conspiracy web sites and believed them without question.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:38 PM
Well well well, good morning your majesty, just one question for you to ponder this morning, if no spotlights were used on the moon, how did all those nice pics come back with such perfect fill lighting?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 02:47 PM
Where's the evidence, even the so called lunar rocks that supposedly were brought back...

There are a number of peer-reviewed geology journals that have published information on the Apollo samples.

...all the pictures have fill lighting, no lights were taken on the moon

The pictures have fill, not fill lighting, because the only evidence given of the alleged lighting is the fill itself -- entirely circular. If you don't know how to create fill without using additional lighting, then you're really not very much of a photographer, are you?

As a matter of fact, I have demonstrated on international television how you can get incidental fill of appropriate magnitude using only a single light source (e.g., the sun), how that fill resembles perfectly the effects seen in Apollo photography, and how anyone can do it himself to be assured I haven't monkeyed with the data.

David Percy, on the other hand, just waves is ARPS credentials and says on that authority that the lighting is all wrong. He does no demonstrations of his alleged lighting setups; he only draws diagrams. He does no experiments to see whether fill can be created in other ways. He simply begs you to believe him. Well, I don't. And I produced the evidence to support that disbelief.

The last vestiges of belief that you are a photographer are gone. You clearly are not, and know very little about photography. You haven't answered a single photographic question right yet.

...justify the lie by trying to sound so selfrighteous and "intelligent" what a load.

No, you're the one whose first post reads in part thus
I really can't believe that seemingly intelligent human beings really believe that we went to the moon

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:50 PM
And another one for you, if there was only the one light source, the sun, then how is it that there are shadows going in different directions on the moon photos? Sorry for my ignorance here, but I'm sure you'll have an explanation

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 02:53 PM
...how is it that there are shadows going in different directions on the moon photos?

Because that's how shadows behave in sunlight on varied terrain, as has been demonstrated dozens upon dozens of times on Earth by an army of photographers who happily reproduce in sunlight the kinds of photographs David Percy insists are impossible.

You might be interested in learning that David Percy lately recanted his "shadows must be parallel" claim after it was shown that his own example photos failed to follow it.

Why haven't you tested his claims with your own camera?

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 02:54 PM
And another one for you, if there was only the one light source, the sun, then how is it that there are shadows going in different directions on the moon photos? Sorry for my ignorance here, but I'm sure you'll have an explanation
That is the result of a number of things. The first is perspective. The second is uneven terrain. Take a look at any photo, and you will see that the shadows in it are not going in the same apparent direction. Again, showing your lack of knowledge of the subject yet willingness to believe only certain people shows that you are a "sheeple".

I could upload a photo showing this effect right now, if you want.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:54 PM
Where's the evidence, even the so called lunar rocks that supposedly were brought back...

There are a number of peer-reviewed geology journals that have published information on the Apollo samples.

...all the pictures have fill lighting, no lights were taken on the moon

The pictures have fill, not fill lighting, because the only evidence given of the alleged lighting is the fill itself -- entirely circular. If you don't know how to create fill without using additional lighting, then you're really not very much of a photographer, are you?

As a matter of fact, I have demonstrated on international television how you can get incidental fill of appropriate magnitude using only a single light source (e.g., the sun), how that fill resembles perfectly the effects seen in Apollo photography, and how anyone can do it himself to be assured I haven't monkeyed with the data.

David Percy, on the other hand, just waves is ARPS credentials and says on that authority that the lighting is all wrong. He does no demonstrations of his alleged lighting setups; he only draws diagrams. He does no experiments to see whether fill can be created in other ways. He simply begs you to believe him. Well, I don't. And I produced the evidence to support that disbelief.

The last vestiges of belief that you are a photographer are gone. You clearly are not, and know very little about photography. You haven't answered a single photographic question right yet.

...justify the lie by trying to sound so selfrighteous and "intelligent" what a load.

No, you're the one whose first post reads in part thus

I'm enough of a photographer to know that you don't have a clue, the fill, "not fill lighting" only appears to be on the selected areas that would look good the viewer, funny that the fill doesn't seem to fill any other areas such as the rocks.

You may be able to convince your followers on international television of this fill phenomenom, but you don't fool me.

Isn't it great that such a stupid non photographer can get your goat to the extent that your left with nothing but putting me down.

Good work

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 02:55 PM
I'm still waiting for my answer on how the Soviet film survived the radiation. I am now phrasing it as a direct question.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 02:59 PM
And by the way, I spent a few minutes on your website, what a load, I didn't find one credible debunk as you call it. It's all "cirular" lighting and hypotheses based on no concrete facts, its hard to cover up lies. One lie must be covered by another.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:02 PM
funny that the fill doesn't seem to fill any other areas such as the rocks.

I demonstrated the physics of why that occurs. Further, it is also a demonstrable effect of photographic exposure settings. In some photos shaded rock sides are photographed with detail; in others they are not. There is enough secondary evidence of exposure settings to determine that this is the cause. Further, the surface itself is generally not lit when the primary reflector is the surface. A surface has a hard time reflecting onto itself.

Again, this was a matter of empirical demonstration.

You may be able to convince your followers on international television of this fill phenomenom, but you don't fool me.

Luckily for them your opinion is irrelevant, since they can now demonstrate it for themselves. You insist on making this a matter of authority when it is, in fact, a matter of observation. I suspect this is because it is your goal to try to impeach authority because you dislike the authority, not to try to establish the truth.

Isn't it great that such a stupid non photographer can get your goat to the extent that your left with nothing but putting me down.

Not at all. You claimed early on that you were a photographer. Evidently this was to try to lend weight to your belief that Apollo photography was improper. Now that it has been adequately established you are not a photographer, your opinion that lighting, shadow, etc. are inappropriate are revealed as nothing more than the layman's opinion.

Some of us here have considerable photographic training and experience, and a few of us make our livings as photographers. So you will be wise not to try to bluff further. These people give informed opinions, despite your attempts to dismiss them as idealogues.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:02 PM
It's all "cirular" lighting and hypotheses based on no concrete facts...

Give one example of such a thing from my site.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:03 PM
I'm still waiting for my answer on how the Soviet film survived the radiation. I am now phrasing it as a direct question.

controlled atmosphere

they weren't on the lunar surface

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 03:03 PM
I'm enough of a photographer to know that you don't have a clue, the fill, "not fill lighting" only appears to be on the selected areas that would look good the viewer, funny that the fill doesn't seem to fill any other areas such as the rocks.
Examples, please. You do realize that the lunar surface is reflective enough to create shadows on Earth at night, don't you?

You are enough of a photographer to know all kinds of stuff about fill, but not about perspective? Now that I've brought that up, here's a pic of me on a school trip, taken by a friend of mine. Apart from resizing and the red lines, I didn't do anything with the picture. Can you guess where I am? :)

http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1242159

I could show you another example taken only about 20 seconds later showing even more extreme non-parallel shadows, if you'd like. Do you think I faked this picture in a studio or something?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:05 PM
they weren't on the lunar surface

How does the radiation on the lunar surface differ from lunar orbit?

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:08 PM
Examples, please. You do realize that the lunar surface is reflective enough to create shadows on Earth at night, don't you?

You are enough of a photographer to know all kinds of stuff about fill, but not about perspective? Now that I've brought that up, here's a pic of me on a school trip, taken by a friend of mine. Apart from resizing and the red lines, I didn't do anything with the picture. Can you guess where I am? :)

http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1242159

I could show you another example taken only about 20 seconds later showing even more extreme non-parallel shadows, if you'd like. Do you think I faked this picture in a studio or something?


Oh brother, here we go, so if the moon is so bright, why are the shadows behind rock jet black? I guess this circular lighting is selective?

non parallel shadows can only be caused by two or more light sources, sorry

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:10 PM
Can you guess where I am? :)

Easily. You're on Ile de la Cite in Paris just west of the cathedral of Notre Dame. I gave a concert there in 1997.

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 03:10 PM
Oh brother, here we go, so if the moon is so bright, why are the shadows behind rock jet black? I guess this circular lighting is selective?

non parallel shadows can only be caused by two or more light sources, sorry
Then how do you explain the non-parallel shadows in the picture I just posted? Are you saying I somehow faked it with extra lights on a school trip to Paris? I don't think the French Gendarme would allow me to set up huge lights and stuff right in front the Notre Dame, to fake a picture.

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 03:11 PM
Can you guess where I am? :)

Easily. You're on Ile de la Cite in Paris just west of the cathedral of Notre Dame. I gave a concert there in 1997.
Hehe, a dead giveaway. I didn't know you played an instrument, JayUtah. At least, that's what I assume when you say "I gave a concert there". ;)

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:13 PM
Yawn, nice dance guys, but no go, too much evidence again, no logic here, I'll bet those companies that benefited from the taxpayer dollars spent on this hoax were grateful. A 30 million dollar dune buggy, give me a break. Especially when they couldn't have gotten it onto the LEM anyway, they can't even agree as to how it was mounted on the LEM, and isn't it funny that all the documentation has been destroyed for this most amazing achievement.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:13 PM
..why are the shadows behind rock jet black?

Shadows cast on the lunar surface cannot be filled by reflection from the lunar surface. Shade on astronauts above it, however, can.

I guess this circular lighting is selective?

Yes, it depends on relative geometry. As I have belabored, I have demonstrated this effect for the world to see.

non parallel shadows can only be caused by two or more light sources, sorry

False. It has been amply demonstrated by countless photographers that this expectation is not true. So aptly demonstrated, in fact, that its proponent conceded.

Further, I have shown that multiple light sources generate multiple shadows for each object, not one divergent shadow for each.

Have you performed any experiments of any kind to test whether your expectations are correct? Yes or no.

R.A.F.
2007-Jul-22, 03:14 PM
non parallel shadows can only be caused by two or more light sources, sorry

If there were 2 or more light sources, then why are there not 2 or more different shadows resulting from each rock, astronaut, etc.???

"Sorry" right back at ya...:lol:

R.A.F.
2007-Jul-22, 03:19 PM
Especially when they couldn't have gotten it onto the LEM anyway, they can't even agree as to how it was mounted on the LEM...

This is flat out incorrect. Why should anyone pay you any attention (which is what you seem to crave) when you can't even get the "basics" right??

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:20 PM
Yawn, nice dance guys, but no go...

Then why are you changing subjects to the next standard, stale conspiracy claim?

I'll bet those companies that benefited from the taxpayer dollars spent on this hoax were grateful.

Not at cost-plus contracting.

A 30 million dollar dune buggy, give me a break.

If you only make a few, each one costs more. Again, you're reading far too much into division.

It costs Ford nearly a billion dollars to develop a new automobile design. That cost is spread out over the millions of cars made and sold according to that design.

The LRV cost somewhat less to develop, but since there were only a few made, the development cost can't be divided among as many products. If Ford only sold 10 Escorts, I guarantee they would not be inexpensive.

Especially when they couldn't have gotten it onto the LEM anyway...

It doesn't go in the LM, it goes on the LM.

they can't even agree as to how it was mounted on the LEM...

Sure they can. It's only Jim Collier who can't agree. Because he wasn't paying attention in the interview, he concocted his own weird idea for how the LRV was supposed to have folded. Then without confirming whether he had gotten it right, he went on to attribute his own error to NASA. Just because Collier is arrogant and misinformed doesn't mean NASA is confused.

isn't it funny that all the documentation has been destroyed for this most amazing achievement.

Then why am I able to have several feet of shelf space of it?

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:23 PM
funny that the fill doesn't seem to fill any other areas such as the rocks.

I demonstrated the physics of why that occurs. Further, it is also a demonstrable effect of photographic exposure settings. In some photos shaded rock sides are photographed with detail; in others they are not. There is enough secondary evidence of exposure settings to determine that this is the cause. Further, the surface itself is generally not lit when the primary reflector is the surface. A surface has a hard time reflecting onto itself.

Again, this was a matter of empirical demonstration.

You may be able to convince your followers on international television of this fill phenomenom, but you don't fool me.

Luckily for them your opinion is irrelevant, since they can now demonstrate it for themselves. You insist on making this a matter of authority when it is, in fact, a matter of observation. I suspect this is because it is your goal to try to impeach authority because you dislike the authority, not to try to establish the truth.

Isn't it great that such a stupid non photographer can get your goat to the extent that your left with nothing but putting me down.

Not at all. You claimed early on that you were a photographer. Evidently this was to try to lend weight to your belief that Apollo photography was improper. Now that it has been adequately established you are not a photographer, your opinion that lighting, shadow, etc. are inappropriate are revealed as nothing more than the layman's opinion.

Some of us here have considerable photographic training and experience, and a few of us make our livings as photographers. So you will be wise not to try to bluff further. These people give informed opinions, despite your attempts to dismiss them as idealogues.



If you are such an "expert" as you claim, then let this layman ask you how the crosshairs that were imbedded on the lenses appear behind the objects on some of the photos?

Oh brother, impeach authority, your authority must be in jeopardy for you to make such a condescending statement.

This layman will never believe your polished ducks and dives, its a pity that there are so many that do.

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 03:25 PM
joshuatree, how do you explain the non-parallel shadows in the picture I showed you a few posts ago? There's a difference of about 20 degrees in the angle of some of the shadows. How do you explain that? My friend took the picture with only the sun.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:27 PM
I didn't know you played an instrument, JayUtah.

I play several instruments, but in this case it was a choral concert. My choir performed a Palestrina mass in commemoration of an important anniversay for the cathedral.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/dsc00001.jpg

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:29 PM
joshuatree, how do you explain the non-parallel shadows in the picture I showed you a few posts ago? There's a difference of about 20 degrees in the angle of some of the shadows. How do you explain that? My friend took the picture with only the sun.

didn't look at the picture you refer to

I don't see any need to explain your pictures, we are talking about the nasa photos aren't we?

Its those that you need to explain to me, I see all kinds of discrepancies in those.

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 03:29 PM
Awesome. I (mainly) play trombone and piano/keyboard. I'm able to do a bit of drums, guitar and bass guitar but that's not something I'm particularly good at. Especially since I learned to play on a right handed guitar, even though I'm left handed.

But this is quite off-topic and stuff, so I'll leave it to this.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:31 PM
I didn't know you played an instrument, JayUtah.

I play several instruments, but in this case it was a choral concert. My choir performed a Palestrina mass in commemoration of an important anniversay for the cathedral.

http://i149.photobucket.com/albums/s71/clavius_examples/dsc00001.jpg

Wow I'm impressed by such an accomplished individual, any other talents?

Obviously seeing things for what they are isn't one.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:32 PM
how the crosshairs that were imbedded on the lenses appear behind the objects on some of the photos?

Because they're thin enough to allow the bright portions around them to bleed. I demonstrated this with a standard Hasselblad reseau plate of the same kind fitted to the 500/EL for Apollo. JPEG compression enhances the bleed -- in most cases the fiducial is merely diminished on the transparency.

Explain why, for example, the fidicials disappear only "behind" bright spots, and sometimes only partially? Do you mean to suggest that someone cut and pasted the white stripes of the American flag, but not the red ones?

Again, a simple, straightforward photographic phenomenon that can have been easily tested by David Percy. But he didn't. Thankfully I did.

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 03:33 PM
didn't look at the picture you refer to

I don't see any need to explain your pictures, we are talking about the nasa photos aren't we?

Its those that you need to explain to me, I see all kinds of discrepancies in those.
And I've shown you that your discrepancies are because of a lack of understanding of how perspective and shadows work. If you had bothered to click the link, you would have seen me in front of the Notre Dame with a lot of people walking around in the background. Even though the photograph was taken with only the Sun as a light source, the shadows are not even near to parallel.

This means that your claim that "non parallel shadows can only be caused by two or more light sources" is flat out wrong. If you had bothered to click the link, you would have seen that you are wrong.

http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1242159

Try and click it, and see that you are wrong. Or provide an explanation for this "impossibility".

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:34 PM
how the crosshairs that were imbedded on the lenses appear behind the objects on some of the photos?

Because they're thin enough to allow the bright portions around them to bleed. I demonstrated this with a standard Hasselblad reseau plate of the same kind fitted to the 500/EL for Apollo. JPEG compression enhances the bleed -- in most cases the fiducial is merely diminished on the transparency.

Explain why, for example, the fidicials disappear only "behind" bright spots, and sometimes only partially? Do you mean to suggest that someone cut and pasted the white stripes of the American flag, but not the red ones?

Again, a simple, straightforward photographic phenomenon that can have been easily tested by David Percy. But he didn't. Thankfully I did.

Nice try, but there are no "bright spots"
The obvious escapes you again

Duck and dodge, dive and weave

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:35 PM
I don't see any need to explain your pictures, we are talking about the nasa photos aren't we?

You argue that NASA photos are not real because they exhibit properties that you say real photos should not. However, if other real photographs indeed do demonstrate those "impossible" properties, then obviously there's something wrong with how you propose to tell real photos from fake ones.

Since you refuse to look at the evidence being presented to you, I'd say it's pretty clear which of us is closed-minded. Are you open-minded enough to accept the possibility that Apollo was real and that the photographs are indeed as they should be? If so, why the reluctance to have your expectations questioned?

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 03:35 PM
Nice try, but there are no "bright spots"
The obvious escapes you again

Duck and dodge, dive and weave
Oh really?

http://www.maj.com/gallery/BertL/moonhoax/recticule.png

That is (an excerpt from) an official NASA picture. Where did the part of the recticule go inside the encircled part?

And how do you explain my non-parallel shadows taken with only the sun?

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:37 PM
Nice try, but there are no "bright spots"

Examples here.
http://www.clavius.org/photoret.html

Have you used a camera fitted with a reseau plate? Yes or no.

DaveC426913
2007-Jul-22, 03:39 PM
joshua, this debate is becoming less about facts than it is about conviction.

You are using the cheapest debating trick in the book - you are continually attempting to drag it to a melodramatic emotional place, where you're more comfortable making your claims.

If you had facts and science to back up your claims, you would be able to report them in a manner as calm, cool and collected as Jay Utah. He's calm, cool and collected because he knows he's right and doesn't need to convince anyone.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:40 PM
Duck and dodge, dive and weave

Um, no. You're the one rapidly changing subjects and refusing to look at evidence or answer questions. I urge you to keep in mind that this board requires you to be accountable for your claims as a condition of continued participation. I rather suspect you're trying to get banned so you can wear it as a badge of honor.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:44 PM
He's calm, cool and collected because he knows he's right and doesn't need to convince anyone.

Thank you. And it's important to know why I know I'm right: it's because I have tested these claims. I don't have to guess how fill behaves because I've demonstrated it physically to myself and others. I don't have to guess how shadows will fall because I've seen and photographed it myself. I don't need to guess what happens to fiducials under various exposure conditions because I've seen it happen.

Yes, the truth will enlighten you, especially when it turns out to be something you didn't expect. That's the thrill of scientific inquiry. Unfortunately David Percy and those who depend on him for their pretended expertise generally do nothing more than surmise what they think might happen, then foist that off as if it were fact.

When I can demonstrate their claims to be false, I don't have to get into the mudslinging and rhetoric of who's got proper authority. Conspiracism is mostly about trying to impeach the credibility of people that the conspiracist decides he doesn't like. Science, on the other hand, is about observing what happens. Guess which one habitually arrives at the truth first?

pvicente
2007-Jul-22, 03:48 PM
controlled atmosphere

they weren't on the lunar surface
Ok, now I'm curious, how was this controlled atmosphere different from the interior of NASA's spacecraft and how did it protect the film from radiation?
It also looks like you are saying that not landing on the lunar surface helped a bit. Why? What makes radiation more of a problem at the surface than at orbit?

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 03:56 PM
Here's all the evidence needed

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm

JayUtah
2007-Jul-22, 03:58 PM
Yes, we've all seen the Clangers photos. Now please answer the questions put to you. Have you used a reseau plate? Yes or no.

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 03:58 PM
Here's all the evidence needed

http://stuffucanuse.com/fake_moon_landings/moon_landings.htm
Ah, so you were kidding all the time. I'm not surprised. :)

I already wondered why you used so many of the most cliche'd and easily debunked arguments. Well, thanks for explaining. :)

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 04:01 PM
Its been a hoot guys, thanks for the laughs

May you go where no man has gone before

Can't wait for those pics of the stuff left behind on the moon. I'll check back periodically and see if they appeared yet

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 04:10 PM
JTree,
you are an amazing debater. You bring up a conspiracy thought, which you read about at some site on the web. The folks here make many detailed responses as to why the point is erroneous. You respond with "your majesty" type snide remarks, with no substance...then promptly posit another clearly erroneous question ("lunar night", etc.).
We respond to every point in detail, you respond with incredulity and sarcasm, no supporting facts or numbers. Who is the unquestioning dupe here, and who has done their homework, studying both sides of the issue?
Every question you post further reveals your lack of even the slightest knowledge of the science of spaceflight and science in general. And your responses are simply blind denial of our evidence.

Prove the information we are posting is wrong...with supporting data.

nomuse
2007-Jul-22, 05:49 PM
Holy FSM, how did we get so bored we thought _that_ was worthy of our time?

Wouldn't it be nice if for once we could hold one of these shadow-boxers to the first inane question they ask, and not let them make every reply some new idea cribbed just that morning from another site?

I'd put money now that not only will joshuatree, the experienced photographer with a strong scientific and technical background, not go outside and photograph some shadows to see if they really are parallel, some stars to see if they really are easy to shoot with a handheld camera, and maybe some beach sand just to disprove the whole theory of shadow-hiding, but he won't even deign to respond to my post or this request that he get off his attitude and do some actual work defending his ideas.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Jul-22, 05:54 PM
Scanning through this thread has been like watching a tug-of-war contest between a team of fit and muscular men on one side, and on the other a seven stone weakling who is so deluded he doesn't even realise he has lost.

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 06:41 PM
I'd put money now that not only will joshuatree, the experienced photographer with a strong scientific and technical background, not go outside and photograph some shadows to see if they really are parallel, some stars to see if they really are easy to shoot with a handheld camera, and maybe some beach sand just to disprove the whole theory of shadow-hiding, but he won't even deign to respond to my post or this request that he get off his attitude and do some actual work defending his ideas.
Even more simple, he didn't even take a look at a photograph that shows a phenomenon that would be impossible to his standards.

Paul Beardsley
2007-Jul-22, 06:57 PM
Even more simple, he didn't even take a look at a photograph that shows a phenomenon that would be impossible to his standards.
Yes indeed. That was pathetic. Truly pathetic. Thinking about it, there is no point in even trying to communicate with someone with that sort of mindset.

nomuse
2007-Jul-22, 07:02 PM
So.....how was Paris? Looks like you were there last summer -- from the picture, they'd finished cleaning the cathedral and taken down all that scaffolding by then.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 08:42 PM
Any evidence yet?

Oh ya a bunch of rocks, too bad that all the "experts" can't agree where they came from

Why did the press have to film from a Screen at the space center and couldn't recieve a direct feed?

Hmmmmmm

gwiz
2007-Jul-22, 08:47 PM
Any evidence yet?


I might ask you the same thing. Why do you never answer questions?

nomuse
2007-Jul-22, 08:53 PM
And now it's rocks. You going to answer, say, how long an exposure time you need to pick up stars with the stated film and iris, or are we going to have to talk about Paris while you run off in random directions?

So, Bert. You check out Monet's "Water Lillies" in their new gallery at the Orangerie? Wonderful.

Tinaa
2007-Jul-22, 08:57 PM
joshuatree - stop with the snide comments. I let your inappropriate behavior go on longer than I should have - hoping that you would police yourself.

You decided to argue on the side of the HBs. You will the answer questions posted by other members or your posting privileges will be suspended. You will not be suspended because of your opinion but because you refuse to abide by the rules set by the owners of this board.

If you do not know the rules of this board read them here: http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/32864-rules-posting-board.html Pay special attention to rules #2, 13 and 14.

This is an official warning.

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 08:57 PM
And now it's rocks. You going to answer, say, how long an exposure time you need to pick up stars with the stated film and iris, or are we going to have to talk about Paris while you run off in random directions?

So, Bert. You check out Monet's "Water Lillies" in their new gallery at the Orangerie? Wonderful.

Ya you better talk about paris and water lillies, that is surely something that you understand.

Funny that the astronauts said they saw no stars in their postmission debriefing, go check it out, no need to worry about exposures when there weren't any stars, oh yeah in a later book aldrin remembered seeing stars, hmmmmmm

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 09:01 PM
And here's one for utah, if you can't hear any sound of rocket engines during descent because its a vacuum, then how can you hear the music playing from a radio on liftoff over the rockets? Hmmmmmm

Just another conspiracy theory

You guys worry so much about the details that can only be explained by your pseudo science that you miss the obvious

joshuatree
2007-Jul-22, 09:05 PM
joshuatree - stop with the snide comments. I let your inappropriate behavior go on longer than I should have - hoping that you would police yourself.

You decided to argue on the side of the HBs. You will the answer questions posted by other members or your posting privileges will be suspended. You will not be suspended because of your opinion but because you refuse to abide by the rules set by the owners of this board.

If you do not know the rules of this board read them here: http://www.bautforum.com/about-baut/32864-rules-posting-board.html Pay special attention to rules #2, 13 and 14.

This is an official warning.


Well finally Tinna. I presume that my remarks are suddenly unacceptable when all the other "snide" remarks obviously are, when we run out of answers, we'll just ban him, of course.

predictable

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 09:09 PM
So.....how was Paris? Looks like you were there last summer -- from the picture, they'd finished cleaning the cathedral and taken down all that scaffolding by then.
Yeah, I was there for three days. It was packed full of looking at all the famous things. I've been (from the top of my head, there were more things but I forgot the names) to the Notre Dame, Sacre Coeur, Arc de Triomphe, (the outside of) the Louvre, L'hospitale d'Arme (spelling?), la Place de Teintre, the garden and house of Rodin and (of course) the Eiffeltower. We haven't been to Versailles, which is a pity (I think.) Me and my friends were there about a month ago now.

I also have some pictures of me on the second (not top) floor of the Eiffeltower, but I'm not going to show them because A. they do not show shadows (the pictures were taken in the shadow of the Eiffeltower itself) and B. you can see from my face that I was scared like heck.


joshuatree, you still haven't taken a look at the picture I posted, did you? You know, the one with the non-parallel shadows and only one (important) light source. Instead of trying to dodge this, click the link.

http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1242159

Have you clicked the link? If no, why not? It directly shows your claim on non-parallel shadows only being possible with more than one light source wrong. Maybe you are afraid to click it. How are you going to counter this?

Tinaa
2007-Jul-22, 09:09 PM
No, your behavior is predictable which make my actions necessary. Please answer the questions other members have asked you. And read the rules.

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 09:12 PM
Still no answers from JTree, just more switching topics.
How did the alleged heat from the lunar surface damage the camera film? How would the camera itself get hot?
You have a lot of allegations, and no evidence.
Just old ignorant claims from an old, tired and ignorant CT site. You really need to learn something about what you argue...and you probably are convinced that you're kicking our butts around the ring here. Pathetic, but I am hoping some lurkers are watching here, seeing how the conspiratist forms an argument.

nomuse
2007-Jul-22, 09:13 PM
So I take it you _don't_ know the exposure, nor do you have the experience.

Money where that big mouth is. I've taken a camera outside at night and made an effort to photograph stars. Why can't you? Or are you too experienced a photographer to, in fact, own a camera?

nomuse
2007-Jul-22, 09:16 PM
Nice, Bert. I was just down the hill from Sacre Cour -- staying at a 30-Euro a night room in Montmarte. Next time I go, though, it won't be in the middle of winter!

(My pictures from the highest tourist-accesible floor of the Eiffel show nothing but fog and icicles).

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 09:20 PM
So I take it you _don't_ know the exposure, nor do you have the experience.

Money where that big mouth is. I've taken a camera outside at night and made an effort to photograph stars. Why can't you? Or are you too experienced a photographer to, in fact, own a camera?

This being the popular argument that it has been, you would think the CT/HB sites would be awash with star photos taken at 1/125 sec exposure with bright foregrounds. Where are all these easily replicated shots? (edit...go to any astronomy site ans look up "light pollution". While not quite the same issue as on the Moon, the problems are closely related).

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 09:28 PM
Any evidence yet?

Oh ya a bunch of rocks, too bad that all the "experts" can't agree where they came from

What expert is this? A name please? Not that I'm so deluded as to actually expect an answer...

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 09:35 PM
Nice, Bert. I was just down the hill from Sacre Cour -- staying at a 30-Euro a night room in Montmarte. Next time I go, though, it won't be in the middle of winter!

(My pictures from the highest tourist-accesible floor of the Eiffel show nothing but fog and icicles).
Hehe. A few friends of mine went all the way to the top. One of them made a beautiful, though quite dizzy-making picture from the top looking STRAIGHT down.


Still eagerly awaiting your explanation for my impossible picture, joshuatree.

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jul-22, 09:39 PM
All I know about joshuatree at the moment is he is a good enviromentlists, he likes to recycle.

nomuse
2007-Jul-22, 10:02 PM
Did you at least take the stairs, Bert? Got to love all that old riveted iron.


Yah...old stuff. I do wonder what closet some of these HB's live in. They show up at a long-established astronomy-based forum and they expect people there to be surprised and shocked at the revelation that there's no stars in the Apollo series lunar surface photographs. It doesn't seem to occur to them that, just maybe, someone else might have visited Bart Sibrel's website already.

And then there's that inability to understand the mindset of an amateur scientist. For them, there is "stumble on a hoax website, read something, believe it thoroughly, run out to some other forum to spread the word to the unenlightened." Every sky-gazer here, almost by definition, has and will continue to confirm with their own eyes what the official sources and calculations say. Every night you go out to take in the show, you are taking estimates and calculations and literature that claims that such-and-such an object should be observable on your equipment at a certain time and in a certain location. And then it is (well, when all goes well....the number of satellites I've "missed" is a lot higher than the number I've "caught.")

BertL
2007-Jul-22, 10:31 PM
Did you at least take the stairs, Bert? Got to love all that old riveted iron.
Oh, yes, I took the stairs with a few classmates of mine. One of thought it was funny to keep saying "it's falling apart, it's falling apart!" nearly giving me a panic attack. I was literally petrified (coming from a rural town in Holland, where the highest buildings around are churches) on that height. It was an unforgettable experience though. I will definetly take the stairs again the next time I'm in Paris.

I just took a quick glance over the rules, and I have not seen a rule against posting images in the forums. For this reason (and others), I'm going to force the picture on joshuatree's monitor, so that he's confronted with it.
http://www.maj.com/gallery/BertL/moonhoax/shadows1.png
This picture was made with only the sun as a light source, yet the shadows are definetly not parallel (the red lines are there for emphasis). According to you this is not possible. How did my friend pull it off, on a school trip to Paris?

Dave J
2007-Jul-22, 10:46 PM
When I was stationed with NATO AWACS in Geilenkirchen, GE, we rented a house, on the other side of the back fence was a forest, it was Holland. My back fence was the national border.
My kids spent three years doing Hansel and Gretel in those Dutch woods... really beautiful.

pvicente
2007-Jul-22, 10:50 PM
Why did the press have to film from a Screen at the space center and couldn't recieve a direct feed?

Hmmmmmm
Well, I'm not an Apollo expert nor a scientist, but I can think of a good reason for that. Imagine that you have been asked to put together a system than can send footage all the way from the Moon down to Earth.
Now ask yourself, with a challenge like that in your hands do you really want to complicate things with additional requirements like making your signal compatible with some TV network's gear? Do you really want to spend extra time and effort to make sure that your signal can be handled by TV networks worldwide?
Of course not, so you set up a screen showing your footage, tell the T.V. guys to point a camera at it, and presto! Instant "NASA proprietary format" -> NTSC (or PAL, or SECAM, or whatever) conversion! And with no additional effort from your part...
Isn't that a good idea? Hmmmmmm?

nomuse
2007-Jul-22, 11:55 PM
No expert here either but my understanding is that was done for years as a regular part of broadcast TV.

But to amplify a bit on the rationale for the original signal -- limited bandwidth. Remember that something like Viking decided to send a scan so slow the angle of the sun could noticeably change from one end of a Viking image to the other. The camera Apollo put on the surface was sending a small, slow, black and white picture. So slow was the frame per second and so few scans per frame was it that it didn't really match up to any broadcast standard.

Could argue that a bigger antenna and bigger batteries would have been worth the cost. In later missions video was improved.

(You'd think this sort of analog conversion would be long-gone, wouldn't you? Oddly enough I had to do the audio equivalent just last month!)

captain swoop
2007-Jul-23, 12:07 AM
As this is the most blatant trolling i have ever seen, not to mention ad homs, refusal to answer questions, insults, bad behaviour etc. Why hasn't there been a suspension yet?

tbm
2007-Jul-23, 12:12 AM
At this point I believe that Jtree was never interested in learning anything but was simply intending to make a his "points" and accusations. EVERY one of his questions was answered with verifiable facts and sources. Yet he has sidestepped these answers, ignored them, or simply denied the veracity of them. It is pointless to continue to try to debate or to educate him, these are not the reasons he is here.

tbm

JayUtah
2007-Jul-23, 12:14 AM
Common misconception. The press were given the standard electronic feeds to Apollo downlinks. In fact, the signal was genlocked with the broadcast time base so that television stations could switch between their studios and the downlink without flicker.

The rumor of aiming the cameras at a screen came from the improvised frame-rate converter used at the Honeysuckle Creek ground station. The television signal from Apollo 11 was a non-standard format that used far less bandwidth than a normal color signal. That was done in case the smaller radio telescopes had to be used for the lunar surface EVA; they could not resolve the full television signal.

It's relatively easy to build a television that will display a slower-than-normal signal with fewer lines in the frame. It's quite a bit more difficult to build a machine that will convert one signal format to another electronically so that everyone could watch it on their standard television sets. Since the slow-scan television would be used for only one mission, it didn't make sense to try to build such a device. Someone hit upon the obvious solution: just aim a standard television camera at the slow-scan display. Out of the standard camera comes the standard signal. With a bit of tweaking the image quality was acceptable for broadcast. That method was not unheard of in the 1960s -- it was often used as the poor-man's compositor.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-23, 12:16 AM
It is pointless to continue to try to debate or to educate him, these are not the reasons he is here.

But it may be the reason why others are here. Just because I'm addressing him doesn't mean he's the one I'm talking to.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-23, 12:19 AM
Oh ya a bunch of rocks, too bad that all the "experts" can't agree where they came from

All the qualified geologists I have read say they come from the Moon. Please provide a reference to any who say they do not.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-23, 12:22 AM
Funny that the astronauts said they saw no stars in their postmission debriefing, go check it out...

I have done so many times.

...no need to worry about exposures when there weren't any stars...

The Apollo 11 crew did not see stars for the same reason that exposures for daylit objects will not show stars. Relative magnitude and dynamic range are scientific facts. They do not simply go away because you wish to make a conspiracy theory.

...oh yeah in a later book aldrin remembered seeing stars, hmmmmmm

Give the name of the book.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-23, 12:30 AM
if you can't hear any sound of rocket engines during descent because its a vacuum, then how can you hear the music playing from a radio on liftoff over the rockets?

You have it completely wrong. It's not that you can't hear the noise of a rocket motor in a vacuum. It's that in a vacuum the rocket engine makes no noise. The characteristic noise of a rocket engine comes from the impact of the supersonic exhaust upon the ambient atmosphere. Where there is no atmosphere, there is no noise created. Occasional flow instabilities such as startup transients may be transmitted as vibrations to the spaceframe.

The LM is pressurized during ascent. Noises made inside the cockpit will be picked up by cabin microphones. That includes tape players. However, the engine operating in the vacuum outside the cabin produces no noise.

tbm
2007-Jul-23, 12:31 AM
It is pointless to continue to try to debate or to educate him, these are not the reasons he is here.

But it may be the reason why others are here. Just because I'm addressing him doesn't mean he's the one I'm talking to.

Point taken, Jay. I continue to learn from you regardless of the inability of certain other people to do so.

tbm

Daffy
2007-Jul-23, 12:34 AM
Point taken, Jay. I continue to learn from you regardless of the inability of certain other people to do so.

tbm

Agreed. I just read through this entire thread and am completely convinced this person is a troll (no one could be that stupid). But, while I did know some of the facts presented, a few were new...and I always appreciate the opportunity to learn.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-23, 03:05 AM
Well finally Tinna. I presume that my remarks are suddenly unacceptable when all the other "snide" remarks obviously are, when we run out of answers, we'll just ban him, of course.

predictable

I, for one, would be happy to continue with a discussion, but a discussion is a give and take. Last night, I answered a number of your questions, but you never answered mine. Some of those questions were about claims you had made. Some were to see if you had read and understood the answers we had given you.

As for attitude, your first post was hostile, and you quickly accused me of lying, and being a government disinformation agent. All your posts have shown general contempt for those you were talking with. I've tried to remain civil, but it isn't easy in the face of that attitude. (And, for the record, I wasn't lying and I'm not a government disinformation agent.)

Now, if you want to ease up on that attitude a bit, and actually discuss this subject - not just read from a list of hoax claims - I'm game. You try to be polite, and I'll be polite. First, let's start with a question: What is the length of the lunar day? The answer has been in several posts, so you shouldn't have much difficulty answering it - you don't even need to google it. I'd just like to see if you were paying attention.

Lukas
2007-Jul-23, 04:32 AM
I find threads like this one quite entertaining. One thing is that ignorance and stupidity can be quite amusing to me, the other is that there are always a few interesting details I haven't heard about in the intelligent and detailed answers.
In other conspiracy threads people were reminiscing about a certain moonman and some of the gems in his threads ("how high above the moon does this alleged vaccum start?"). I always felt a bit sad that I hadn't witnessed that discussion as it was happening. Finally, here I go: I saw a moonman-quality discussion happening! : )
Thanks to all!

GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter
2007-Jul-23, 06:12 AM
As this is the most blatant trolling i have ever seen, not to mention ad homs, refusal to answer questions, insults, bad behaviour etc. Why hasn't there been a suspension yet?

I would guess that's because a suspension/ban is exactly what he wants. It's a badge of honour in places where reason is in short supply.

Jakenorrish
2007-Jul-23, 02:09 PM
If someone has as limited knowledge of general science as Joshua has, we can't expect valid scientific answers. Just the usual debunked old nonsense.

Advice to all CT's.

1 get a grip of very basic science.
2 go to the CT sites when you have obtained basic scientific knowledge. (you know, gravity, radio waves, light speed that type of thing)
3 See for yourself very quickly how ludicrous the likes of Sibrel's statements about the Moon landings are.

Job done!

Paul Beardsley
2007-Jul-23, 02:44 PM
We've seen arguments like joshuatree's loads of times in the past, and the ensuing thread tends to follow the same pattern over and over again.

I appreciate that some of the onlookers (including myself) learn snippets of new knowledge in the process, and to an extent that makes it all worthwhile.

However, I think there is too much tolerance shown towards trolls. It seems pretty likely that joshuatree knows he is talking rubbish; he is just trying to annoy regular BAUTers for whatever reason.

It occurs to me that there is one way the rules could be tightened in order to reduce the scope for trolls. This would be a requirement to not merely answer direct questions, but also to acknowledge when one's question (or objection) has been answered or addressed. And just as "I don't know" is an acceptable answer, "I am not convinced" would be an acceptable acknowledgement.

The requirement to acknowledge would put a stop to the practice of moving on to another topic as soon as the first topic (e.g. "Why are there no stars?") has been shot down.

Also, if one wishes to argue further, then "I am not convinced" should be followed by a reason for why one is not convinced, and what evidence would convince, without changing the topic. For example, if the reason for the absence of stars was explained in terms of exposure times, it would not be acceptable to say, "I am not convinced, because there should also be a blast crater under the landing module." On the other hand, it would be acceptable to say, "Okay, you've explained about the stars, and I guess I have to accept your explanation. However, I also have a problem with the lack of a blast crater."

As it stands, Jay and others have given exact, articulate and accessible answers to all of joshuatree's rude and aggressive questions and accusations. It is disgusting to see these answers dismissed as evasions.

What do others think?

Dave J
2007-Jul-23, 03:03 PM
If the HB doesn't have the foggiest notion of the evidence being posted, it's all technobabble and gobbledegook to them and can be "dismissed" as such. Actually, Jay and others go to great lengths explaining the science and physics behind the evidence, but it is totally unappreciated by the receiver.

It's a blind allegiance to the hoax that drives the HBs, they have no interest in learning anything, that would be admitting that they don't know everything, and that they just "might" be wrong.

"I don't believe it" and "you're a shill" are their only arguments when presented with evidence.

It can be humorous at times, but I generally find it very disturbing when ignorance is so relished and celebrated.

Damien Evans
2007-Jul-23, 03:04 PM
People, what do you think is Joshuas most inane, stupid, conspiracy theory laden post?

Can someone please help me with this, cause I'm trying to determine which is the dumbest so I can nominate it for "Teh Stundies" over at JREF

triplebird
2007-Jul-23, 03:21 PM
HB Scorecard:

"Deadly" radiation. Check.
Area 51 reference. Check.
Film/camera too hot or cold. Check.
No stars. Check.
Pictures too perfect. Check.
Not enough time to take pictures. Check.
Can't control camera without light-meter/viewfinder. Check.
Can't control camera with gloves on. Check.
Soviets "way ahead" of the Americans. Check.
Tricky Dicky Nixon was in charge of the hoax. Check.
Parallel shadows/multiple light sources. Check.
Crosshairs in "wrong position" (i.e. in front of/behind) on photos. Check.
No "direct feed" of TV footage. Check.
Rocket engine noises. Check.
People on this site (especially JayUtah) are paid debunkers. Check.
Everyone else is under the influence of The Evil Government. Check.


Next up should be that NASA made the moon-rocks in a Radiation Oven, or that they were meteorites picked up in Antartica by Werner Von Braun. WVB's former Nazi status should figure into the conversation soon too. Then, we need to have the "C-rock" shown as solid proof that it was all a movie set. Don't forget that the Soviets were paid off with with wheat to prevent them from blowing the hoax.


As you can see, Joshuatree, we have heard the usual HB "proof" over and over and over and over. It's predictable, tired, and clearly false if you know the science behind the Apollo missions. Bashing us with ad homs, handwaving, and refusing to accept valid, provable evidence does nothing for you besides make you look ignorant and stubborn, and cause confusion and delay for others. Insulting a mod (like you did earlier) is not a wise move.

sts60
2007-Jul-23, 03:25 PM
However, I think there is too much tolerance shown towards trolls. It seems pretty likely that joshuatree knows he is talking rubbish; he is just trying to annoy regular BAUTers for whatever reason

Since the flow of actual (or at least acting) HBs is pretty slow right now, I favor looser interpretation of the board rules. It's not like joshuatree is taking time away from HBs who might actually be interested in defending their claims.

I do, however, favor (as some have suggested) the members digging in at some point and insisting that such posters stop and defend (or concede) some particular set of claims before indulging their next topic change. But trying to make that happen is like herding cats.

joshuatree, I've read this entire thread, and not one of your posts raises a single original point, only often-debunked wheezes from various conspiracist sites. You also clearly lack even the most basic knowledge of the subject (e.g., not understanding that the lunar day differs from an Earth day), and have done no research whatsoever (e.g., claiming that all photographs from Apollo were perfect). You've claimed without evidence that people here are paid disinformationists, you've claimed that you were a photographer and knowledgeable in science and engineering - all disproven; you've changed topics as fast as possible to evade supporting your own claims, and you've simply refused to look at any evidence even as you call us close-minded.

My question to you is - do you think you this is original? Do you really think you can fool anybody this way? Or is it simply that you like to hear yourself talk?

Swift
2007-Jul-23, 03:28 PM
It occurs to me that there is one way the rules could be tightened in order to reduce the scope for trolls. This would be a requirement to not merely answer direct questions, but also to acknowledge when one's question (or objection) has been answered or addressed. And just as "I don't know" is an acceptable answer, "I am not convinced" would be an acceptable acknowledgement.

I think it is an excellent idea. I would suggest posting the idea in an appropriate thread of About BAUT, maybe one of the rules discussions.

P.S. (not aimed at Paul)
I would suggest, no matter how rude or annoying people might find joshuatree's posts, that we not speculate on such things as to which is the most stupid post or how quickly they might get banned. It is against the rules, and I don't think answering rudeness with rudeness is the way to go. Just MHO.

sts60
2007-Jul-23, 03:35 PM
As for insisting that a poster actually acknowledge questions, I'll go back to joshuatree's very first line in this thread:

I really can't believe that seemingly intelligent human beings really believe that we went to the moon,

I'm intelligent enough to make a pretty fair living as an aerospace engineer for over a decade and a half now. I think we went to the Moon, and I've actually looked at some of the evidence for it.

Conclusion: your personal opinion is irrelevant. Intelligent human beings can and do believe we went to the Moon.

the Van Allen belt would make that an impossibility in itself.

James Van Allen himself helped design the trajectories for the Apollo missions, and (while he later became known for opining that manned spaceflight was a waste of resources) specifically rebutted the claim that the belts named after him somehow made travel to the Moon impossible.

There you have rebuttals to your very first two points. Kindly address them.

captain swoop
2007-Jul-23, 03:35 PM
You also clearly lack even the most basic knowledge of the subject (e.g., not understanding that the lunar day differs from an Earth day),

I think he does understand that the lunar day differs, he is just trying to 'wind' everyone up.

sts60
2007-Jul-23, 03:47 PM
Possibly. It's hard to tell a simple troll from many hoax-believers, though.

triplebird
2007-Jul-23, 03:47 PM
Joshuatree, you repeatedly make the implication that everyone is convinced that the moon landings happened because the Evil Government's(tm) propaganda is so good. If you would, please, consider what I wrote on the ApolloHoax forum about this very topic:

If there's a big enough hole in the conspiracy that lay-people can publish YouToob videos [etc.] "exposing" it, then it only stands to reason that a learned scientist, engineer, etc, certainly wouldn't be fooled. Therefore, this "mass conspiracy" theory fails.

If, on the other hand, the conspiracy is so airtight that even the best in their class in the world can't see through it, then nobody would be able to see through it, and nobody would know any better to post CT websites or similar. Therefore, since threads like this and CT websites exist, this theory of conspiracy fails too.

You can't have it both ways.

JayUtah
2007-Jul-23, 04:02 PM
I too manage to make a living in the sciences that apply to space flight and would consider myself reasonably intelligent in that area. I have further studied the various Apollo conspiracy theories for about seven years and have compiled one of the most oft-cited resources on the subject. I have studied the Apollo technology since the time it was current technoogy, much of it with professional expertise behind the study. I will assert without much fear of contradiction that my opinion is adequately informed on which hypothesis -- the hoax theory, or authentic missions -- best explains the evidence.

The mark of intelligence is not how acridly one can insult those who disagree with him, but rather the degree to which one can dispassionately defend his ideas in the face of well-formed criticism. It's pretty clear at this point on which side of that line Joshuatree falls. I have sadly seen people legitimately as misinformed as Joshuatree appears to be, but not many. For that reason I'm leaning toward the conclusion he is deliberately winding us up.

As for Prof. Van Allen, he did indeed repudiate the conspiracy theory, especially where it comes to the claims regarding the phenomenon he discovered and which bears his name. Despite my ability to provide a statement signed by him personally verifying his repudiation, conspiracists will now only accept a video clip of him saying that. Fairly disingenuous that those requests came only after the professor passed into the great beyond.

There are many kinds of space science. The kind practiced by Dr. Van Allen is the kind that is done best by unmanned spacecraft, often those that can be built and operated rather inexpensively. So from his perspective, manned spaceflight is the sort of thing that sucks money in vast quantities from projects that could get more of his kind of bang for the buck. For the cost of one space shuttle mission or one ISS expedition, several simple spacecraft could be built and dispatched to the far reaches of the solar system to study phenomena that have to be measured with instruments anyway and not observed directly by the scientists.

Planetary geology, on the other hand, is best done up close and personal. We love our little remote-control buggies, of course, but a geologist can learn more about Mars faster by hiking on its surface. To learn about the planets we have to go there and see them. The human senses attached to a trained human brain and placed on-site is the best method for that kind of science.

So we have to count Dr. Van Allen as wise within his context, but merely one voice among many in the larger picture.

Donnie B.
2007-Jul-23, 09:15 PM
In the spirit of a famous The Far Side cartoon, I give you my interpretation of this thread and others like it.

What JayUtah says:
It's not that you can't hear the noise of a rocket motor in a vacuum. It's that in a vacuum the rocket engine makes no noise. The characteristic noise of a rocket engine comes from the impact of the supersonic exhaust upon the ambient atmosphere. Where there is no atmosphere, there is no noise created. Occasional flow instabilities such as startup transients may be transmitted as vibrations to the spaceframe.

What the Conspiracy Theorist hears:
Blah blah blah-blah blahblah blah blah rocket motor blah blah-blah blahblahblah rocket engine blah blah blahblah blah blah blah blahblah noise blah blah spaceblah.